By Michael De Dora
In the aftermath of the latest Andrew Breitbart fabrication – in which the right wing news partisan posted on his website a selected clip of a longer speech by U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod that made her look racist, leading to her firing – liberals have centered most of the blame on Breitbart himself. Breitbart, they charge, is an ideologue and a liar who cost a good woman her job (Sherrod was director of rural development for the state of Georgia). To be sure, there is much merit to these charges. Breitbart has distorted the truth before, and in this instance he once again acted unethically, posting only part of Sherrod’s full speech at a recent NAACP banquet. Without the context, she appeared to have rather questionable beliefs about race (1).
However, while it is easy to point all the fingers at Breitbart, that would be a mistake. Let me be clear: this essay is neither pardoning the behavior of Breitbart or FOX News (the latter of which used the issue for political purposes), nor excusing Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and others for reacting so quickly, and wrongly. Rather, this essay argues that while people often find it convenient to blame the media, in this case Breitbart and FOX News, for social problems, they ought to realize that it is a social problem that feeds the media. That is, Breitbart and media outlets cannot be understood apart from the social and political context in which they exist. Why does Breitbart have the power he has? Why do people listen to Breitbart? (2) Because they agree with him.
Contemplate a mirror example. Liberals often complain that FOX News essentially gives the Tea Party and, more broadly, the right wing a news platform with which to spread their ideas. Of course, every news agency has an audience, and more or less for survival purposes, they play to that audience. FOX News has been worse than other news organizations at objectivity in any sense of the word. But FOX News hasn’t made people right wing in their beliefs; they haven’t created their audience from scratch. FOX News might further the reach of the Tea Party or of the Right, but even that depends on some core group of FOX News viewers wanting to hear about the Tea Party and Right ideology. Again, this does not excuse FOX News portraying the Tea Party’s stance as correct and worth supporting (they have gone out of their way to do so, which is despicable for a “news” outlet). But it does mean the Tea Party and the Right exist for reasons outside of FOX News.
Even if Breitbart and others “create” the news – Shirley Sherrod is a racist! Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.! – people need to buy into it for it to work. As Ken Taylor recently wrote over at Philosophy Talk, “it takes at least two minds to make a social reality.” Breitbart (or FOX News, or whomever else) cannot create a social problem – only reflect, support, or reject it. After all, did Breitbart himself fire Sherrod? No. Does he alone finance his website, which he used to post the Sherrod video? No. Breitbart has a market: people who will accept much of what he throws out there as correct (this goes for all sides along the political spectrum, but this essay is focused on the recent Breitbart-related news). Even in the case of the Birthers, who deny Obama’s presidential legitimacy based on the unsubstantiated idea that he wasn’t born in the U.S., there needs to be a crowd of people who want to doubt information about Obama’s birth for the media to cover it seriously. As Gary Younge once succinctly put it, the media cannot sell Spam as steak; someone actually needs to think, or be highly open to the idea, that Spam is steak to begin with.
By blaming social problems on one man or one organization, we thus ignore the social reality that these men and organizations are backed by millions of Americans, and make the problem out to be much simpler than it really is. They would not exist in such powerful roles without the support of a sizable number of people. This is apparently hard to accept for some on the political Left. Consider, for instance, that despite the fact that poll after poll has shown that up to half of Americans believe the world is 6,000 years old, few people I discuss such polls with believe me, dismissing the idea that so many Americans believe such a crazy thing. One can only hope that people soon overcome this inability to accept reality , for the well-being of our country, indeed our world, may depend on it.
With Sherrod now vindicated, and Breitbart and FOX News looking extraordinarily bad, some are arguing that the media and others should ignore these two going forward (though one could easily argue that their true colors had been revealed long ago). But even so, they represent a sizable social contingent, and for that reason alone it seems we ought to pay some attention. Humans are not naturally skeptics, and even reasonable people will get sucked into believing lies and half-truths. Media outlets haven’t done a terribly good job helping out in this regard, leaving much of the nurturing of skepticism to philosophers, social critics, bloggers, and grassroots advocates. Yet we still need to be informed about that which we ought to be skeptical – in this case, what millions of Americans believe – and the media is an important resource. Remember, other news organizations did not ignore the Tea Party's goings-on. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC – they all covered and continue to report on the movement. This is not because they want to give it credence. Rather, it is news about something going on in the country, and so it makes sense that it should be reported. All Americans should want to be informed about what their neighbors believe and do regarding politics, whether they agree or not.
