[Reader-list] Journalists: Watchdogs, Lapdogs, And Sleeping Dogs

[Avishek Ganguly]

Watchdogs, Lapdogs, And Sleeping Dogs
by Will Potter; February 24, 2003

Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs,
nipping at the heels 
of the powerful and guarding democracy. Progressive
critics see them as 
lapdogs for the political and corporate elite. More
often reporters are 
just tired old dogs asleep on the porch.

Take a recent Sunday morning adventure at NBC studios
in Washington, D.C., 
where I joined a pack of these wet dogs taking shelter
from a downpour in 
the NBC lobby. The NBC staff wheeled out a TV cart so
reporters could watch 
"Meet the Press" with Tim Russert. Russert interviewed
Richard Perle, 
chairman of the Defense Policy Board (a Pentagon
advisory panel charged 
with overseeing military preparedness), and Rep.
Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio 
Democrat who has emerged as one of the few strong
congressional voices 
against war.

It's a Sunday routine: At the end of the show,
reporters gather outside the 
front door and beg the guests for a few soundbite
scraps.

Until then, they sprawl out on benches in the lobby,
absent-mindedly 
watching the interviews. This is the state of American
media, the free 
press: reporters and camera crews watching an
interview on television as it 
takes place just down the hall. Journalists don't like
the ridiculous 
setup, but they don't have much choice. They have to
meet the demands of 
the corporate media conglomerates they work for, and
to do that they have 
to play the game.

Some read newspapers. One takes notes. Another
reporter talks on a cell 
phone to his wife. "Yeah, they're just bickering right
now. No, I don't 
know how much longer it will be."
  They listen to Perle beat the drums of war. It leads
to a discussion of 
democracy. He says that it would be good if Israel
were surrounded by 
democracies. He says it would be good if Iraq were a
democracy.

"Democracies," Perle says to Russert, "do not engage
in aggressive wars."

The dogs awake.

"What? Is this guy smoking crack?" one reporter nearly
shouts. Everyone 
laughs and nods in agreement. The reporter expressed
the frustration and 
outrage that millions of people around the world know,
and what many 
journalists understand, but almost never articulate.

As I watched the interview, I wondered if Russert was
also thinking, "What 
is he smoking?" I hoped he would say, "Well, Mr.
Perle, either the laundry 
list of foreign aggressions in U.S. history (covert
actions like those in 
Guatemala in 1954, proxy aggressions like in Nicaragua
in the 1980s, and 
overt aggressions including Vietnam and Panama) are
make-believe, or the 
United States is not a democracy. Which is it?"
Russert never questioned 
the core of Perle's arguments: his assumptions on
democracy, power, and 
violence. He moved on to the next topic. His silence
spoke volumes.

The dogs go back to sleep.

The program ends. The reporters trudge outside and
assume their positions. 
The first to pounce was the reporter who made the
"smoking crack" comment. 
But she didn't pounce. She asked a generic question
nearly identical to one 
Russert asked Perle. Perle gave a nearly identical
answer. The reporters 
asked questions they already knew the answer to, and
Perle handed them 
scripted answers (reporters sometimes do this so that
on their broadcasts 
they can use their footage instead of a clip from a
talkshow). Voila. News 
is made.

It's like a game with unwritten rules, but neither
party wants to admit 
they're playing. Journalists are not dumb. Most of
them have an idea of how 
the world works and how power structures operate. They
are generally 
informed of world news. They have the ability to ask
questions, like those 
on the minds of the millions of people who took to the
streets weeks ago, 
yet most choose not to. They operate in a much larger
system of 
corporate-controlled media, and must base their
decisions on what they 
think is the best way to survive in that system.

Journalists who want to work for the national bureau
of a major network 
know they must not only ask the right questions but
also avoid asking the 
wrong ones. Asking hard questions could earn a
reporter a reputation as a 
troublemaker (it once could earn the reporter a
reputation as a 
"muckraker"). There are rewards in this system for
complacency. There are 
few rewards for critical thinking. At that moment, I
couldn't handle it. 
Moments earlier this reporter had seen through the
lies. I wanted to grab 
her and yell, "YOUR COVER IS BLOWN. I know you aren't
clueless. You know 
the truth, and you have no excuse for not speaking
it."

Something had to be said, so I jumped in and asked,
"Mr. Perle, you said 
that democracies do not engage in aggressive wars.
Could you please 
explain, then, how you view this 'pre-emptive war,'
against the will of the 
international community and millions of people around
the world?"

I think it caught the reporters more off-guard than it
did Perle. He 
avoided the question, and calmly said that this is not
an aggressive war 
because Iraq has violated U.N. resolutions. He
answered another reporter's 
question and walked away.

Next came Kucinich, and the situation repeated itself.
The reporters 
repeated Russert's questions nearly verbatim. They
were more aggressive 
with Kucinich, though, and I had trouble getting a
question in. So, when 
Kucinich walked away, I followed him and asked a few
questions about his 
vision for a Department of Peace in the federal
government, which angered 
the other reporters.

"Why don't you come say that over here so we can all
use it?" they yelled. 
Kucinich didn't respond. "Fine," one reporter shouted,
curtly. "Goodbye to 
you too." We had broken the rules of the game.

The behavior of some journalists is frustrating, but
it is not enough to 
simply blame them for acting like lazy dogs.
Journalists work within larger 
institutions that constrain them. [For more on these
constraints, check out 
the propaganda model presented by Ed Herman and Noam
Chomsky in 
Manufacturing Consent or in Herman's Myth of the
Liberal Media.] They can, 
and should, push against the constraints of those
institutions, but that is 
only a partial solution. We need media reform
movements working to change 
the ownership and regulation of media. [For more on
this see the work of 
Robert McChesney {http://www.robertmcchesney.com/} and
check out his new 
book with John Nichols, Our Media, Not Theirs.]

In a media system not dominated by corporations and
money, it would be 
easier for journalists to do more than beg, roll over,
and have their 
bellies rubbed. They could refuse to walk on a leash.
They could bark, 
growl, and sometimes bite.

Will Potter is an intern for a national newspaper
based in Washington, D.C. 
He has written for the Texas Observer, the Chicago
Tribune and the Dallas 
Morning News. In his spare time he pays attention to
politics and the state 
of American media. He can be reached at

will.potter at lycos.co.uk

article found on:
http://www.zmag.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html


________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
       visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com