Recently, news organizations have made plenty of news themselves. Not only newspapers that either closed shop, offered another round of buyouts, or fired newsroom and other staffers. The broadcast networks, too, have shrunk their news divisions and continue to swing the ax heavier these days. Following the lead of CBS News, ABC News will cut one fourth of its staff. Declining audiences and thus lower advertising rates plus loss of advertising to cable channels are reportedly pushing ABC’s and CBS’s news divisions to the brink—although an article in today’s New York Times notes that “Executives from CBS News and ABC News said the top corporate executives for both networks remained outspoken supporters of the news divisions.” Don’t trust such assurances. It’s the bottom line that counts. That’s why the situation is for the time being different at NBC where the news division--thanks to MSNBC and other cable outlets—continues to bring home bacon for its corporate parent General Electric.

All of this reminds us that the “[n]ews is a commodity” and “a product shaped by forces of supply and demand…” as James T. Hamilton writes in his excellent book “All the News That’s Fit to Sell.” If the news is understood as commodity, one would expect that the content of the product--what is reported and how—depends on business judgments. Here, the contemporary crisis of the press refers to news providers’ problems and failures in the economic marketplace.

But news media organizations differ from other enterprises because, as Walter Lippmann recognized nearly 90 years ago, the “community applies one ethical measure to the press and another to trade or manufacture.” This double standard is justified and comes along with the responsibilities of a free press. If the news is understood as a public good, one would expect that in return for utilizing public air waves as carrier of news and entertainment, broadcasters would be committed to providing public affairs information and monitoring government on behalf of citizens.

If this sounds idealistic and removed from the real world, a look back at the very same networks’ past would serve today’s corporate owners well. In his book “Who Killed CBS?” Peter J. Boyer explains so well how the news division was not expected to make money—only not to lose too much, because CBS News was “what gave the company its real worth.” The entertainment divisions were to make the money--and, yes, subsidize the news. This started with company founder, William S. Paley, who “made the news department a favored child” and “fostered a news organization with standards and ambitions that far exceeded the imperatives of the commercial broadcasting industry he was helping to build.” While for decades CBS News was the gold standard in broadcast news, the other networks, too, strove for excellence.  

To be sure, the proliferation of cable and satellite channels and the emergence of the Internet as important information source, especially for the younger generations, cut the networks’ revenues in their entertainment divisions as well. But in spite of all the wining about the fall of the broadcast news, the fact is that the three networks’ evenings news still has a combined audience of well over 20 million, and none of the cable news programs comes even close to any of the three evening news broadcasts or, for that matter, the morning infotainment shows.

For all the changes in the news media landscape in the last decades, the loss of commitment to quality news divisions on the part of the corporate owners and their greedy imperatives rank high on the list.

By Brigitte L. Nacos

On December 28, 2001, 6 days after the would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid tried to blow up a U.S.-bound American Airlines flight, President Bush mentioned the incident for the first time in passing during a press conference at his Texas ranch. This is all he said,

“The shoe bomber was a case in point, where the country has been on alert. A stewardess on an American Airlines flight—where the country has been on alert. A stewardess on an American Airlines flight—or a flight attendant on an American Airlines flight was vigilant, saw something amiss, and responded. It’s an indication that the culture of America has shifted to one of alertness. And I’m grateful for the flight attendant’s response, as I’m sure the passengers on that airplane. But we’ve got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our Government is responding accordingly.”

There was no criticism whatsoever by Democrats as far as the delayed timing and lack of  substance in this short remark was concerned. Contrary to Republicans during the Clinton [and Carter] administration, leading Democrats renewed their unconditional support for President Bush that they had expressed immediately after the 9/11 attacks. The following exchange between host Tim Russert, Republican Senator Don Nickles, and Democratic Senator Tom Daschle during the Meet the Press program of December 30, 2001 attests to this:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe Republicans would have supported President Clinton as much as Democrats have supported President Bush on a war against terrorism?

SEN. NICKLES: You bet. All of us. You know, I remember the rhetoric--of course, I was in Oklahoma City when the president made a great speech. "We're not going to allow terrorism in the United States." And he was strongly supported in that. And you bet. After the World Trade Center, after the bombings on two U.S. embassies, killed 220-some people, you bet. There'd be very strong--but it takes leadership, and now we have strong leadership. I think it's a little overdue, but I think it's been a fantastic effort to date. We just need to accelerate and keep it up. It's going to be a long haul in this fight against terrorism.

SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, I would just say, look at some of the evidence after the attacks [in response to U.S. embassies in East Africa] that President Clinton instituted in the late 1990s. He was attacked. He was criticized for those. He was accused of doing things that had nothing to do with foreign policy as he was trying to respond. So there really wasn't the kind of Republican support for the president that I wish there would have been. But, again, it's not the issue. What the issue has to be is to look forward, to try to find ways with which to work together to build the coalition that is going to be required to be successful in the future.

