I feel like today we struggle with a lot of the same things we used to struggle with, they have just evolved. The printing press had extreme affects on the government and it's ability to censor the material. In ways it made it easier, because everything was done of one machine. In other ways the risks were higher, because the audience drastically increased. The modern version of the printing press is the internet. Easier to censor, multiple (sometimes untraceable) ways to do it, but the audience increased drastically. The government and journalists are still at war over what they can and can't print. The only difference is that sometimes it's not even your government your fighting with. Our globalized society means that the audience for journalists has never been higher, and there hasn't ever (some would argue) been more of a reason to censor. Now if you say something it's likely to be heard around the world, rather than in your own country. More people than you are liable to be held accountable for it. Most journalists keep their audiences in mind when writing which is why they still ponder Theophraste Renaudot's quote. Is it their job to question the government? Responsible journalists evaluate the backlash of their articles, because it is possible for them to put their country in a compromising position internationally. Wars are still run off of major propaganda, just like in for France and the U.S. Civil Wars. All I remember about why we went to war with Iraq in the first place was because of their weapons of mass destruction that they were going to use on us. That was what I heard in the media. I never heard anyone say it might be a bad idea, until it turned out that there were none. This type of media only perpetuates the war just like in the U.S. Civil War. I think we haven't really solved the problems we were struggling with so long ago. The problems changed and adapted, but we never seemed to solve any of them.
Great points. There is an old adage: News is the first draft of history. What that means is, only in hindsight can you see what went right and what went wrong. But it is a journalists' job to try to get it right as often as possible while knowing you'll never be always right. Humans are not perfect.
ReplyDeleteThis unit is all about how governments try to influence media. You are right that they do not sit by idly. They try to spin the story so that reporters slant the message in their favor. Journalists try hard not to get sucked in, but, well, we are humans. The New York Times and other quality papers have a policy of correcting mistakes when they make them (Fox does not, generally). That is why they apologized for getting it so wrong in the run up to the Iraq war. Here is their apology: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html
Similarly, Michael Gordon, the Times military reporter, has been strongly attacked for his coverage. Here is one example (and Gordon's reply): http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/apr/08/iraq-now-they-tell-us-an-exchange/
As your quote points out, no we haven't solved the problems. But you have to keep trying.