Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Issue No. 39 November 11 - 17, 2001 Quezon City, Philippines |
Profiles in Cowardice BY
VICTOR NAVASKY Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index My
three favorite media stories in recent weeks were how Bill "Politically
Incorrect" Maher kept his job at ABC-TV, how Ann Coulter got herself fired
from National Review and how all the networks simultaneously agreed to the Bush
Administration's request that they suppress any future Osama bin Laden tapes. I
also got a kick out of the Dan Rather interview on a cable channel in which he
answered questions about whether it's OK for a network in the interests of
objectivity to ban anchors from wearing American flags on their lapels, while a
simulated American flag flew in the logo on the lower left-hand corner of the
screen. (Rather himself prefers not to wear a flag but said nothing about
appearing with a flag logo in the lower left-hand corner.) Bill
Maher got into trouble on Politically Incorrect when he correctly observed in
the aftermath of September 11 that it's wrong to call the suicide bombers
"cowards" and impolitically added, "We have been the cowards,
lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away: That's cowardly. Staying in the
airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not
cowardly." Two
advertisers, Sears and Federal Express, pulled their ads, seventeen stations
canceled his program and Maher apologized for being, well, politically
incorrect. Or rather for being misinterpreted ("I offer my apologies for
anyone who took it wrong," he said), although why he should apologize to
people who misinterpreted him he never explained. The defecting advertisers
claimed patriotism, but in fact they were the cowards for withdrawing ads from
fear of the controversy Maher's remarks might spark. So
what do we learn from this first profile in cowardice? Maher demonstrated that
at best he is only incorrect within permissible limits. The advertisers should
come back, the seventeen stations should reinstall the show (if they haven't
already) and Maher should resign, not for what he said but for flying under
false colors. You can't have a show called Politically Incorrect and then
abjectly apologize for not being PC. Next
case. Ann Coulter, rudely dismissed by the Boston Globe's Alex Beam as "a
right-wing telebimbo" for her colorful but intemperate attacks on the
Clintons, was fired by National Review after she wrote in National Review Online
that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them
to Christianity." My question is, In which order? Technically,
they didn't give her the boot until she wrote a follow-up about requiring
passports from "suspicious-looking swarthy males." Now there are two
possibilities here: One is that National Review fired her because they didn't
like what she said. The other is that National Review fired her because by
saying what too many National Review readers believe, she embarrassed the home
team. Solution: After Maher apologizes for apologizing and resigns, Politically
Incorrect should hire the truly politically incorrect Coulter. Finally,
on the networks, I don't understand why Condoleezza Rice didn't include Al
Jazeera in the request to suppress the bin Laden tapes. It's true that
Washington doesn't control the Qatar network, but it doesn't control the major
US networks either, and surely Al Jazeera has a higher quotient of terrorist
viewers. Originally, I thought the administration's request had to do with not
showing enemy propaganda, and I wondered whether this meant that the networks'
much-vaunted claims of political neutrality--giving equal time to both sides in
a dispute--stopped at the water's edge. But the administration said the issue
had to do less with propaganda than with national security, claiming that bin
Laden might be using the occasion to send a message by secret code. Since
potential terrorists can still get bin Laden's message via Al Jazeera and via
the Internet, I am baffled as to the networks' true motives, unless, like Maher,
his advertisers and National Review, they are also in the controversy-avoidance
business. What this incident does show is that you don't need media concentration to have homogenization of the news. The simultaneous capitulation of all the major TV networks proves that concentration or no concentration, they are perfectly capable of marching in lockstep on their own. Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index We want to know what you think of this article.
|