Contrary to what many would tell you, Breitbart and FOX News did not create the Tea Party and the extreme Right which wants to disable Obama and his administration in any and every way possible. Instead of blaming them for creating social problems, we ought to consider the complex and numerous factors that influence what we see represented and supported in the media, and ponder how much of an effort we've made in the battle against that with which we disagree. Anything less would wrongly simplify our problems and let everyone off the hook too easily.
Notes.
(1) The full video soon surfaced, and Sherrod has largely been cleared, though she is still unemployed. The USDA offered her a new, different job, but it seems she won’t take it.
(2) Incidentally, this raises the issue of one of the many enormous problems with the media which is that it often desires to cater to the audience instead of telling the audience what it might need to hear, what is accurate. That is, too often news agencies seem to base their decisions on the question “is there a market for this?” But that is a topic for another essay.
It is a misconception that the for-profit media caters primarily to its audience. In fact, it is the needs of advertisers that are first and foremost. Most television advertisers crave eyeballs in the 25-45 middle-class consumer demographic. It is the job of television stations to deliver this audience and to keep them occupied.
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what you say, Michael. Certainly, there is a ready-made audience for the likes of FOX. However, you may be underestimating the degree to which people can be successfully propagandized by a relentlessly repeated message. I believe this is partially responsible for the shift to the right in American politics over the past 20-30 years.
ReplyDeleteSo many people look for "evidence" to support their preconceived ideas, and deliberately avoid considering possibly contrary considerations. Non sequitur illustrated this widespread approach nicely:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2010/04/22
It's worth mentioning that in this case, rather than the true believing of FOX viewers, it was the eagerness of the Obama administration to take FOX seriously that led to erroneous firing. For all I know, the average FOX viewer never believed it for a moment and didn't care, content to see, for a change, liberals being slammed by hyperbolic denunciations of racism (an American pastime if ever there was one).
ReplyDeleteI think the American right is a little more savvy than they are given credit for. They simply have a taste for strange romance and even stranger logic. Reducing them to brainwashed automatons or wishful receptacles would be a mistake.
Simon,
ReplyDeleteIt certainly is not a myth that for-profit media firms primarily satisfy consumer demand. Obviously, cable television must cater to consumer demand, since a portion of their profits come from consumer-viewers directly. But all such media firms, cable or non-cable, must satisfy the demands of viewers. Why? Even though non-cable firms earn their profits from advertisers, advertisers must earn their profits from consumer-viewers. Its not a coincidence that the best shows, i.e., the one's that best satisfy consumer-viewer demand, are those that have the most expensive advertising slots.
If for-profit media businesses did not cater to consumer-viewer demand, no one would watch and, as a result, advertisers would lose money and, as a further result, for-profit media businesses would lose money. Ultimately, for-profit media companies satisfy consumer-viewer demand. For this reason, advertisers seek to finance such companies with capital given to them in exchange for advertising time slots.
Michael Labeit: You are not addressing key parts of my argument, and that is that the for-profit media caters to certain consumers, namely well...the profitable ones I described.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the dichotomy between cable and non-cable, I suppose that only matters with HBO/Showtime type cable networks that don't display traditional ads which are a small portion of the total viewership (though with in-show product placements, the line is blurring). The rest (Fox News included) sell plenty of ads.
Furthermore, saying that television channels give viewers (again, which viewers?) "what they want" based solely on ratings frankly misses the point of media policy in a civilized democracy. To provide an extreme hypothetical example: What if a television channel got permission to televise real-life inmate executions during prime-time.? I submit to you that this would receive crazy high ratings. If the role of a television channel is solely to maximize ratings and viewership (as you appear to suggest), what would be your objection to this type of programming?