Compare this to the reaction to President Obama’s first, lengthy, detailed response on December 28, 2009, 3 days after the would-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab that is worth reading for comparative purposes :

“Good morning, everybody.  I just want to take a few minutes to update the American people on the attempted terrorist attack that occurred on Christmas Day and the steps we're taking to ensure the safety and security of the country.

The investigation is ongoing and I spoke again this morning with Attorney General Eric Holder, the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and my Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan.  I asked them to keep -- continue monitoring the situation, to keep the American people and members of Congress informed.

Here's what we know so far.  On Christmas Day, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was en route from Amsterdam, Netherlands to Detroit.  As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body, setting off a fire.

Thanks to the quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew, the suspect was immediately subdued, the fire was put out, and the plane landed safely.  The suspect is now in custody and had been charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft.  And a full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.

This was a serious reminder of the dangers that we face and the nature of those who threaten our homeland.  Had the suspect succeeded in bringing down that plane it could have killed nearly 300 passengers and crew, innocent civilians preparing to celebrate the holidays with their families and friends.

The American people should be assured that we are doing everything in our power to keep you and your families safe and secure during this busy holiday season.  Since I was first notified of this incident I've ordered the following actions to be taken to protect the American people and to secure air travel.

First, I directed that we take immediate steps to ensure the safety of the traveling public.  We made sure that all flights still in the air were secure and could land safely.  We immediately enhanced screening and security procedures for all flights, domestic and international.  We added federal air marshals to flights entering and leaving the United States.  And we're working closely in this country -- federal, state and local law enforcement -- with our international partners.

Second, I've ordered two important reviews because it's absolutely critical that we learn from this incident and take the necessary measures to prevent future acts of terrorism.  The first review involves our watch list system, which our government has had in place for many years to identify known and suspected terrorists so that we can prevent their entry into the United States.

Apparently the suspect in the Christmas incident was in the system, but not on a watch list such as the so-called no-fly list.  So I've ordered a thorough review not only of how information related to the subject was handled, but of the overall watch list system and how it can be strengthened.

The second review will examine all screening policies, technologies and procedures related to air travel.  We need to determine just how the suspect was able to bring dangerous explosives aboard an aircraft and what additional steps we can take to thwart future attacks.

Third, I've directed my national security team to keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country.  We do not yet have all the answers about this latest attempt, but those who would slaughter innocent men, women and children must know that the United States will do more than simply strengthen our defenses -- we will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle, and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us -- whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland.

Finally, the American people should remain vigilant, but also be confident.  Those plotting against us seek not only to undermine our security, but also the open society and the values that we cherish as Americans.  This incident, like several that have preceded it demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.  As a nation we will do everything in our power to protect our country, as Americans we will never give in to fear or division, we will be guided by our hopes, our unity, and our deeply held values.  That's who we are as Americans.  And that's what our brave men and women in uniform are standing up for as they spend the holidays in harm's way, and we will continue to do everything that we can to keep America safe in the New Year and beyond.”

            Contrary to Democrats’ unwavering support for  President Bush and his administration after the foiled shoe bomber incident, Republicans sharpened their relentless attacks on President Barack Obama following the would-be underwear bombing with the same recklessness that former Vice President Richard Cheney launched immediately after Obama took office and has continued in concert with other members of his family. Two weeks after Obama took office, Cheney warned of a catastrophic biological or nuclear terrorist attack and said that “the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.” This became the refrain of the unrelenting attacks on Obama’s counterterrorism policy.

            During his appearance on “Meet the Press” on January 10, 2010, Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, was asked by host David Gregory, “Is the Republican Party guilty of politicizing terrorism right now [in the wake of the shoe bomber incident]? Steel denied this categorically, exclaiming,“Oh, absolutely not. Oh my goodness, no.” And then he added, “Dick Cheney has it dead right. This administration has not put out a clear vision of how they're going to handle national security and what--were going to, were going to stop--close Gitmo, not done. We're surprised and amazed that the dots weren't connected on what happened on December 25th. The American people don't trust the direction this is going. If you can't call a thing what is, and that is terrorism, people wonder if you know what to do with it. And that's where we are right now, and it's not the place to be.”

By charging again and again that President Obama and his administration clueless or soft on terrorism—or both--and that their policies compromise the security of the homeland, Republicans act un-American: they invite leaders of Al Qaeda Central and like-minded terrorists to strike by telling them their attacks are likely to succeed because of Obama’s and the Democrats’ soft and risky counterterrorism policies.

