the noses of CNN

And now, for something completely different:

Every once in a while I watch CNN. The network is a far cry from its glory days of a decade and a half ago. Gone is the news and the excellent reporting. For a while one could watch CNN Europe (London) on CNNfn at night, but when they bagged that it was all downhill from there.

CNN ditched the news to be replaced by sound bites, irrelevant tidbits, rumors, in a what appears to have been a silly attempt at being "fair and balanced." At least Fox Noise only says it is fair and balanced. The best remedy against such blatant biases is to do what Keith Olbermann did. At the very least Keith is entertaining and an effective anti-dote against one-sided views.

But I digress.

It occurred to me while watching Campbell Brown -sitting in for Anderson Cooper as the saying goes- that there was a problem with her nose. And when she started talking to Randi Kaye and a few minutes later to Dana Bash, I noticed that all these women have the same nose problem. There seems to be an endemic nose problem at CNN. Many women, including Gloria Borger, Christi Paul, Kyra Phillips, and others unseen have this skinny, straight, hairline nose with narrow nostrils that must make breathing difficult. I did not dig into this any further and some of these noses may have been congenital but the majority appear restored.

I read that Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a practicing neurosurgeon -the latter no doubt explains why he seems to know so little about medicine, remember that joke about surgeons ? They can do everything but they don't know anything.- but it appears he may have taken up a role as resident plastic surgeon.

Is all of this fall-out from the Greta Van Susteren-Paula Zahn debacle that we witnessed six years ago? Poor Greta, trying to be fair and balanced at Fox Noise, despite an eye-lift that came too late to save the day, but that is another story too...

Are nose jobs the remedy ? Reporters are often said to have a nose for a good story. Are these women trying to improve their sense of reporting ? Or do the nose jobs (and eye lifts) reflect the subtle massaging of the facts that is so endemic in the 21st century newscast? Make it all look pretty and appealing so the advertisers are happy?

Nothing more befitting a program whose sole objective has now become to promote consumerism and sell useless junk.

I smell something fishy, do you?

the press and objectivity

In America, journalists are supposed to be objective. At least that is the advertised rule. It is a rule that doesn't hold in other countries, where a biased press corps is acceptable. Most countries have political parties with their own newspapers and these newspapers reflect the view of the party. That view is not limited to the editorials but pervades the entire paper. If you read a socialist paper you will get news through a socialist lens. If you buy a conservative paper, you will see the world as a conservative does. In most of those countries, the only "objective" source of news is on TV, where a national broadcasting company holds sway. The broadcasting company is funded by the government and so the news is more or less impartial -although generally not too critical of the ruling party or parties.

Australia is a country where news is biased and it should surprise nobody that Rupert Murdoch, who was born in this tradition would bring it with him to the US. The only problem is that we "expect" objectivity. The other problem is that we do not have a powerful public broadcasting system, and most people get their news from a private business, supported by advertising. The only "confidence" we have is that the journalists, writers, and editorialists working there are schooled in the "objective" tradition.

Now notice two things: advertisers are the real customers of the network. They are the ones that pay. As such they like shows that people watch, but not if these shows have negative connotations. They do not like their products to be associated with negative images. Right off the bat, you have a situation of pervasive, and very powerful censorship. It won't ban things outright but we have to make sure that the newscast is not too negative or dwells too much on stories that may upset people. Here is the source of your public interest story about the cat that got rescued from a tree.

It is also likely the main reason why news stations go commercial-free in times of disaster. You may think they want to give you the news without interruption, but they probably think, our advertisers would not like it anyways. At least we have the viewers and if people know we cover things they will tune in when nothing happens too.

The second thing is even more frightening. Here are some very powerful corporations, led by some very powerful people, who -invariably- have very strong opinions about a lot of things. These people are the ones paying the bills. You as a poor journalist are paid by these people. Furthermore, the people you get the news from also have strong opinions. They too know how to protect their "turf." And they too wield a very powerful weapon: they can give you the story you need. But only if they like you. Otherwise they can give your competitor a heads up. Now answer this simple question: how long do you think it will take the successful journalist to "see" this picture? And what will happen next?

Yesterday we got a powerful admission of this fact during Anderson Cooper's 360. This came up in reference to Scott McCellan, the former White House press secretary who wrote another scathing memoir. One in a long list detailing how disconnected, disfunctional, and chaotic the White House really is. But that is another matter.

Scott was apparently frustrated that the journalists did not ask the though questions regarding the war. And then one guest revealed to us that her bosses were sensitive to the ratings of the president. You may remember that Bush had very high popularity ratings before the war. The bosses were not eager to go hard on a President who was so popular. Furthermore, the bosses were not keen on being seen as unpatriotic by opposing the war. They were sensitive to their image. And apparently, they were sensitive enough to let the journalists and writers, and editors know.

This was not some case of Fox News. By now we all know Fox News is biased, strongly biased. We all know Rupert takes time out to make sure the news is covered the way he likes it covered. It is understandable given his background and tradition. It is rather unusual that he would bother, but he has strong opinions. It is however inexcusable that he does this in a tradition of objectivity, without bothering to inform us of it. To the contrary, he does the opposite. Fox News swears it is objective. It is fair and balanced. More kool-aid anyone?

The story we saw last night is perhaps more scary. It shows that meddling, active meddling is not limited to Fox. It happens everywhere. Of course, we expected as much. But being told it is really true is another matter altogether. So now you know. Don't trust the news. Especially not when it supports the powers that be.