PS I did not use the word 'myth' anywhere in my comment and I would
Could I suggest that the post takes a very patronizing and partisan line - assuming that there is no merit in the concerns that many right of center people have about policy issues - especially the huge government debt which quite clearly threatens the future prosperity of the US and which is at the heart of the concerns of the tea party movement. Those on the right with their misguided views constitute apparently a 'social problem'! Don't you realize that this sort of approach on the part of intellectuals only further alienates less educated right wingers who might otherwise be prepared to listen. The religion issue by the way is a separate one from the political in the sense that there are many non-religious conservatives around, even in America.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this site is normally so left wing (I recall a Chomsky quote in the margin so maybe it is). I hoped it would be truly devoted to reason and non-ideological.
Let me also endorse James' comment - I think he was reacting also to Michael De Dora's rather simplistic and patronizing view of the right.
"By blaming social problems on one man or one organization,...Contrary to what many would tell you, Breitbart and FOX News did not create the Tea Party and the extreme Right..."
ReplyDeleteWhat you say here all seems kind of obvious. I am really sort of confused with who you think you are criticizing or are arguing against. Of course Brietbart and Fox News have a rather large segment of the population who are receptive to their ideology and propaganda. Duh!
And this is not the "extreme right wing", this is much of mainstream American. Maybe not a majority, but a significant block of the American public that are not passive receivers, but active consumers of right-wing agit-prop.
"By blaming social problems on one man or one organization,...Contrary to what many would tell you, Breitbart and FOX News did not create the Tea Party and the extreme Right..."
ReplyDeleteWell this is true and clear, in the sense that particular "instance" of extreme right was not created by the FOX. On the other hand the idea behind this was strongly shaped, in the last 20 years at least, by right wing agit-prop like FOX.
And not surprisingly the same happened in Italy...
Remember, other news organizations did not ignore the Tea Party's goings-on. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC – they all covered and continue to report on the movement.
ReplyDeleteI watched a clip from one of your more legitimate news sources. It was your "so called" fair minded report on a tea party get together. The camera panned up and down a gentleman wearing a large semi-automatic gun. The camera scanned up and down the person without showing his face. It was an obvious attempt to make the tea party members look dangerous or violent. But they never did show the face of the man. I finally saw the full clip on fox. The man was black. The NBC news edited it out and had an obvious agenda, to show the man as potentially violent, but not show the truth that would not fit in with the whole idea of racist tea party movement. I am sure you have no idea of this since you get your edited news. Do you ever stop to think that this is indeed propaganda? oh ya, these news organizations report on the tea party all right. They report on baseless claims of racism constantly. Yet anyone who goes to a tea party never sees it, unless it is to oust a racist that tries to align with them. So for the actual tea partiers that you may want to reach, why don't you picture this (since I am one myself). I go to these assemblies constantly. I have never seen anything remotely racist, then I have different news organizations to pick from, one of which reports the exact same thing I physically see, the others report constantly about racism in the tea party (which I have never seen). Which one am I going to watch? You better look to your own camp buddy if you want to know why the tea partiers are watching fox.
James,
It is funny your blaming Fox news for the firing, since she was already fired before Fox even aired anything about it? Don't blame the people that jumped to a conclusion for 25 seconds of video.
In a bigger picture here, I once again see another post the avoids discussing the actual issues. Referring to the tea party as a social problem. I see the tea party as the correction for a political and social problem.
Why is it that this blog avoids the actual discussion of the issues at hand and manages as if minds can be swayed and rational thinking can be had without it. You have the same problem here as you did on your last post. You call the tea party a social problem and don't address anything about what the tea party stands for. (and I am sure you never have) As far as I am concerned, the reason for this is obvious, debate what the tea party stands for and your skeptical or rational intellectualism will be pulled apart . The actual point of your post? I think it is something to the effect of don't blame Fox for the tea party (or social problems as you put it)? Duh?
When I read crap like this, I know I am watching the correct news station.
I'm sympathetic to Sherrod's case against Breitbart, but I got into a huge fight with a friend because I stated that I didn't think she had a case. To be defamed and to prove you've been defamed are two different things. I have a feeling that Breitbart has his ducks in a row and knows how to avoid losing in court. As much as I may wish he does lose, he won't.
