{"id":66075,"date":"2004-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-07T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/09\/07\/comment-rien-ne-change-dans-le-processus-dauto-censure-de-la-presse-us\/"},"modified":"2004-09-07T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-09-07T00:00:00","slug":"comment-rien-ne-change-dans-le-processus-dauto-censure-de-la-presse-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/09\/07\/comment-rien-ne-change-dans-le-processus-dauto-censure-de-la-presse-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Comment rien ne change dans le processus d’auto-censure de la presse US<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Comment rien ne change dans le processus d’auto-censure de la presse US<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t7 septembre 2004 A la suite de la Convention r\u00e9publicaine, le groupe d’analyse des m\u00e9dias FAIR-L (groupe Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media d’analyse et de critique activiste) a \u00e9tudi\u00e9 le comportement des m\u00e9dias am\u00e9ricains vis-\u00e0-vis de cet \u00e9v\u00e9nement, qui doit d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 rester comme un des sommets de l’action partisane et diffamatoire (anti-Kerry) de la campagne pr\u00e9sidentielle. Cette analyse est particuli\u00e8rement remarquable, <\/a>en ce qu’elle montre \u00e0 quel degr\u00e9 d’auto-censure et d’acceptation du discours du pouvoir en place la presse am\u00e9ricaine est parvenue.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl s’agit d’un point d’autant plus remarquable que cette m\u00eame presse ne cesse d’accumuler les mea-culpa, comme celui, r\u00e9cemment, du Washington Post<\/a>, sur son comportement durant les pr\u00e9misses de la guerre en Irak. Sur le fond, l’analyse de FAIR-L montre que rien n’a chang\u00e9. Les m\u00e9dias am\u00e9ricains continuent \u00e0 pratiquer l’auto-censure face aux messages du pouvoir. Le comportement est si compl\u00e8tement syst\u00e9matique qu’on peut, effectivement comme dirait monsieur de La Palice, parler de syst\u00e8me. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

If Only They Had Invented the Internet<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Failure of Fact-Checking at the Republican Convention<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy FAIR, September 3, 2004<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt is the function of journalism to separate fact from fiction. In<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcovering the Republican National Convention of 2004, the media made<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tisolated efforts to point out some of the convention speakers’ more<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tegregious distortions, but on the whole failed in their vital role of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tletting citizens know when they are being lied to.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTo take the example that dominated the convention perhaps more than any<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tother claim: Professional politicians and political correspondents alike<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tknow that legislators frequently vote against appropriations for a variety<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof reasons, even though they do not seek to eliminate the programs being<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tvoted on. They know that different versions of the same appropriation are<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\toften offered, and that lawmakers will sometimes vote for one version and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tagainst another– not because they suffer from multiple personality<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdisorder, but because that’s how they express disagreements about how<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tgovernment programs should be funded.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNo one who has spent any amount of time in or around government would find<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthis the least bit confusing. Yet news analysts generally allowed<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRepublican Party leaders to pretend shock that Sen. John Kerry would vote<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tagainst an $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq War– as if this meant<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat Kerry opposed giving troops \u00a0\u00bbmoney for bullets, and fuel, and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tvehicles, and body armor,\u00a0\u00bb as George W. Bush declared (9\/2\/04). (The<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\treferences to Kerry voting against body armor were particularly<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdisingenuous, given that the $87 billion only included money for body<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tarmor at the insistence of congressional Democrats Army Times,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t10\/20\/03.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAnd journalists were complacent as Republicans expressed mock bafflement<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tover why Kerry would vote against this bill when he had voted for another<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tversion of the bill (or \u00a0\u00bbexactly the same thing,\u00a0\u00bb in former New York Mayor<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRudolph Giuliani’s words– 8\/30\/04). The reason that Kerry introduced an<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\talternative bill– because he wanted to pay for the appropriation by<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\traising taxes on the wealthy rather than through deficit spending– was<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twell-publicized at the time (Washington Post, 9\/18\/03). Yet rather than<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tchallenging the dishonesty of this centerpiece of the Republican attack on<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tKerry, CNN’s Jeff Greenfield after Bush’s speech (9\/2\/04) called it \u00a0\u00bbone<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof the most familiar and effective lines of his stump speech.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBush himself threatened to veto the Iraq spending bill if the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\treconstruction aid for Iraq it included was in the form of loans rather<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthan grants; by the logic of the Republican convention, Bush<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbflip-flopped\u00a0\u00bb exactly the same way that Kerry did on the $87 billion by<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsupporting one version of the bill and opposing another. Yet a Nexis<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsearch of television coverage of the convention turns up only one<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\treference to Bush’s veto of the bill, by Paul Begala on CNN (9\/1\/04).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOverwhelmingly, TV pundits covering the convention allowed the charade<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsurrounding the $87 billion to pass without critical comment.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut overlooking distortions was the norm in television’s coverage of the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tconvention. When Dick Cheney spoke (9\/1\/04), he said of Kerry: \u00a0\u00bbHe<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdeclared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAmerica after we have been attacked…. We cannot wait for the next<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tattack. We must do everything we can to prevent it and that includes the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tuse of military force.