EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
Popular content
Today's Top News
It's Not About Dan and Katie
When asked about his view of CBS Evening News during a radio interview with MSNBC's Chuck Scarborough on Monday, Dan Rather said network execs had tried to boost ratings by "dumbing it down and tarting it up."
The media firestorm that's followed illustrates the very point--the larger point--Rather has consistently tried to make about the degradation of the mainstream, corporate news biz and the obliteration of the line between news and entertainment.
Watch as CBS dances, deflects and dodges the valid and valuable criticism levied by Rather and plenty of other media watchdogs. Les Moonves, CBS CEO, called Rather's remark "sexist" and said, "Let's give [Katie] a break."
But it's got nothing to do with Katie Couric. Nor does it really have anything to do with the messenger, Rather (whose colorful, native Texanspeak has gotten him into hot water in the past--much as it did for the late former Governor Anne Richards). It's about the message.
Rather's predecessor at CBS, Walter Cronkite--no fan of Rather himself--offered a similar take in a recent keynote address. According to the Associated Press, Cronkite suggested that the pressure for profits is "threatening the very freedom the nation was built upon."
"It's not just the journalist's job at risk here," Cronkite said. "It's American democracy. It is freedom."
And in a recent New York Times op-ed, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps warned of "pressure from media conglomerates" that has made licensing renewals for the free use of the public airwaves a virtual "rubber-stamp" every eight years. He contrasts this with a past when every three years the requirement that networks serve the public interest was given "a hard look" — prior to "deregulatory mania in the 1980's."
As for Rather, in these last four years he's been a consistent critic of the corporate media and his own role in it. He's self-critical enough--unlike so many others — to know that he weaved and wavered in the run-up to the Iraq War. As he told Bill Moyers, "I don't think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war. There were exceptions. There were some people, who, I think, did a better job than others. But overall and in the main there's no question that we didn't do a good job…. We weren't smart enough, we weren't alert enough, we didn't dig enough. And we shouldn't have been fooled in this way…."
Rather has also described a culture of fear that permeates the newsroom. In an interview with BBC he said, "It is an obscene comparison--you know I am not sure I like it--but you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tyres around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tyre of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism."
And, speaking to Moyers: "Fear is in every newsroom in the country. And fear of what? Well… a combination of: if you don't go along to get along, you're going to get the reputation of being a troublemaker. There's also the fear...particularly in networks, they've become huge, international conglomerates. They have big needs, legislative needs, repertory needs in Washington. Nobody has to send you a memo to tell you that that's the case…. And that puts a seed in your mind of, well, if you stick your neck out, if you take the risk of going against the grain with your reporting, is anybody going to back you up?"
Recently, NBC News led its evening news program with two-and-a-half minutes on Paris Hilton. Coverage of Anna Nicole Smith topped Iraq War coverage on the networks night after night. There is no question that the network news programs have become cogs in the conglomerate machine where news is a profit center.
We desperately need a news media that raises the tough questions, acts as watchdogs of the public interest, questions authority--performs the basic duties required of a free press in a democracy. A flawed media leads to a flawed democracy. And in these past six or so years, with some notable exceptions, the media has been too easily intimidated by an administration that used fear to make its case for war, labeled its critics un-American, quashed dissent, perverted the meaning of patriotism and brazenly--on all fronts--subverted the Constitution. As longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas wrote in The Nation,"[Reporters] lapped up everything the Pentagon and White House could dish out--no questions asked."
So, now, when Dan Rather talks about dumbing down news in order to tart it up--it ain't about Dan, and it ain't about Katie. It's about consolidation, conglomeration, and the impact on the Fourth Estate and our democracy.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
© 2007 The Nation
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

32 Comments so far
Show AllDumbing down is the least of mainstream media's faults. The drumbeat to war was based on outright lies, distortions, innuendo, unnamed sources, right-wing bias, and hysterical headlines. I'd argue that "falsification" of the news is more of a problem than dumbing it down.