ReplyDelete"It is funny your blaming Fox news for the firing, since she was already fired before Fox even aired anything about it? Don't blame the people that jumped to a conclusion for 25 seconds of video." - Jim Fisher
ReplyDeleteThat is funny, particularly considering that I didn't blame FOX news for the incident, but the Obama administration. But hey, don't let my actual text get in the way of a good joke. And now that we're talking about it, it seems that Sherrod resigned after FOX's first broadcast on the matter (not before). So, yeah. Funny. Here's a timelime, but feel free to do research on your own.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004
Most importantly: keep laughing. They say it's good for one's constitution.
"The camera panned up and down a gentleman wearing a large semi-automatic gun....... It was an obvious attempt to make the tea party members look dangerous or violent."
ReplyDeleteJim,
Now don't you think somebody carrying around a large semi-automatic is somebody trying to look dangerous and violent?
As for the alleged racism of the tea party, that is perhaps to much of a broad brush. However, there have been many signs at these Tea Parties portraying Obama as some exotic African witch doctor with a bone through his nose. Gosh that couldn't be interpreted as racism could it? (read sarcasm)
James,
ReplyDeletewhen you said:
it was the eagerness of the Obama administration to take FOX seriously that led to erroneous firing.
I thought you meant it was the administration reacting to Fox's story. If you meant it in a future tense, then I apologize.
Sheldon,
As for the alleged racism of the tea party, that is perhaps to much of a broad brush. However, there have been many signs at these Tea Parties portraying Obama as some exotic African witch doctor with a bone through his nose. Gosh that couldn't be interpreted as racism could it?
Could you please give me an example, other than the T-party Express leader that was forced to resign. (I consider the forcing of his resignation the exact behavior that shows their intentions on a whole). Since I am a member of the Plymouth Rock Tea party, and obviously have much more in depth knowledge of the tea party, I know the time we spend discussing how to handle any racist infiltration and how to insure we are void of it. Yet I have to listen to people like you telling me that we are portraying Obama with a bone in his nose.
All it is Sheldon is an attempt to not deal with the core issues we will be resolving. Call someone a racist and you can discredit them. Its the same thing the Obama campaign did when they were asked about his connections with Black Liberation theology, just call the person racist for asking and you dont have to deal with the question. The problem with this technique is that too much of the population is either in the tea party or knows it well, so the whole racism thing that your media sources fed you is not only a lie, those same sources didn't even have the courage to follow through with a real question of racism :Does Obama believe in black liberation theology, and if not, why did he spend 20 years submerged in it and never denounce it?
When you have millions of people gathering constantly, the media can create any story they want, I am sure there is a racist somewhere in the tea party with a sign, just as there is anywhere in the population.
Here is the problem Sheldon, I am part of it. I know the truth, the actual agenda. The actual words said. The actual actions taken. I see different media sources not reporting the truth. Those same sources are the ones Michael is talking about. I see one source that reports it the actual way it happens, without any spin. What am I supposed to do when I have the truth. What you just said about the tea party is not the truth. I wonder if you will repeat it again without actually going to the source to find out the truth. If NBC shows it to you, I am sure you will. Go to a tea party rally and tell me about the racism you experience, not what you see reported about it.
I wonder how your news agencies would have continued to report on the floatilla in the Gaza Strip were it not for the actual video. I certainly know how they started to report it before the video was shown.
Go to the source Sheldon and then tell me we are racist. Dont go by what you see on TV, and dont even go by Fox. The rallys are everywhere constantly, it would be a small effort to see the truth.
I am disgusted by the efforts of the left and the media to make us look racist, but on the other hand it tells me that they fear this organic movement and know the people will return government to its constitution.
If it is racism you seek Sheldon, you can find it anywhere, it has nothing to do with the tea party.
To your other point. The display of the semi automatic at this mans side was a display of his individual rights. No I dont think it was meant to look violent in any way. Why do you address that but not their reluctance to show it was a black man? If you see the video, they pan up to the bottom of his neck several times and not until the camera was pulled away from the shot do you see his color (and that was edited out). That doesn't bother you Sheldon? That the media only tells part of the story, because the other part doesn't fit with their agenda?
