Democrats, the media, and Iraq

[Strawman]

I'm currently writing a blog in lieu of a term paper for a class I'm taking on Politics and the Mass Media. We're in the process of reading Susan Carruthers' The Media at War and this post tries to relate that reading to the current Iraq war.

http://sedpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/03/democrats-media-and-public-opinion-on.html

I'd love comments from others at DU. Basically the argument is that vocal opposition to the Iraq war or the Bush Administration's handling of the war by leading Democrats affects media coverage by moving opposition to the war more squarely into what Hallin calls the "sphere of legitimate controversy." When Democratic elites take a more oppositional stance to the war, more critical media coverage and a more critical public opinion of the Iraq war follows. Now as Democratic elites are passively allowing Republicans to unjustifiably claim credit for "successes" in the Middle East, I expect media coverage and public opinion to trend toward less criticism and more support of the Bush administration on Iraq.

In short, as a Democrat who opposes the war what I would like to see is less of a strategy of opportunistic jabs and retreats by Democrats and more of a consistent oppositional stance because I think more critical media coverage and public opinion would follow that lead. There needs to be less chasing of public opinion and more leading and shaping of it.

[AndyTiedye]

1. That Argument Would Hold Water if the Media Were Unbiased

but since the media is in the Republicans' pocket,
Democratic opposition to the war simply doesn't get any airtime.
The only Dems who get on TV much are the boll weevils DINOs.

as a Democrat who opposes the war what I would like to see is less of a strategy of opportunistic jabs and retreats by Democrats and more of a consistent oppositional stance because I think more critical media coverage and public opinion would follow that lead.

We should do oppose the war loudly and consistantly anyway,
but don't expect any help, or even fair reporting, from the media.

When Karl Rove has pumped all the oxygen out of the room, nobody can
hear you scream. (But if Karl wants, then EVERYBODY will hear you
scream, as Howard Dean found out).

There needs to be less chasing of public opinion and more leading and shaping of it.

Of course, but we will have to do it over the net and person-to-person,
because the people who own the media will fight us every step of the way.

[Strawman]

2. Bias doesn't explain everything

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/24/bias_questions.html

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/25/bias_answers.html

There is a bias inherent in the corporate nature of the media which serves to narrow the range of acceptable opinion to those which do not seriously threaten corporate interests, but that still leaves wider sphere of legitimate controversy than most people who reduce their critique of the media to bias will concede.

Within that sphere, political elites. whom journalists look to for context, especially on foreign policy issues, can frame media coverage. If a Joe Biden or someone of that stature spent less time worrying about looking good (and failing in my opinion), and articulated a consistent position of opposition to the war, the press would provide more critical coverage. Sure there are some strong voices of opposition among Democrats in Congress, but those voices are marginalized by the party leadership first and by the meida second.