Public policy and mainstream journalism

I'd like to second what Atrios said yesterday and express my amazement when major journalists claim they have little influence on public policy. It really is equivalent to arguing that mainstream media has no influence on public opinion. It's nonsensical.

Actor Ben Affleck said the following last week regarding Newsweek, their cover story awhile back on Treasure Secretary "King" Henry Paulson and the effect of that on public opinion and, consequently, the financial bailout legislation:

“Newsweek, I feel like, is basically culpable for the first [$350 billion],” Affleck said. “They did like this hagiography on Paulson. Did you read that?"

He continued: “They did that and they made it very difficult—it was one of many factors that made it difficult for people to say, [inaud] hold on a second, what is the difference between now and a week from now? Why can’t we examine this more closely? Can we talk about this? Why is it that we can’t have more transparency in this piece of legislation?”

“It’s the same kind of fear and demagoging that was used to authorize the Iraq War, was resurrected to authorize a piece of legislation which then squandered a lot of our tax dollars—tax dollars, in fact, that we don’t have,”

Of course naming Newsweek alone as culpable for the first part of the bailout package is a little over the top. Nevertheless his point is a very good one. In fact, it would really take a fool to question whether magazines like Newsweek play a profound role in the nature and content of public debate. Not ironically Newsweek also plays the role of this fool.

First neophyte journalist Kurt Soller tries to get smarmy by coming up with ten other problems - such as global warming and the Hudson river plane crash - that Newsweek is also responsible for. What's embarrassing is that, by missing the point of Affleck's critique by so much, the "joke" is not funny after naming just one problem yet he continues on for nine more. Then he precedes to say in a follow-up post

...Journalism criticism is one thing, but accusing us of actually influencing the economic bailout package? That's ludicrous thinking ...

The cliche is that they don't make the news, they just report the news. But that has little to do with reality. Quite obviously people base their opinions and their politics on what they see and hear in newspapers, magazines, and television (ie. the mainstream media). And until the last few years when the internet and blogging began to change that, TV stations like CNN, newspapers like the New York TImes and magazines like Newsweek were the prime sources for the vast majority (along with the extremely conservative talk radio shows). Daniel Gross, the author of the original "King" Henry cover story said this:

...Besides, “would that a Newsweek cover story mattered so much that it could sway policy and move markets,” says Gross. “

To parse the media side of the equation down to one story from one magazine versus "policy" and "markets" again demonstrates how clueless these journalists are in terms of their understanding of both the influence their magazine and others of their stature have on public opinion and public policy and the role it must have in any functioning democracy. With fawning articles like Gross's "the right man at the right time" 'King' Paulson article and CNN Moneyline/Fortune magazine's Paulson to the Rescue piece Paulson had much more free reign to implement whatever he wanted. And the consequences are clear. Noone knows who exactly has that 350$ billion that Paulson gave out and what they are doing with it. Maybe if the media had done fewer adoring 'cover pieces' on personalities and had spent more time questioning administration and mainstream rationale for giving out such huge sums of money without clear accountability or transparency there'd wouldn't be this problem.

That said, given the high self regard many mainstream journalists hold themselves, especially among the millionaire pundit crew, I sometimes wonder whether this contention that they are not significantly influential on public opinion as more than a bit disingenuous and self-serving.

You see, if they acknowledged that their endless focus on triviality and silly scandals, their failure to question leadership and investigate very serious crimes, and their pursuit of fame and money at the expense of principle was actually  a prime factor in allowing a criminal regime like the Bush administration to operate virtually unchecked, then maybe the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq would start to get to their consciences.