Patriotism a little over the top on TV and radio these days? That's the plan. Broadcast executives have always played the ratings game at the expense of news fairness and the consultants who control broadcast news are telling stations one thing: "Patriotism pays."
"Get the following production pieces in the studio NOW: Patriotic music that makes you cry, salute, get cold chills! Go for the emotion," advised McVay Media, a Cleveland-based consultant, in a "War Manual" memo to its station clients. "Air the National Anthem at a specified time each day as long as the USA is at war."
McVay Media is one of the largest communications consulting companies around and tells clients to ""make sure your hosts aren't 'over the top.' Polarizing discussions are shaky ground."
Such advice is not limited to radio. Frank N. Magid Associates, an influential television news consulting firm, tells clients bluntly: "Covering war protests will hurt your bottom line."
"The antiwar movement in this country is far bigger than it was during the first few years of the Vietnam War, but you wouldn't know it from the coverage," sys Adam Eidinger, a Washington activist. "I think the media has been completely biased. You don't hear dissenting voices; you see people marching in the streets, but you rarely hear what they have to say in the media."
Interesting. Isn't the media supposed to be part of some vast, left-wing conspiracy designed to promote such divisive topics as war protests?
"I think there's just political correctness to waving the flag right now," said Holland Cooke, a McVay news-talk specialist.
Magid surveyed 6,400 viewers across the nation and found that only 14 percent felt TV and radio wasn't paying enough attention to the war protests.
"Anti-war demonstrations and peace activities are not viewer-friendly topics at this time," Magid advised its clients in a memo before the start of the invasion of Iraq.
Since many radio and TV stations are controlled by a handful of broadcast conglomerates like Clear Channel Communications and Gannett, consultants like Magid and McVay can, and do, exert tremendous influence over what people see on the news.
This bothers Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public-interest law firm in Washington.
"What troubles me is that the most important part of the system of checks and balances in media coverage has been the diversity of ownership," Schwartzman says. "With increasing concentration of ownership, if one or two big companies are using the same corporate-wide policy, or relying on the same consultants, there aren't effective competitive forces" to ensure alternative opinions."
When Magid and McVay tell their big media clients that antiwar doesn't pay, we get pro-war 24/7.
Which concerns Kem Schram at KOMO TV in Seattle.
"Serving you is what news is supposed to be about: fairness, balance, accuracy," Schram said in a recent on-air commentary. "Journalists are trained to determine what people need to know, not just what people want to hear. And to do so in the proper context."
Patriotism, Schram says, does not mean "marginalizing voices of opposition, or suppressing voices of support. Not when it means being a lackey for any particular point of view."