I've been screaming about the dumbing down of the news for decades, now, to the point where people think I'm crazy, and have for years. But when you write to a news organization reminding them that they are responsible for giving us the information we need to be informed voters and you get a reply of "Well, that's YOUR opinion", I think my point has been made. And that is a true story, BTW, from in the Denver area.
Until we get rid of the money calling every shot in this country, we are screwed, plain and simple. That goes for news as well as elections funding. And the networks need to be reminded that they didn't pay a dime for those lisences and they owe us quality, accurate news for them. News should NOT be a profit making device, it should be seen as a public trust, which it was until Reagan.
Dan Rather says of the media run-up to the Iraq war: ...there's no question that we didn't do a good job…. We weren't smart enough, we weren't alert enough, we didn't dig enough. And we shouldn't have been fooled in this way….
So what is his excuse for the crappy job the media are doing today? The media are (mostly) still stupid, still asleep, still not digging, and appear to be the last people in this country (other than the 30% who like Bush) who decry that it is getting flushed down the hole.
The last gasp of breath of a dying animal (US representative democracy) is never a pretty sight.
There was no digging required.
The truth was in plain sight. Helen Thomas, for one, never stopped seeing it.
What kind of solution can there be, when media conglomerates have become so powerful that they own politicians and the politicians had better do their bidding, otherwise they will be destroyed. Now, as Ms Vanden Heuval commented on during her interview with Brian Lamb on C-Span, postage costs are threatening the smaller independent press, and keeping MSM from tampering with the Internet is eternal vigilance.
On the other hand Vanden Heuval sees third parties as "spoilers" and anticipates Hillary as the next president, so I guess the "Nation" will still have plenty of fodder to keep them going while keeping the status quo afloat.
The media is only giving the public what the public wants to hear and see. They are responding to the marketplace.
Just sit in a Starbucks and listen to the heated discussions of American Idol, Survivor, Paris Hilton and.... and.....
The public is aware of the 'real' facts and news - they ignore it at all costs to everyone's downfall.
Americans had better wake up. Indicators of a fascist takeover of US representative democracy are rife. Regardless of what the commonfolk want, the elites appear to be embracing militarism, corporatism, nationalism, authoritarianism, censorship, judicial manipulation, and mass brainwashing. I am simply astonished that there has not been a ferocious reaction to the Bush-era erosion of liberties in America. Where is the outrage out on the streets?
It's not pretty when the guys at the top fight. But it's natural when things get to falling apart as they are now in the United States of Everything. The past 6 corrupt years will come bubbling forth as the White House crumbles. No longer able to hold together all its lies. But it's also part of a necessary process to heal any wound that has been infected. Healing comes from within and it pushes out all the poisonous puss that was causing the problem. Our next government will be more like a scab that is there to prevent further damage. Not very proactive but also part of a long healing process this country needs to undergo.
Hoa binh
I seem to recall a lot of postwar (WW2) Germans saying that they didn't approve of the Third Riecht either, but were too afraid of retribution to dissent, and thinking to myself...WHAT KIND OF INHUMAN PERSON COULD STAND BY AND LET THESE CRIMES HAPPEN, JUST TO SAVE THEIR OWN SKIN???!
and now I know....
To Nightwatch: You are so right, but our people are now so conditioned to acceptance of torture and strongman-style government that there is just no energy in the populace for a revolt. This is how American democracy ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Nightwatch: It is all so carefully managed to make people feel they are isolated. There are so few voices that actually speak to the public in a way that repects them or cares about their lives. We, the people are relevant only as far as what we consume and politicians, aside from the few notables, ego and ambition seems to be all that drives them--certainly not a higher calling to serve the common good.
Someone said "Our next government will be more like a scab that is there to prevent further damage". Wishful thinking I am afraid. Who funds team Hillary, the latest slave of the ruling class:
http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/9/2/2276228.html
America FOOLS ITSELF ONLY. The chickens will ALL COME HOME TO ROOST one day. it will be ugly.