Look up on U tube, there is a Tea Party racism video (funded by George Sorros's group (forget the name), where some racist is going on and on about the white man etc... (he is at a tea party rally). Fox showed the entire clip where he was quickly surrounded by tea party members giving him the boot. You could even hear an older lady in the background telling him to get out and he is not wanted here. They actually used a great example of the tea party's resolve towards racism to make it look racist. I will get you a link to both videos. But point is, you want to find racism, you'll find it. If you really want to know the truth of how the tea party feels about racism, you'll find that out too.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think so many people flock to Fox, the tea party has the truth about themselves, they know they are not racist, and they are not going to watch a news station lie about them.
I agree with Phil in Comment #2 - I think this post underestimates the "repeat effect" (for lack of a better phrase). I don't want to claim that this effect can explain more than it can, but I was recently reminded of this effect again while reading one of Julia's picks - 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. As the authors point out in the introduction, word of mouth, which, in our day and age includes various media outlets, is a very powerful source of misinformation. If we base our beliefs on the "information" we are given, then we will have false beliefs. To quote:
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we've heard a claim repeated over and over again doesn't make it correct. But it can lead us to accept this claim as correct even when it's not. because we can confuse a statement's familiarity with its accuracy (Gigerenzer, 2007). Advertisers who tell us repeatedly that "Seven of eight dentists surveyed recommended Brightshine Toothpaste above all other brands!" capitalize on this principle mercilessly. Furthermore, research shows that hearing one person express an opinion ("Joe Smith is the best qualified person to be President!") 10 times can lead us to assume that this opinion is as widely held as hearing 10 people express this opinion once (Weaver, Garcia, Schwarz, & MIller, 2007). Hearing is often believing, especially when we hear a statement over and over again.
So this, coupled with Michael's claim that "Humans are not naturally skeptics" (which I will certainly not argue with!) leads to me to conclude that FOX News (and the media in general) could be blamed, at least in part for many of the beliefs of those who share that media outlet's own perspective.
Now, I certainly don't want to disagree with the last paragraph - Brietbart and FOX did not create the Tea Party, Birthers, or others on the wackaloon Right, but it has certainly furthered their causes. I think that is undeniable. Just think about the "repeat effect" and how, even if it only holds true for a small percentage of viewers of, say, a given TV news program, in the aggregate, it could have a very large societal impact.
P.S. Anyone have any idea why the "blockquote" HTML tag wasn't recognized? It used to be, I believe.
Should our complexity arise, the soundbites will cease and funds with them.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention, the public at large loves a false dichotomy.
For example, because Michael is a pro-choice atheist and I'm a pro-life atheist, this means we are at complete odds with no room for context or discourse.
Which also means congratulations are in order. I have already put him on a placard with a pseudo-pithy statement regarding his ineptitude as a human being because of our disagreement.
Irrelevant racial epithets will follow, and of course criticizing his footwear.
It's all good, because false dichotomy's are all good, and what's all good makes for good print, and that makes advertisers really really really happy.
-----
In the end we have to ask ourselves whether half-assed journalism is sin or not?
FOX News may have a right of center editorial bent, but it is the right of any medium to have a point of view. News-wise, FOX has been objective and reports facts. Some of its opinion shows, in prime time becuase that is where the advertising money is, tend to be strident, but no more so thatn Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are on the left-leaning MSNBC. Competitors seem to agree that FOX is a legitimate new reporting organziation, as it now has a front row seat in teh White House briefing room.
ReplyDeleteThis is apparently hard to accept for some on the political Left. Consider, for instance, that despite the fact that poll after poll has shown that up to half of Americans believe the world is 6,000 years old, few people I discuss such polls with believe me, dismissing the idea that so many Americans believe such a crazy thing. One can only hope that people soon overcome this inability to accept reality , for the well-being of our country, indeed our world, may depend on it.
ReplyDeleteWhat does this have to do with your post or the media or anything about this. The reason you slide it in regardless of the fact it has nothing to do with anything on this topic is because you have yet again defined a group of people as a social problem (last time you defined them as extremists) without ever talking about what the people believe and defining why it is a social problem. So you attempt to equate them with your crazy 6000 year believer poll. Regardless that one has nothing to do with the other.
Actually defining why tea partiers or Fox viewers are a "social problem" would bring up actual debate over issues where the opposing side has a more sound logic. This is avoided for posts that just assumes they are a social problem. That in itself is nothing less than arrogance.
