By Arthur Solomon
The Egyptian people had 30 years of reasons to be proud and celebrate the overthrow of their hated dictator, President Hosni Mubarak. But should the cable news networks shout hosannas to themselves over their coverage of the situation?
Not in my opinion.
If anything, cable coverage showed how far the 24 hours news shows have diminished quality journalism; their reporting on the Egyptian crisis should be used as a case study.
Instead of impartial news reporting, these new-age journalists sounded as if they were propagandists for the Egyptian democracy movement, whatever that may turn out to be. (Remember the so-called democratic Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the true second democratic "mini-revolution" of just two years ago?)
Comments like "honored to be reporting on this," "congratulations to the Egyptian people," "the Egyptian nation is now free," "the Egyptians showed me they can do something really, really beautiful" and maybe the most naive by both a CNN and MSNCB reporter who said, when the protestors bellowed with joy after their dictator resigned, "this is what freedom sounds like." (Perhaps they were too young to remember similar sounds of freedom when the Shah of Iran was forced from office by "freedom-loving" crowds; or maybe they were living their Lawrence of Arabia moment.)
For years, the slanted reporting by the cable news networks and Hate Radio have debased political reporting in the U.S., limiting unbiased reporting to a minority status.
Things have changed since my days as a reporter and 25-year Burson-Marsteller veteran, a stint that including being tear-gassed during a political demonstration in Seoul, and not for the best. Much of the blame goes to the 24 hour news stations and websites reporting, both with ravenous appetites for anything that smells as news.
Early in my career as a journalist, reporters had it drummed into their heads to be objective, report facts and leave the opinions to those you quote.
Not so during the Egyptian reporting, where hard news journalists were welcomed as allies during the demonstrations. Too often "just the facts ma'm" was disregarded. (Also ignored in the reporting was that Egypt's alliance with the U.S. was cemented by receiving, to put it politely, years of "foreign aid.")
It's understandable for someone to get caught up in the excitement of a history-changing moment. But that doesn't make it good reporting. And that's too bad.
The military, the power behind the modern- day Pharaoh, was portrayed by reporters as the "people's army." The word "democracy" was enthusiastically bandied around like a beach ball by reporters on the scene, as well as those safe in USA studios, who called it "this miracle day," despite the regime change being described, not as the beginning of democracy, but as a military coup d'état by some specialists in Egyptian politics and at least one retired CIA officer who was interviewed. The reporters also failed to mention that the history of revolutions shows that democracy is too often not the ultimate winner.
And then came the quick change artists of cable TV coverage, the Renaissance Pundits, who just by changing their hats become all-knowing, modern day, TV created oracles, knowledgeable about any subject, never knowing when to say, "I don't know," but always willing to give their pap analysis.
I understand and support the tradition of columnists and editorial writers, regardless of their political views, to have unlimited freedom to express their opinions. But when on Saturday, February 12, the lead editorial in the New York Times included the phrase, "Even as we cheered with them..." that went too far for this writer."
There are better ways of supporting a position, I feel, than using the all inclusive "we," especially since the editorial didn't identify the "we's" and not everyone was happy about the U.S. potentially losing an important and strategic ally.
Perhaps the enthusiastic media should review history. People cheered after the French Revolution. And look what happened. People cheered after the Russian revolution. And look what happened. People cheered when Batista was overthrown. And look what happened. People cheered when the Shah was forced from office. And look what happened. People cheered when Egypt's King Farouk was forced to abdicate in 1952 in a previous Egyptian "revolution." And look what happened.
We can only hope that the Egyptian revolution doesn't prove that history too often repeats itself in a ruthless way and instead follows the template of the American Revolution, still the gold standard, despite the wacky rantings of extreme right wing talk shows and Tea Party followers shouting their nonsensical chant of, "We want our country back."
In this uncertain world, one thing is certain: As technology advances, factual and unbiased reporting decreases.
That is too bad.
* * *
Arthur Solomon is a former newsman and senior VP at Burson-Marsteller. He is available at [email protected].
|