Why not sign on here?
http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php
March on Washington July 4th.
Nightwatch: Here on commondreams we have batted around this question (particularly in response to Cindy Sheehan's recent "resignation" speech) as to why there is no overt outrage. Some partial answers or perhaps insights: 1. Many are working two jobs to stay afloat 2. Many are told this is God's will (End Times has a purported 50 million readers/followers) 3. Beer 4. Sports/media: the new opiate of the peoples 5. Bad food making too many fat (no energy when you are very overweight) 6. False media 7. "THE INCREDULITY FACTOR" of it could never happen here. Generations of inculcated beliefs in this being a FREE nation die hard! It reminds me of the police officer who (on account of calls from neigbhors) knocked on Jeffrey Dahmer's door to investigate the awful smell emanating. Glibly Dahmer mentioned a burned pot roast and nothing further was examined. I am not sure everyone can HANDLE the truth of what is really taking place, a systematic decimation of our nation's governing ideals and sacred trust, a band of some of history's most corrupt and callous characters ever assembled on the same "stage" conducting unnecessary, unbelievably brutal wars as theater, and then managing media to offset the normal public reflex of disgust if not outright revolution.... managed perception. THESE help explain apathy in a great many; and of course the politics of excluded alternatives in NOT giving voice or vision to those that do protest, those that do have alternative visions in everything from sounder sustainable energy technology to how to turn war into peace initiatives. THE fight for social justice goes on!
Who decides that the American Public wants to hear about Paris and Anna? The media has created these red herring persons out of nothing as a means to distract the attention away from 'real' news. What have these persons done to achieve top news coverage? They are media created fairy tales to lull the general population to sleep. Are people's lives so dull and boring that it is necessary to read the antics of make believe characters to pop some sort of energy into their lives? But, then that is why I don't read newspapers or watch t.v. Instead I depend on the internet to find out what is Really Happening out there. Thanks internet and thanks Common Dreams.
P.S. I miss Walter and David and Chet. I even miss Dan.
Well, some of it *is* about Katie and "tarting up" the news. Rather wasn't sexist for pointing it out; the news media are sexist for making sex appeal in its various forms (see Samantha Bee's piece on the Daily Show recently) a criterion for women newscasters; Katie fits the "cute" form. Diane Sawyer has never anchored; among the younger, women, even strikingly attractive women (I guess so, I'm a straight female, so I am making a leap) like Lara Logan, can give serious news analysis. I don't always share their perspectives but they are serious journalists. So with lots of qualified women to anchor, what did CBS do--go to a morning talk show host. I loved the Daily Show's satire of all this; I've been calling the female talking heads of FOX the "bimbo brigade" for some time; and I teach psychology of women. The MSM loves to turn liberal rhetoric back on people. Again, it is not sexist to notice what they are doing and call them on it.........
The reason there's NO outrage (as opposed to the 60s) are manyfold, but here are a couple.
First off, the dumbing down of the populace has been underway for at least a couple of generations. After a few generations of this, knowledge lost is lost forever, because you don't even know what you're not being taught. This affects us in even more mundane ways than democracy -- my parents' generation LOATHED the idea of a car note and believed in SAVING UP. My generation thinks a car note commonplace and can't even FATHOM being debt free.
Which brings me to No. 2.: In the 60s, because debt wasn't as pervasive as it is now, people didn't HAVE to work so hard just to make ends meet. Which left free time for keeping up with the news and getting involved.