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tKerry did say in that speech (7\/29\/04), \u00a0\u00bbI will never hesitate to use<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tforce when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcertain response.\u00a0\u00bb But he couldn’t have meant that that was the only time<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmilitary force might be required, since he had said earlier in the speech<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat \u00a0\u00bbthe only justification for going to war\u00a0\u00bb is \u00a0\u00bbto protect the American<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpeople, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\timminent.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCheney went on to say, \u00a0\u00bbSenator Kerry denounces American action when other<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcountries don’t approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tto please a few persistent critics.\u00a0\u00bb In this he echoed Sen. Zell Miller<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(9\/1\/04), who charged, \u00a0\u00bbSenator Kerry has made it clear that he would use<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmilitary force only if approved by the United Nations.\u00a0\u00bb In his acceptance<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tspeech, Kerry actually said, \u00a0\u00bbI will never give any nation or<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tinternational institution a veto over our national security.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMiller and Cheney’s speeches were filled with similar misrepresentations<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof Kerry’s positions and record. Yet afterwards, Newsweek managing editor<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tJon Meacham, appearing as a pundit on MSNBC (9\/1\/04), had this analysis:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIf I taught at the Kennedy School, I would take these two speeches as<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tur-text of partisan rhetoric. I think it was a brilliant tactical night,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tone of the most brilliant in the age of television. These were two<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tconcise, rather devastating rhetorical hits at John Kerry. And there was<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tjust they did not miss a base. They did not miss anything that they<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcould hit.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt’s not that journalists never attempt to fact-check claims made in<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpolitical speeches– sometimes effectively, sometimes less so. (A couple<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof the better efforts were by AP’s Calvin Woodward 9\/2\/04 and the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWashington Post’s Glenn Kessler and Dan Morgan, 9\/3\/04). But these efforts<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tare generally segregated from regular news coverage of the convention, not<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tincorporated into the main reports and analysis, as if sorting out what’s<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ttrue and what isn’t were a departure from normal journalistic practice.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhen MSNBC’s Chris Matthews (9\/1\/04) questioned Miller about the fairness<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof his litany of weapons programs that Kerry \u00a0\u00bbtried his best to shut<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdown,\u00a0\u00bb he was following a line of debunking that was laid out six months<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tago by Slate’s Fred Kaplan (2\/25\/04), who pointed out that Republicans<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twere citing Kerry’s \u00a0\u00bbno\u00a0\u00bb vote on the 1991 Defense appropriations bill as<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tif it were an attempt to eliminate all Pentagon spending. What was<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tremarkable was that Matthews was willing to bring up this criticism in a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tlive interview a breach of media operating procedure so dramatic that it<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tprovoked Miller to say he \u00a0\u00bbwish[ed] we lived in the day where you could<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tchallenge a person to a duel.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut ascertaining the truth is the responsibility of every journalist in<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tevery story. It’s the first point in the Society of Professional<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tJournalists’ code of ethics: \u00a0\u00bbJournalists should test the accuracy of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tinformation from all sources.\u00a0\u00bb It’s the ubiquitous reports that analyze<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe aesthetics of oratory and speculate on the impact speeches will have<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ton the horserace that ought to be the exception.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt would hardly be unprecedented for the media to consistently call<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tattention to the veracity of a political campaign. During the 2000<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcampaign, reporters and pundits delighted in pointing out examples of what<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthey said were \u00a0\u00bbexaggerations\u00a0\u00bb by Vice President Al Gore. Unfortunately,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthese examples were often false– contrary to more than a thousand media<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tassertions, Gore never claimed to have \u00a0\u00bbinvented\u00a0\u00bb the Internet, and he<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tactually did serve as a model for the character in Love Story, according<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tto the novel’s author (Daily Howler, 12\/7\/99, 12\/3\/02).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt’s telling that when faced with real distortions, not on trivial matters<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof little consequence to voters or the campaign, but on life-or-death<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmatters that are central to the presidential debate, most journalists<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbecome agnostics regarding the truth or falsity of the smears they pass<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\talong.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Comment rien ne change dans le processus d’auto-censure de la presse US 7 septembre 2004 A la suite de la Convention r\u00e9publicaine, le groupe d’analyse des m\u00e9dias FAIR-L (groupe Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media d’analyse et de critique activiste) a \u00e9tudi\u00e9 le comportement des m\u00e9dias am\u00e9ricains vis-\u00e0-vis de cet \u00e9v\u00e9nement, qui doit d’ores et… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66075","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66075","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66075"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66075\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66075"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66075"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66075"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}