Power Is What Power Does

A Glenn Reynold's post links to a registration required piece at the Chicago Tribune on Nightline, The Power of Ted. The piece is a glowing review of Koppel and a fitting tribute in view of his recently announced retirement, as much as it is provocative in questioning the role of media in opinion shaping today.

Were the editorial decisions made by the network news executives in 1979 to 1980 in the public interest? This remains a contested question. In their study of the Tehran hostage crisis, veteran journalists Robert Donovan and Ray Schererdetailed the manner in which the students surrounding the American embassy in Tehran exploited television's power during the crisis.

The atmosphere around the embassy resembled a carnival when the TV cameras were absent, but as soon as a camera crew arrived, the crowd chanted "Death to Carter!" and "Death to America!" while waving fists and burning flags.

The mob's media savvy was so sophisticated that chants would be rendered in English, Persian and, occasionally, for the benefit of Canadian and French television, in French. The students clearly understood how to exploit the independent, non-governmental nature of American broadcasting. They also knew that reaching the American public was relatively easy, as there existed only three American broadcast networks, and all of them dedicated enormous time and resources to coverage of the story.

The Al Qaeda leadership has repeatedly emphasized this lesson to its followers. Reminding its followers of the Tet offensive, the Tehran crisis and the disastrous Somalia mission, Al Qaeda statements reveal the belief that it is far easier to demoralize Americans than to defeat its armed forces. For this reason, beheading videos have become an important strategic tool in Al Qaeda's arsenal.

Yet America's enemies fail to understand that the power of network journalism to structure the public sphere has been significantly lessened.

The era of the big three network news divisions is over. The Reagan administration aggressively deregulated the media, and new political voices emerged on American airwaves. America's political leadership was no longer as beholden to the editorial decisions made by the big three networks. As the diversity of news outlets multiplied over the last decade, the power of any single news source to shape political decision-making weakened.

Glenn concludes with " Perhaps that's why we're winning this war.

As one who watched the launch and growth of Nightline and both admired the show, as well as railed at pictures of be-hooded students terrorists taunting the US, I think the piece draws some interesting parallels but falls short of any real analysis. Though to be fair, it really is more just simply raising the question, while pointing to some of the landscape in a changing media geography.

In reality, America didn't react to Nightline and the news of the day from Iran by hiding behind Jimmy Carter's skirt, withdrawing from the world a weakened superpower. At least in part, events in Iran led to the election of Ronald Reagan and launched the beginning of a "Morning in America," which is actually just the opposite of what might be expected were the above conclusions true.

Yes, media is powerful, as well as experiencing a significant shift in how that power is exercised today; but I would like to think the heart and soul of America is even more powerful, and just as dynamic, too.

America needed time to shake off the sting of Vietnam and Richard Nixon. But as I recall, the hostages in Iran didn't come home for the Reagan inauguration as result of a Nightline report, they came home in part because of who America elected President that year - and in so doing, sending a clear message to her enemies at home and abroad. Of note, Fox and other new mediums weren't even media stars on the horizon at the time.

Reagan did more than deregulate media, the bulk of his legacy might be found in changes within the military and how the US represented itself overseas to friend and foe alike. He knew the strength of America, was able to tap it, as well as present it to a world that could like it, or not.

Combine that beginning with the first Bush legacy of a war well won and an incredible long term economic boom running smack dab into 9/11 and all of its repercussions, and I am not so much convinced that America, in her heart, needed the media to guide it when it was time to show what she was made of in the face of the clear and present danger that is Islamofacism.

While I'd like to credit emerging new media for all its worth, especially given that I'm a very small part of it, I simply can't. To do that would betray the very principles Ronald Reagan stood for and helped us to re-discover within America, regardless of what any media might like us to think.

The media can somewhat shape the message, perhaps, but it is after all only the messenger. The message came and still comes from leaders like Reagan, Herbert Walker and now George Bush. The last managing to gain re-election despite one of the loudest and longest liberal media onslaughts I've ever witnessed.

The media can tell us the news - and changes I see in media are most welcome. But the media does not tell America what's in her heart. Given what I have witnessed post 9/11, I'd say that heart's still thumping pretty well and the blood is gettting to enough American brains, no matter how they access media, or what the networks would have them believe.

This post also at Blogger News.