Third, speaking of news, there were only three networks, that would give us nightly news for 30 minutes a night. As opposed to now, we have -- count 'em -- THREE 24 hour news stations in addition to the original three. Often there's no news on these stations, just pundits pontificating their opinions. But since it's on a news channel, the viewer doesn't see the difference. By the way, that doesn't factor in the gazillion other channels which make it extremely easy for anyone to make it through months or years without having a clue as to what's really going on. It also means that generally we feel like we have less common ground. In other words, divide and conquer . . . or in this case, distract and conquer. I firmly beleive that in this day and age, even Dr. King would have been drowned out by Hannity or O'Reilly, or even by Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
Finally, there has been an assault on a sense of responsibility, in direct proportion to the sense of entitlement. Corporations have made everything easier, faster and more disposable. And the result is that no one has to think about much of anything anymore, least of all how their actions, or inactions affect those around them.
It's to the point where they even make humorous commercials about our attitudes that when you stop and think about them, are repulsive. Like the guy throwing a rock at the other guy -- over a beer. Or the mom working a second job in a taco suit so the family can afford their text messaging plan.
I'm getting sad now. I'm going to stop.
I stopped watching the tv media news "longer" ago than I can remember. The last Democratic presidential candidate I voted for was Clinton when he ran for his first term. I also campaigned and cast my first presidential vote for McGovern in 1972. While campaigning for McGovern, I found in my own canvassing of Democratic voters, support for the Democratic ticket except for McGovern (the peace candidate in 1972). The Democratic voters whom I talked to for the most part were definitely against voting for McGovern.
Perhaps it is in part that I am overweight, as Siouxrose aludes to, that I find it difficult to imagine having energy to fight. I don't think it is only bad food which causes my excess weight, but also my current life style which is conducive to having excess weight.
I am attracted to what I would call creative resistance -- if feels like something I could do and it wouldn't take up a whole lot of energy.
One of my fantasies to fight the big oil companies as well as paying out money to the feds to fight imperial wars is to voluntarily lower my income such that I pay no taxes. I suppose this could possibly be done through giving to tax deductible charities to the extent I would pay no taxes, or I can simply lower my productivity.
In so doing, I could take up walking, biking and public transport, thus screwing the oil companies in the process through not needing to buy gasoline for my car. Also, I like the idea of screwing the insurance companies out of my auto-insurance payment.
As a side effect of my voluntary poverty, I will have improved health through losing weight, a result of walking more. I am one of those 46 million people whom currently have no health insurance. I have not had it for basically 20 years now. I gave up my lucrative aero-space job in 1987 and along with it my health insurance. Effectively, I've been screwing the medical insurance companies for years now. It feels good!
I also support alternative media of which in accord with my views and values and get tax deductions from some of them which is also feels good! Sort of a double whammy against the giant media conglomerates.
Fighting for social justice is okay for some, but for me it brings up conotations of arguing with poeple who arn't going to listen to me or change their minds. I figure, why waste my limited time and energy trying to convince people when one can just let reality do the job of educating others? I instincively chose that tact back when I was campaigning for McGovern.
I prefer passive resistance. Turn of the television set and enjoy your day. Walk to the nearest farmers market for your veggies and fruit. Who needs the irritation of driving in traffic? Instead of filling your car up with overpriced gas ... fill yourself up with delicious and healthy food calories and burn off those calories in long walks instead of through your car's internal combusting and polluting engine.
There have always been people ready to sign up to go to war and always people with money hiring them to do so. Why do battle to stop a war when you can do battle with yourself to make war less profitable for those who promote it? As the old lady who spit into the sea said, "Every little bit helps!"
As an unreconstructed feminist, I wanted to see Katie Couric do a great job for CBS.
The first week she had Rush Limbaugh on, which I did not see, and a segment of Ms. Couric with our current president, which I did see. I thought she was unnecessarily admiring and deferring to him.
Maybe it was unfair of me. I know I'm not CBS's target audience anyway. I have not watched again.
Do you really believe people like Dan Rather, Katie, Gibson etc... Making 9 , 10 or 15 Millions a year to be fair and to tell the truth. Those individuals represent the corporation interest. They should be news readers, on the contrary they are treated as icons.
Why no outrage?
I think it's as simple as: many people trust Bush. Bush had to get revenge for 911 (what did he say when standing, arm around, a fire fighter, after 911 "... they'll hear from us...") and he did.
