Exit poll data from 2004 presidential election - (voters are often surveyed after they've voted to try to project how the vote is going before votes are actually counted)

Early exit polls showed Kerry ahead in key battleground states. Later figures, when actual vote counts were coming in, showed Bush ahead. There was a discrepancy. The networks 'adjusted' the data so that the exit polls fit vote counts. Networks assumed that the exit polls were flawed. Another rational assumption would be that something was funny with the vote counting--an entirely plausible assumption given the switch to electronic voting machines and some of the partisan politics it has involved. In fact the networks did not provide raw exit poll data. CNN contacted the polling firm that conducted the exit survey, and reported that the data had been analyzed and the result? More Kerry voters were willing to be surveyed in the exit poll (Dick Morris, interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on Fox, said the exit polls were 'juiced')! This was a conclusion of the firms that did the exit polling, but it's pure speculation--that Kerry voters were overrepresented somehow (this has to do with sampling techniques--one tries to randomly sample so that everyone has an equal chance of being selected--in this case everyone coming out of the voting precinct. Random sampling allows for us to make reasonable generalizations for the country when we've only sampled some 1,300 people--however, that says nothing about the survey, how the questions were asked, in what order, etc.). Immediately the polling experts at the major news outlets were blaming exit polling techniques, even though exit polls have historically been very accurate (here's Dick Morris later using the word 'sabotage' and blaming democrats). However much of the evidence points to harassment, intimidation and disenfranchisement mostly directed at minority groups (who tend to vote democratic). Fox News went so far as to ask whether exit polling should be banned (they thought the conspiracy was about discouraging people from voting because Kerry was ahead in key states). The point? Stories about fraud do not made the mainstream news outlets--they've been about explaining away the problem as faulty exit polling methods. More information about the 2004 irregularities is available here). The second point is that regardless of what conclusion could be drawn, no questions were asked by reporters with any kind of audience that questioned the election outcome or the allegations of misconduct or worse.

Election fraud

Well, was there fraud? The corporate news media long ago declared Bush the winner, despite irregularities in both Florida and Ohio. The official White House response to any stories about fraud was that the American people had spoken, disenfranchisement is indeed a tragedy and we should do something about it, and anyone pursuing this story is likely in league with conspiracy kooks. News of some of the events that occurred spread on websites, in email and on hastily-put together websites. Mainstream coverage was limited to 1, 2 articles. One of the only mainstream journalists to cover the story in any depth has been Keith Olbermann at MSNBC. This makes it pretty easy to dismiss any charges as partisanship, sore losers. This despite evidence of disenfranchisement and voter intimidation, e-voting irregularities, stories of programmer scandal, the fact that the Diebold CEO (Diebold makes the machines that leave no paper trail, and its CEO, Wally O'Dell, is a staunch backer of Bush who promised to do all he could to 'deliver Ohio to the republican party in 2004'), a Secretary of State in Ohio (Kenneth Blackwell) who happened to be the Bush/Cheney Campaign Co-Manager, etc.

Censorship keeps the news coming (hmmmm . . . there's something funny about that sentence)

So anyway, Peter Phillips offers a complementary explanation of censorship. He says that one of the driving forces behind the 'new censorship' in corporate-consolidated media is the desire to protect relationships between news sources and news outlets. We've discussed the expense of being a competitive media outlet. The news division requires constant feeds, access, and seems to emphasize dissemination over analysis--getting the scoop seems to be more important to getting it right. But more important to whom??

PR sites, news sources. If you're in a hurry, go visit PR Newswire for the latest press releases, and package them as news. There's even a page especially tailored to journalists' needs for quick news. Conservative think tank Cato Institute has its own newsroom as well, as does the left-leaning Center for American Progress (and most think tanks--it's one of their missions, to communicate with the press and influence public debate). We've talked about the importance of sources as filters, and the White House news site does a fine job of presenting the president's activities as news, rather than marketing of a specific political agenda. But reporting what the White House says as news, without analysis or fact-checking, happens every day, in every outlet. Same with the Pentagon, which has multiple news feeds.

Phillips' point? Predictability often trumps quality of reporting or integrity, and having news sources who are handy and provide that reliable predictability allows news organizations to claim they are reporting, for lack of a better word, news. Whatever keeps the ratings high and the news outlets competitive. The 24/7 news cycle in particular demands that, yet if you watched any of the networks for 24 hours, you'd see very little news relative to other content. When a symbiotic relationship between elite corporate media and powerful newsmakers is required to ensure a continuous stream of news, how easy is it for a reporter to turn around and ask tough questions, be confrontational or adversarial? What are the risks to the reporter, and to the reporter's employers?

News divisions used to be protected from competitive sources, but as media outlets grow and consolidate, they fit into a broader profit-driven corporate model where they can be used to promote corporations' other business and political interests. This doesn't mean they're blatantly marketing, but it does mean a lot of filtering can go on without the public being the wiser. As far as the war, embedding reporters in Iraq among US infantry soldiers gave the Pentagon more control over what was reported--journalists go through boot camp, bond with soldiers, and learn about self-censorship. The Pentagon also refused to protect independent journalists--essentially independent journalists were risking life and limb to report on the war. But all of the major outlets had begun running titles on war-related stories long before the invasion. They were ready with pre-packaged, pre-approved Pentagon coverage (here's an independent take).

Why has quantity of news, timeliness, become more important than quality, depth, and accuracy?? Think ratings and money (and whatever maximizes those). Large corporations have shareholders, advertisers and executives to please, as well as the newsmakers who continue to provide the daily access. Also:

• Investigative journalism is expensive, risky. What if a journalist gets a story wrong, like CBS did with George W. Bush's National Guard record? Here's Greg Palast's minority take--that the contours of the story were well-known before the 60 Minutes story. The other side of the story was an effort to smear John Kerry's Vietnam War record (and discredit him among war veterans) with the infamous 'Swiftboating' campaign (here's a typical campaign ad that aired).
• Media are among the corporate elite. They benefit from free-market capitalism, and let's face it--social transformation is not in their interest, especially if it leads to higher taxes, more government regulation and intervention in the economy.
• Fox News vs Fox Film Division--News is editorialized and claims to reflect 'mainstream American values.' However, more recently Fox has toned down some of its news and shifted the heated rhetoric to its many opinion shows starring Fox pundits (O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc.). Yet Fox's film division will do what it takes to turn a profit (see Frank Rich's insightful analysis). Just ask Fox Business Correspondent Neil Cavuto.
• Phillips says: "a closer examination of this American media supported ideology reveals that 'free market' essentially means constant international U.S. government intervention on behalf of American corporations (read about Executive Order 13303). This public-private partnerships uses embassies, CIA, FBI, NSA, Dept. of Defense, Commerce, US Agency for International Development, US Information Agency, etc, to protect, sustain, and directly support U.S. business."
• Journalistic careerism-a journalist that attacks the 'sacred cows' threatens his/her career
• Much of this is about flak, which fits in 'nicely' with Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model. News outlets want to project the appearance of balance, and flak from the right is often used to make a point, rather than pursue any facts. It's the Mighty Wurlitzer, the echo chamber--say it enough times, in enough outlets and media, and 'liberal media' becomes one word. But as we've discussed in class, perhaps the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are also convenient shorthand that reduces the complexity of bias, and diverts attention from what really matters in commercial news--a viable business model.
• Could media challenge this form of censorship, even if it weren't a part of it?
• As Phillips says, the more corporate news you watch, the less you really know. It's more about entertainment and ratings than information and public service. And making sure the corporate version of events is the 'official' version is easier when you're the only ones with the megaphones.