{"id":66809,"date":"2005-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-11T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/09\/11\/constat-et-analyse-du-changement-radical-de-la-presse-us\/"},"modified":"2005-09-11T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-09-11T00:00:00","slug":"constat-et-analyse-du-changement-radical-de-la-presse-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/09\/11\/constat-et-analyse-du-changement-radical-de-la-presse-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Constat et analyse du changement radical de la presse US<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Constat et analyse du changement radical de la presse US<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t11 septembre 2005 C’est l’un des grands \u00e9v\u00e9nements de l’\u00e8re post-Katrina : la grande presse am\u00e9ricaine n’est plus, comme on dit de mani\u00e8re un peu imag\u00e9e, aux ordres. Elle s’est r\u00e9volt\u00e9e \u00e0 l’occasion de l’ouragan Katrina et a repris sa libert\u00e9. Elle l’a fait avec une violence inaccoutum\u00e9e, qui en dit moins sur la presse elle-m\u00eame que sur la tension extr\u00eame qui parcourt aujourd’hui la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 am\u00e9ricaine et presse le syst\u00e8me dans ses retranchements.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl s’agit d’un \u00e9v\u00e9nement politique tr\u00e8s important. Il prive l’administration d’une couverture d’approbation qui lui \u00e9tait d’un grand secours dans la promotion de son univers virtualiste. C’est un \u00e9l\u00e9ment compl\u00e8tement nouveau par rapport \u00e0 la situation qui a pr\u00e9valu ces quatre derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es. La situation de la p\u00e9riode sera donc n\u00e9cessairement, elle aussi, compl\u00e8tement nouvelle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCi-dessous, nous reprenons un texte du groupe FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media), sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9 dans l’analyse critique des m\u00e9dias am\u00e9ricains. FAIR, qui a toujours suivi une attitude tr\u00e8s critique et activiste mais sans d\u00e9former les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s, ne se laisse pas aller \u00e0 une satisfaction b\u00e9ate. Il fait un constat plus qu’une analyse de la situation, et il le fait avec une r\u00e9elle fermet\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAuparavant, une courte analyse de l’\u00e9volution de la presse am\u00e9ricaine, de sources europ\u00e9ennes internes, permet de mieux pr\u00e9ciser la situation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Iraq War Sleep Is Over<\/em><\/strong>. The newly assertive tone of Katrina coverage, particularly on TV, struck many as a welcome return to a brand of journalism seldom found in recent years a departure from what some regard as overly deferential treatment of U.S. political leaders in the wake of Sept. 11. Journalism seems to have recovered its reason for being, wrote Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz. Political humorist Jon Stewart opened his Tuesday night TV show by commending the major networks for showing spine’ and bravery’ in their storm coverage. (He went on to jokingly compare the media to a fat drunk shaking off his stupor to chase off car vandals with a tire iron.) I think the press, which arguably was cowed by the (Bush) administration in the run-up to the war with Iraq, was certainly not cowed in covering the aftermath of Katrina, said Ken Auletta, who writes for The New Yorker magazine and is author of the network news history Three Blind Mice.’ He and other observers said the biggest factor in changing the dynamic was the media’s success in beating the government to the disaster zone. The press was doing its job, and in doing its job, they saw this clash between what they were witnessing with their own eyes and what officials were telling them, Auletta said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb National Consensus Gave It the Courage to Speak Up.<\/em><\/strong> He added that news media historically tend to reflect the mood of public opinion and may have felt emboldened by a prevailing consensus that government’s early response to the storm was too slow. Even conservative commentators joined the chorus of criticism, with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, calling the situation a national disgrace. Others, including radio host Rush Limbaugh accused the media of using the crisis to bash Bush. Still, the emphatic, even emotional displays of some journalists stirred debate about whether they had crossed a line. Independent network news analyst Andrew Tyndall said he saw nothing wrong with reporters voicing skepticism, even outrage, at what he said was manifest incompetence. Barbie Zelizer, at professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communication, agreed. I don’t think anybody can look at the documentation of what went down in New Orleans and not be disgusted and appalled and horrified, she said. But Auletta said he was troubled to see correspondents and newscasters blurring the line between straight reporting of facts and editorial declarations. If we behave in a way that conveys to many citizens that we are not calm and collected and considered, then it’s hard to arrive at a common set of facts and we don’t do service to our presumed role in a democracy, he said.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMaintenant le texte de FAIR, publi\u00e9 le 9 septembre<\/a>. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Covering Katrina: Has a More Critical Press Corps Emerged?