Also, there's a view that Arabs=Terrorists therefore we have to fight Arabs (just ask the FBI and CIA). Again we trust Bush.
However, there should be outrage when the President suspends civil liberties and habeas corpus for Americans. That's un-American! Bush has gone too far.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel and the Nation have a tough time playing as though they aren't merely shills for the Democratic Party. I myself stopped watching TV News after the invasion of the Dominican Republic (under a Democratic Administration reported on by Cronkite) back in 1965. The methods of deception of the public change but the fact remains constant. Weeping about the decay of the corporate press is just a way of disguising this constant.
Carrol
Have you noticed the number of hot female reporters on the air?
Dumbed down is hard to notice when the screen is blocked by the effect of all these male horny potion ads, girls gone wild video ads, sex news stories and sex based programs announced by all the news vixens.
The private media in Venezuela may well be worse than in the US. That has not stopped the process unfolding there, led, but not limited to, Chavez. The alternative to a lousy media is a mass movement with an alternative way of analyzing reality. It is a grassroots thing, rather than a simple tweaking at the top by Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite. There is no such movement currently in the US. For its absence, we have ourselves to blame. 'We', the overwhelmingly white, college educated liberals and radicals who spend a lot of time reading and posting on sites like CommonDreams, haven't figured out a way to talk to anyone else, let alone work with others to create a movement for change.
Well what Democrat (now a dirty word) has the power to start hearings regarding FCC and news reporting? Wouldn't that be fun?
Why can't we have some fun for a change? The Republicans and Joe Lieberman had lots of fun with Bill Clinton's blowjob in the Oval Office. Isn't there someone in that pathetic party who knows how to hold some feet to the fire at a Congressional Hearing and ask some embarrasing questions? No I guess not.
Let's be frank here. You want to be a media star with million dollar salary or a TV journalist. The only reason Katie is at the bottom is because her rivals are better media stars. May be they should call these people news readers or presenters like they do in Britain. Not that British news is any better.
In my opinion the mainstream as not changed in the slightest since the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Just listen to the rhetoric on Iran.. It's a replay!
They have lost all credibility with me. I get 99% of all my information from what I now call the mainstream.
I recommend to anyone that it looking for a serious alternative to go satellite, either
DirectTV or Dish, they have some great channels available. 9415 on Dish is FSTV and 9410 on DirectTV
Is Link Television. Both are great alternatives to the mainstream.
I you have got to hit them where it hurts. In the pockets. When they see that people are turning to other sources,
for serious news, perhaps they will make attempt to change.
The mainstream media reporters do not repeat the lies and misinformation out of fear. They are by and large believers themselves. How do you think they got hired in the first place? It was not their hard nosed approach to digging for truth, it was their willingness to stay within the ideological framework of a corporate public relations network. Their willingness stems from their own world view.
Shakker: Interesting observations, and to those add "the abstinency" campaign, there's another "intelligent design" worth investing in! Or how 'bout all them drug ads (many are obviously for "invented" dis-eases) in a "Just say no to drugs" climate! PARADOX! Hypocrisy! RULE by oxymoron(s)!
In Key West the local theater had a play where a housewife sitting with her hair in curlers, argues back at the TV during a soap opera. Then quite suddenly both characters "pop" out of the TV to debate her. Before I gave up TV I found myself doing that with the drug ads. When they'd cite the many dangerous side effects, for things like an allergy or the need to burp (acid reflux DISEASE) I'd say, "Keep the fucking allergy, okay! Forget risking those side effects." Angst has to be released or it CAN lead to real disease! Generally TV's don't debate back.
It is about Katie! Wh do you think they picked Katie instead of some old hangdog journalistic type to front the "news"? Do you think old Uncle Walter would have a chance in today's news market ? Tarting up the news is not out of line. Moonves is a corporate wh.. flunkie.....call it what you will, but that's the way it is.