Watching the grilling that Tony Blair has received from the British media since his decision to involve Britain in the Iraq war, one cannot help but make comparisons with the kid gloves approach of the mainstream U.S. media to the outrageous behavior of the Bush administration. The BBC is now carrying a viewpoint article, titled Has Katrina Saved the U.S. Media? (OK, I wasn't particularly imaginative with my title, I know), which emphasizes this point. The article suggests that the outrage seen in such unlikely places as Fox News may signal a turning point in this trend, and that the gloves may now come off in the coverage of our government's incompetence. One interesting part of the article is a very succinct explanation of why many people view the mainstream U.S. media with such suspicion.
Amidst the horror, American broadcast journalism just might have grown its spine back, thanks to Katrina. National politics reporters and anchors here come largely from the same race and class as the people they are supposed to be holding to account. They live in the same suburbs, go to the same parties, and they are in debt to the same huge business interests. Giant corporations own the networks, and Washington politicians rely on them and their executives to fund their re-election campaigns across the 50 states. It is a perfect recipe for a timid and self-censoring journalistic culture that is no match for the masterfully aggressive spin-surgeons of the Bush administration. But last week the complacency stopped, and the moral indignation against inadequate government began to flow, from slick anchors who spend most of their time glued to desks in New York and Washington.
It's an interesting suggestion. However, I can't help but be cynical and expect that it won't last, essentially for the reasons in the first few paragraphs, which I don't expect to change. But I guess we'll see.
