The US presidential debates between John Kerry and George W. Bush have convinced me that when it comes to elections, where citizens need the media most, the mainstream commercial media can be weapons of mass deception.
Before the debates, commercial media globally and in South Africa gave the impression that Kerry was going to lose the election because of his own weaknesses. These included his failure to swiftly respond to the so-called “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”. Week after week I read and watched these allegations with growing disbelief and alarm.
How come the same media who knew, or alleged, that the veterans were hired propagandists gave them maximum space and airtime? Then, when the damage to Kerry had already been done (as shown by the polls) these same media brands attacked him for not rebutting the allegations! As if it wasn’t them who gave the oxygen of publicity to these goons in the first place!
Should the media not have investigated these guys before going with the story? Is there a journalistic rule that you air falsehoods first and investigate later?
Of course, another reason for alarm, fear and despondency is how the media allowed Tony Blair and George W. Bush – drip by drip and in the language of spin — to admit that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
It’s not surprising, given that the media were seduced by the drama of war — which always makes for a great story — but it seemed that some brands were completely shameless about being embedded in the misnamed “coalition of the willing”.
The failure to tell it like is has brought dishonour to media houses that once had integrity, and as the situation in Iraq worsens and world insecurity heightens it is a practical certainty that further credibility will be lost.
It has taken the appearance of Kerry in the debates for the media to suddenly make a U-turn (but still hedge its bets) by saying that the race is tight, or more firmly, that Kerry is “definitely presidential material”.
This in contrast to what they said during the Republican convention — that Kerry is long-winded, wishy-washy and flip-flop. Guess where the flip-flop stuff came from? You guessed it, the Republicans convention, where adult Bush supporters carried the phrase on placards like kindergarten kids.
Because of its clever sound-bite quality and low-grade dramatic presentation, the media adopted the slogan to frame Kerry and implicitly start writing his political obituary.
In short, the media became the voice of the Republicans. So the role of independent (read privately owned) media in an election in a “free and democratic country” can be similar to the role of state-controlled media in an undemocratic country.
The debates have saved the situation somewhat, although it might be too late. Kerry is actually not long-winded. He is articulate and makes arguments that appear logical even if you don’t agree with them.
In contrast, Bush strings together unrelated and half-finished sentences and ideas, which are either not followed through at all or too dogmatically followed through.
Four more years my foot! We got here precisely because the media did not, in the first instance, fulfill its obligation to be impartial. To use the phrase of John Edwards, Kerry’s running mate: “They were not straight with the American people.”
Maybe there’s a lesson for our media, which, because of its resource shortcomings and failure to be innovative about covering international issues, depends on American dominated commercial media for international news.
Are you not by your dependence failing to be “straight with the South African people”? And by so doing are you not short-changing South Africa and Africa in global affairs?
Professor Tawana Kupe is Head of the School of Literature, Language and Media Studies at Wits University.