This is why you guys constantly refer to creationists and 6000 year old believers, it is a subject where you have sound logic and can defend it. That is why the attempt to lump the tea party with these same people. Your logic for why we should leave behind the constitution and have larger government will easily be defeated in debate. Therefor it is just easy (and arrogant) to take the next step and write posts where we can all just assume they are a social problem.
I challenge you to define why the tea party is a social problem prior to writing posts that just assumes it is true.
The Tea Partiers see this for what it is and crap like this feeds its fire. Thank you for that!
Jim,
ReplyDeletePlease note that I already mentioned that saying the "Tea Party movement is racist" is a bit of a broad brush, and probably unfair. I don't doubt that you and your Tea Party fellows may indeed guard against racist infiltration, probably because it shares some politics that attracts racists. Kind of a catch 22 for you don't you think? But I think the general claim is that SOME segments of the Tea Party flirt with themes that can be interpreted as racist. There does seem to be a segment of the Tea Party movement that engages in softcore and subtle racism, not necessarily explicit KKK racism, but something more subtle.
Much of what Glen Beck and other Fox News propaganda pushes is meant to push buttons of white resentment of how "their country" is being taken from them. The drummed up threat of "Black Liberation Theology" is a case in point. I am really wondering what you think you know about "Black Liberation Theology".
Regarding the guy with the gun. I don't recall to what lengths the other media outlets went to cover up the fact that he was black. All I recall was it was clear that he was. However, to show up at a public political demonstration visibly armed is a deliberate threat that means to say, "I have a gun, and I can be provoked into using it" How else can you interpret taking an assault rifle to a public political demonstration?
Oh and by the way, I actually agree with you on some level. I don't like the label "extremist", because....well I think its meaningless and I don't have time to explain. :)
Sheldon,
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that you and your Tea Party fellows may indeed guard against racist infiltration, probably because it shares some politics that attracts racists. Kind of a catch 22 for you don't you think?
I completely disagree, the reason we must be so heavily guarded against it is simply because we are unfairly (as you say) be accused of it. How else does one respond when being unfair accused? As I have said, I have been to a number of these events and have yet to see any trace of it. That our politics are attracting it? Please explain? Which one of the tea party core themes attract racism.
There does seem to be a segment of the Tea Party movement that engages in softcore and subtle racism
Please explain. You are trying to walk a line with what you know to be unfair accusations (because there is literally no proof of it) without acknowledging that the tea party hasnt any higher degree of racism than does the entire population (which of course has racism).
As to our politics attracting racists, the example you give is garbage. Beck has done many shows on Black heros of the revolution. He often has MLK's niece on backing him up. He does more to stand up for what MLK stood for than the progressives trying to twist the meaning of civil rights into social justice (one of the reasons his niece appears on the show) To say this is designed at pushing the buttons of white resentment is just garbage. For the person that constantly thinks about race perhaps. I see it as a racism problem with the accuser not the accused. The amount of accusing done on by the left has done far more to set us back than anything the tea party does or stands for. None of this is about race, the person (or people) that says it is, are in the wrong for trying to make it about race.
Regarding the guy with the gun. I don't recall to what lengths the other media outlets went to cover up the fact that he was black. All I recall was it was clear that he was.
I didn't know you watched Fox?
As far as what it meant. It was right after the 5-4 supreme court ruling so I think the message was obvious, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My point of bringing it up was about what NBC had done with the footage. No they did not show his color.
As far as what do I know about Black liberation theology? I have read about James Cone and have actually attempted to purchase his 2nd book today with no luck at my local Borders(I may order it tonight). I have read a bit about him on the internet, but want to go to the source. I have a feeling it will not convince me that it is indeed not racist (It will be tough to read without bias due to words of Rev Wright and Black Panthers that derived from his teachings). As see it being at direct odds with what MLK stood for, but perhaps as I read his book it will convince me otherwise, but from the many quotes I have read from him, I doubt it, but perhaps they are taken out of context (I am not sure how).
As it stands I see many similarities between black liberation theology and Marxism in what it wants to accomplish, just one is trying to correlate the oppression with race.