                                                xxxx

While I wrote this blog, a guest appearance on ABC's This Week was used by Dick Cheney to once again go on the attack and repeat his outrageous charge that Obama is soft on terrorism and puts the lives of Americans at risk as Politico reports. I'll read the full transcript of the segment as well as that of Vice President Biden's appearance on NBC's Meet the Press as soon as they are available.

By Brigitte L. Nacos

What a difference a year makes! Twelve months ago, the overwhelming majority of Americans and people around the globe cheered as the first African-American in the history of the country became the 44^th President of the United States. Many believed in candidate and newly sworn in president Barack Obama’s message that change for the better would come under his stewardship; many believed in his assuring slogan, “Yes, We Can!” Whatever Obama promised in much detail during his amazing campaign, people were mostly uplifted by the hope, even conviction, that here was a new type of politician and leader with an agenda that was fundamentally different from George W. Bush and his disastrous policies.

Much changed during the last twelve months—but it was not the change that Obama promised and his supporters expected. Yesterday’s stunning victory of a Republican in Massachusetts’ race to fill Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate may have been in part the result of Democrat Martha Coakley’s flawed campaign and Republican Scott Brown’s clever pretension that he is an Independent. But the result was also a reflection of the popular perception that things are not going well in the country, especially with respect to the economy, and that nothing has changed in Washington’s politics as usual during the first year of Obama’s presidency. Just like the Republican victories in last fall’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, Brown’s win in Massachusetts was decided by the growing middle of Independents, the very group that had contributed significantly to Obama’s victory in November 2008, and by disillusioned Democrats who either expressed their dissatisfaction by voting for Brown or did not bother to go to vote.

Post-partisan politics was a pipe dream to begin with; if anything, the nasty infighting between the right and left wing of the two established parties intensified—another reason for a growing segment of the electorate to be turned off. And many in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party who were the most enthusiastic supporters of candidate Obama and instrumental in his victorious primary fight against Hillary Clinton and later in his triumph over John McCain, are turned off for another reason. They blame the president for wasting time and substance by courting Republicans and conservative Democrats. They want this president to fight for and insist on an agenda of real change. The list of progressives’ discontent is long, but it is highlighted by the outrageous bargaining surrounding the health care reform and the continuation of the Bush/Cheney counterterrorism policies. If you want to get an idea about the criticism from the left, read “The Mendacity of Hope” by Roger D. Hodge in Harper’s.

Taking New Jersey, Virginia, and now Massachusetts as their cues, talking heads predict now that the elections this fall will bring about a colossal change in favor of Republicans in the Congress. While mid-term elections tend to favor the non-presidential party, much can and will happen in the nearly 10 months till Election Day in November. But unless the president and his administration as well as the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress pull together and act upon a realistic agenda that is explained to and understood by rank and file Americans, this year’s congressional elections may got the way Massachusetts went yesterday and, perhaps, set the stage for the presidential race in 2012.

First of all, administration and Democrats in Congress must concentrate on the economy and the dismal job market. To be sure, improvements will come slow. But by focusing most of all on the number one problem and concern of Americans, the perception of a do-nothing-government may decline.

Next, Democrats must go back to the drawing board with their health care reform plan. To this day, most Americans do not understand the content of the reform versions adopted by the House and the Senate. This gives critics who simply do not want reform ample room for going on the attack. Since a massive reform package has no chance, important parts must be adopted piece by piece. First in line here should be measures that promise to cut the governmental hand-outs to the insurance industry and stops insurances ability to fatten their profits at the expense of the sick and those they refuse to insure because of new or old health problems. Allowing to bringing in the same but much cheaper prescription drugs from foreign countries, too, is and should be a no- brainer for legislators—although they enjoy a most generous health care themselves. Perhaps the president and the people around him have forgotten what they learned in their undergraduate years, namely, that the chief executive—especially during real or perceived crises--must use his bully pulpit to persuade fellow-Washingtonians, especially in Congress, the public, and, when foreign policy is involved, leaders and publics abroad, and thereby enlist support. Think of Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power, Samuel Kernell’s Going Public, and Richard Rose’s The Post-Modern President and you will get the idea.  

President Obama is a charismatic communicator as he proved again and again during his election campaign but only on a few occasions during his first year in office. But failed utterly in taking a page from another great communicator's book: Ronald Reagan never tired to putting the blame for the country's economic ills onto the shoulder's of his predecessor Jimmy Carter. Doesn't the White House realize Obama's failure to similarly remind the public that the current economic and fiscal problems go back to the Bush administration? This failure contributed mightily to today's perception that everything--including the Wall Street bail-out--came upon us on Obama's watch. It is late but perhaps not too late, to change this perception if the president really tries.

