OPINION & EDITORIAL
Fake press raises disturbing questions
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Charles Lim:
- Blackwater security firm raises questions of sovereignty, authority (October 4, 2007)
- Compassionate care measure heartless (September 19, 2007)
- Breast feeding an unnatural target (September 5, 2007)
- Despite failings, Bush right on water bill veto (November 14, 2007)
- Fake press raises disturbing questions (October 31, 2007)
Related Stories:
- First Amendment poll: Americans confused (September 10, 2002)
- 17 going on 18 (February 6, 2007)
- Politics better left out in some cases (November 1, 2007)
- Holding accountable (November 8, 2004)
- History: Seen and Unseen (April 21, 2003)
by Charles Lim
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Whenever any of us tunes into a government press conference in the midst of a national disaster, we watch our officials at their most emotionally exposed moments. Anxious for any and all information, we look to our leaders as trusted voices of authority and the primary providers of truth. We want to know who is affected, where it is affecting and most importantly, if the people in power are doing everything in their God-given will to reduce the suffering nature has wrought. The last thing any of us could want is to be cruelly patronized with manufactured fluff and fed statements that boil down to spin. Unfortunately, that is exactly what was handed to us last Tuesday.
As more than 500,000 acres of the Golden State were ablaze, on the other side of the country Harvey Jones, the deputy administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, stood at the podium in the FEMA’s offices in Southwest D.C., cleared his throat and solemnly answered the first reporter’s question of "Why are you so awesome?"
Ok, so he really wasn’t asked that verbatim, but he might as well have, since FEMA was having a press conference with itself. Everyone in that room? A FEMA suit. The supposed reporters? Various high-ranking FEMA staff such as FEMA’s deputy director of external affairs and deputy director of public affairs. The actual reporters were nowhere near the actual press conference, as they were only given a 15-minute heads up of the meeting’s existence. They weren’t allowed to phone their questions in either, but were instead handed a one-way 800 number where they could listen in but not ask questions of their own. Not much better than watching the televised conference on FOX, is it?
I guess it wouldn’t have been so bad if Mr. Jones was asked actual questions of substance, but that would be expecting too much. Consistently softballed with questions such as "Are you happy with FEMA’s response so far?" the press conference quickly devolved into incestuous pats on the back and political masturbation, as FEMA basically asked itself not if it was doing a good job, but how good of a job it was doing. I mean, asking the deputy administrator of FEMA if he is satisfied with how the deputy administrator of FEMA is running things? Can I expect any answer except, "Ridiculously frickin’ epic?" What about the reports that FEMA provided trailers causing formaldehyde poisoning to those displaced by the fires? What about rumors about the obsolescence of federal firefighting equipment? I can understand FEMA being wary of taking flak from actual honest journalists in lieu of the walking clusterfuck that is Katrina, but depriving the American people of a truly keen understanding of the current situation is not only cowardly but almost criminal. It does not instill confidence that this administration has learned anything or changed since New Orleans.
What was FEMA’s explanation of this duping? That the press conference was thrown together at the last minute and the questions asked were taken from a pool of questions journalists had been asking FEMA all day anyway. Besides the obvious question of why hold a meeting with little to no preparation in the first place — FEMA gave no reason for the rush — why not allow reporters to ask questions over the phone? Why pick the most lenient questions to ask? Why not announce a disclaimer beforehand that this press conference was indeed disingenuous?
Well, if it’s any small consolation, FEMA’s Director of Public Affairs John “Pat” Philbin lost his shot at being the director of public affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. But the fact that he hasn’t gotten the ax from his FEMA gig isn’t a consolation at all. The White House issued a release slapping FEMA on the wrist for the matter, which is laughable considering the Bush administration did the exact same thing — using tax dollars to pay actors to pose as journalists giving Bush a standing ovation on his health reform laws in 2004. No disclaimer was given there either.
Where is the line drawn between propaganda and government media? Once the flow of untainted information to the public is disrupted, what greater crime can be committed? When will the government stop treating us like sheep and instead actually respect us? It is doubtless that this kind of thing will happen again and continue to happen. It is only through the perseverance of the journalistic community that the truth can come to light, but once it is silenced, what will save us from the dark?
Charlies Lim (celim@wisc.edu) is a junior with no declared major.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 5:01am):
Wow don't know which is worse Government Propaganda for Political purposes, or Media propaganda where opinion and political spin is put on stories by the media, for political purposes.
The government this time around just seems to have beat the media at it's own game. Was it wrong yes, is it anything the media itself hasn't done (manufactured news stories, stories that were not true on the front page, only to be "retracted" story on page 10 later, media "making" news only so they can report on it etc) no.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 7:56am):
Someone brief me in a few weeks of how many of these bootlickers were fired. Thanks in advance. Jeff Gannon
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 8:49am):
Jeff Gannon approves of fake news.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 11:26am):
"Fake but Accurate" is a CBS trademark!
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 12:36pm):
I've got a question: Is the Bush Administration totally awesome or just near perfect?
-Jeff Gannon
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 1:22pm):
Come on, it's not like real media would have really questioned them anyway.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 3:28pm):
Is propoganda really all that bad, or is it just another thing for those baby-killing "liberals" to bitch about?
-Jeff Gannon
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