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy FAIR, September 9, 2005<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOne of the most noted trends in the media coverage of Hurricane Katrina has been the aggressive and critical tone some journalists have adopted towards the White House and Bush administration officials.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tA headline at the online magazine Slate read, \u00a0\u00bbThe Rebellion of the Talking Heads\u00a0\u00bb (9\/2\/05). \u00a0\u00bbKatrina Rekindles Adversarial Media\u00a0\u00bb is how USA Today put it (9\/6\/05)-implying, of course, that an \u00a0\u00bbadversarial\u00a0\u00bb press really existed in the first place.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOf course, this new attitude was not universal. After George W. Bush told ABC’s Diane Sawyer, \u00a0\u00bbI don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees\u00a0\u00bb (9\/1\/05), many outlets questioned Bush’s nonsensical claim, pointing out that such predictions were common. But on the front page of the next morning’s New York Times (9\/2\/05), readers saw the headline<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbGovernment Saw Flood Risks, But Not Levee Failure,\u00a0\u00bb which essentially defended Bush’s position.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Times also defended Bush against critics who thought his reaction to the crisis was insufficient. A photo of Bush accepting a guitar from a country singer at an event in Calfornia the day after the levees broke in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast had been ravaged seemed to illustrate that point. But Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller took issue with the fact that bloggers \u00a0\u00bbcirculated a picture of Mr. Bush playing a guitar at an event in California on Tuesday to imply that he was fiddling while New Orleans drowned.\u00a0\u00bb Bumiller’s rebuttal: \u00a0\u00bbIn fact, the picture was taken when the country singer Mark Wills presented Mr. Bush with a guitar backstage at North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado, Calif., after Mr.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBush gave a speech marking the 60th anniversary of the Japanese surrender in World War II.\u00a0\u00bb Times readers were left wondering what exactly was wrong with the original presentation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut Bush’s response was not the only one that was criticized. Some reporters seemed astonished when FEMA director Michael Brown said that his agency had only heard about the gathering crisis at the New Orleans convention center on September 1, leaving ABC anchor Ted Koppel to ask him (9\/1\/05), \u00a0\u00bbDon’t you guys watch television? Don’t you guys listen to the radio?\u00a0\u00bb But two days later, ABC’s Cokie Roberts seemed to stick up for Brown: \u00a0\u00bbWell, I’m not sure who knew about it. Because, you know, nobody had heard about anything but the Superdome up until that point and I’m not sure who knew that people were at the convention center. It’s on the river so there was no, there was no directive to go there.\u00a0\u00bb Roberts must have missed earlier media reports regarding the crisis at the convention center, like a CNN interview with a New Orleans police officer about moving people to that site on Aug. 31.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOne of the primary and visible sources of frustration for many reporters on the scene was the slow pace of rescue and relief support. But not all reporters were downbeat about the White House’s efforts. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, for example, declared on August 31: \u00a0\u00bbTonight, under the direct command of President Bush, the full force of the federal government is mobilized. A superpower of resources, manpower and know-how heads on an<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thistoric rescue mission to the Gulf Coast.\u00a0\u00bb Matthews later added that Bush \u00a0\u00bbseems very much like the old Harvard Business School kind of guy that he is, the president of the United States, today, because he delegated very clearly.\u00a0\u00bb The Washington Post editorialized the next day<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(9\/1\/05) that \u00a0\u00bbthe federal government’s immediate response to the destruction of one of the nation’s most historic cities does seem commensurate with the scale of the disaster. At an unprecedented news conference, many members of President Bush’s Cabinet pledged to dedicate huge resources to the Gulf Coast.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn fact, some media figures even offered optimistic predictions for Bush a clean slate of sorts. Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote (9\/4\/05), \u00a0\u00bbWe cannot yet calculate the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina and its devastating human and economic consequences, but one thing seems certain: It makes the previous signs of political weakness for Bush, measured in record-low job approval ratings, instantly irrelevant and opens new opportunities for him to regain his standing with the public.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAt the same time, media coverage has focused on how the White House has been scrambling to repair its reputation, with top Bush advisers Dan Bartlett and Karl Rove leading the concerted PR effort (\u00a0\u00bbWhite House Enacts a Plan to Ease Political Damage,\u00a0\u00bb New York Times-9\/5\/05). That strategy was explained to the Times by an anonymous Republican who \u00a0\u00bbsaid that Mr. Rove had told administration officials not to respond to Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush’s handling of the hurricane… the administration should not appear to be seen now as being blatantly political.