However, the most important step now must be to pinpoint and adjust and in some instances change policy priorities, the second step must be the full presidential commitment to winning public support and put pressure on fellow-decision-makers—first and foremost at home but in a number of foreign policy matters abroad as well.

By Brigitte L. Nacos

It is amazing how the most bigotted right-wing pack has the nerve to attack Senator Reid and how he has been pressured into apologizing for a remark he made early in the 2008 campaign, namely, that then Senator Barack Obama could become the country’s first black president because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

While strangely using the language of the past, in content this was a reasonable assessment by someone who has no problems with racial and ethnic differences but is fully aware of the realities of prejudice and bigotry and,yes, racism in society. 

Reid has a strong pro-civil rights record and was among the earliest supporters of Obama. What he expressed was simply the concern that America is far from post-racial. Look at elected and appointed African-American public officials and corporate successes and you will see that lighter-skinned minorities have the edge. Just think of trailblazers like Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. This all is rooted deeply in the past.

Not Reid but the conservative elite and the populist dividers should be blamed. Instead, a media--including the allegedly liberal media--that crave controversy echo the right-wing’s accusations of Reid’s “controversial” statement and run with comparisons to Trent Lott’s past embarrassments. When Lott boasted his support for one-time presidential candidate Strom Thurmond, a segregationist, he seemed to indicated that a Thurmond presidency would have meant a different course of history—presumably a derailment of the civil rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King's role.

Harvard law professor Lani Guinier is the only one who got it right, when she said according to the New York Times that Mr. Lott “seemed to be expressing nostalgia for the segregationist platform of Mr. Thurmond’s 1948 presidential campaign, while Mr. Reid comments seemed to be addressing ‘an unfortunate truth about the present.’” Too bad that we do not see and hear Lani Guinier more in a media that give readily access to the practitioners of attack politics.

It is now clear that we do not have to wait for Sarah Palin to settle in at Fox News for a media removed from the fair and balanced label.

By Brigitte L. Nacos

“What he [President Obama] should be doing is following the right things that Bush did. One of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush.”

                                          Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

After Rudy Giuliani got away with the incredible statement that no domestic terrorism occurred on President Bush’s watch when he was interviewed on Good Morning America by GeorgeStephanopoulos of ABC News Friday morning, his problem with reality and truth was thankfully exposed right away by several on-line watchdogs. How in heaven could a man whose claim to fame beyond New York City is tied to the 9/11 attacks “forget” the date of the worst terrorist nightmare on American soil? 

But this was not the only “memory lapse” in the service of political and partisan expediency. The night before he told Larry King that the  case of the would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid took place before 9/11 as an explanation why then President Bush did not mention the incident until six days after the failed attack. The fact is that the shoe bomber incident occurred on December 22, 2001—more than three months after 9/11.

One would expect that a man who built a lucrative business on the assumption that he is an expert on terrorism and its consequences would have the most basic facts and dates right. Instead, he actually spins stories of fact and fiction.

During his conversation with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Friday afternoon Giuliani claimed to have misspoken in his appearance on Good Morning America. But when Blitzer mentioned the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, Giuliani added another piece of fiction, when he said:

“Gee, Wolf, it not only happened, there was -- there was anthrax found in the office right next to mine. There was attack {sic] on city hall [emphasis added] as well as on the major networks and Governor Pataki's office. I mean, I as directly involved in that.”

But there was no anthrax attack on New York’s city hall at the time. Instead, a letter that was sent by NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw to Giuliani’s chief-of-staff Anthony V. Carbonetti contained some anthrax spores—seemingly coming from an anthrax letter addressed to Brokaw weeks earlier. 

And then there are the complete turnarounds in Giuliani’s opinions. In his interview with Stephanopoulos he complained that the case of the underwear bomber is handled by civilian courts, not military tribunals. Never mind that Zacarias Mousaoui, the would-be 9/11 hijacker was tried and convicted in a federal court as were shoe-bomber Reid and the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Ramzi Yousef. After the latter was sentenced to life in prison, Giuliani said according to the New York Times that the sentencing ''sends a clear message to the world: the United States will vigorously prosecute and punish those who murder and maim the innocent.'' He was equally satisfied with the Mousaoui case that was handled in federal court.

Perhaps all of this wouldn’t matter that much if this were the efforts of one man to rewrite history. But it is in fact a strategy of conservative actors who were parts of and shapers of that history and now point their fingers elsewhere. This is the scheme of former Vice-President Dick Cheney and the female Cheney contingent, his former adviser Mary Matalin who blames the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks, and former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino who preceded Guiliani’s 9/11 denial by several weeks, when she claimed that there was no terrorist attack in our country during President Bush’s term.

Unfortunately, if bold-faced lies and half-truths are repeated often enough by people who are given generous access to the air waves as long as they promise controversy and attack politics, they tend to stick.