\u00a0\u00bb That source was granted anonymity \u00a0\u00bbbecause of keen White<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tHouse sensitivity about how the administration and its strategy would be perceived.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut the very next paragraph would suggest that the White House strategy would in fact be \u00a0\u00bbblatantly political\u00a0\u00bb as the Times put it, \u00a0\u00bbIn a reflection of what has long been a hallmark of Mr. Rove’s tough political style, the administration is also working to shift the blame away from the White House and toward officials of New Orleans and Louisiana who, as it<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thappens, are Democrats.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThat might explain how the Washington Post (9\/4\/05) managed to report that, according to a \u00a0\u00bbsenior Bush official,\u00a0\u00bb Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco \u00a0\u00bbstill had not declared a state of emergency\u00a0\u00bb by September 3. In fact, that declaration had come on August 26, as the Post later explained in a correction.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tApart from that kind of PR spin, the overriding concerns of race and class should have played a key role in a story where such realities were impossible to dismiss or ignore. Though some outlets devoted significant attention to the roles of race and class particularly in New Orleansby some counts it was not nearly enough. A study by Think Progress (9\/4\/05),<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ta project of the liberal Center for American Progress, found that stories focusing on race and class were in short supply on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel just 1.6 percent of stories focused on race or class issues. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAnd certain comments were simply considered beyond the pale. During a September 2 telethon, rapper Kanye West declared that \u00a0\u00bbGeorge Bush doesn’t care about black people\u00a0\u00bb and that America is set up \u00a0\u00bbto help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible.\u00a0\u00bb NBC edited his remarks for the West Coast feed of the show and issued a press release distancing the network from his words. NPR reporter Juan Williams, appearing on Fox News Sunday (9\/4\/05), also dismissed West’s comments: \u00a0\u00bbThere are some people who are going so far as to say this week, ‘Oh, the president doesn’t care about black people,’ because there were so many poor black people on the screens around the country as the victims of this tragedy. Well, I can tell you, I think that’s ridiculous. I think that’s<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tkind of spouting off on people who don’t know the president, don’t know this administration, don’t know the people who work there.\u00a0\u00bb Apparently West would think differently if he knew more White House staffers personally.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAmidst the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, many mainstream journalists seemed to display a skepticism towards official statements and government spinning that has been absent for much of the last five years. While a press corps that openly challenges the political elite would be a positive development, readers and viewers should question why reporters who are<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdemonstrably angry and are covering this story aggressively have been so rarely moved by other events. What if there was widespread media outrage about White House fabrications about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction? What if reporters were similarly outraged by the destruction of Iraqi cities like Fallujah, where civilians who survived the siege had to live<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twithout power and drinking water?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a more aggressive press corps seems to have caught the White House public relations team off-balancea situation the White House has not had to face very often in the last five years. Many might wonder why it took reporters so long; as Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon.com (9\/7\/05):<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbIt’s hard to decide which is more troubling: that it took the national press corps five years to summon up enough courage to report, without apology, that what the Bush administration says and does are often two different things, or that it took the sight of bodies floating facedown in the streets of New Orleans to trigger a change in the press’s behavior.\u00a0\u00bb<\/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":"

Constat et analyse du changement radical de la presse US 11 septembre 2005 C’est l’un des grands \u00e9v\u00e9nements de l’\u00e8re post-Katrina : la grande presse am\u00e9ricaine n’est plus, comme on dit de mani\u00e8re un peu imag\u00e9e, aux ordres. Elle s’est r\u00e9volt\u00e9e \u00e0 l’occasion de l’ouragan Katrina et a repris sa libert\u00e9. Elle l’a fait avec… <\/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-66809","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\/66809","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=66809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}