The Sociology of Journalism

Newspapers, TV and media in general are not politically or culturally neutral, and as a matter of fact it is impossible for them to be neutral – in the very least the Heisenberg principle would apply. The question arises about:
*the nature of the bias 
*what are the instituional reasons for this to occur
*the permanence of this behavior in institutions even when the actors change
*the motivations and incentives for journalists and editors to fulfill what amounts to be a propaganda role. 
The list below seeks to document the various approaches to understanding of what can be termed the sociology of journalism.
==Herman and Chomsky model==
==Re-engineering and depoliticizing Swedish media==
On 30 April 2000, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of Vietnam's reunification, Swedish radio broadcast five programs about the Vietnam war that had these elements in common:
*they elicited sorrow for the American suffering in Vietnam
*they didn't quote a single Vietnamese person
*they didn't quote a single Swedish anti-Vietnam war protestor
*suggested erroneous historical parallels
Given that Sweden during the 1970s was at the forefront confronting the American war of aggression, and that Olof Palme took on a daring confrontational stance against the US, the question arises about how the media narrative changed so much. The Nordic News Network sought to analyse this issue and pursued this by (1) challenging the journalists and editors involved in producing the Vietnam War remembrance series, and (2) organizing a conference attracting various scholars and writers to discuss Swedish media and its changing character. Most of the materials emanating from the conference are available online:
*overviewU.S. influence over Swedish news media (Accessed: 14 January 2008)
*discussion about the Swedish radio programsUse the buttons on the main page for navigation
*a discussion about the films about the Vietnam war shown on Swedish television, e.g., the Deer Hunter, Rambo, etc.
*Philip Agee's analysis of how the CIA and its related organizations set out to influence and change Swedish media.
*Recommendations produced to change Swedish TV
==How to "get" coverage that "sees it our way"==
There are several sources of bias:
*the journalist's ideology
*the requirements from the editor
*the demands from the media owner
*influence from outside agencies
**with hostile intent
**with symbiotic relationship
An outside agency seeking to influence the coverage of a key topic often positions itself to provide resources to the media producer and their journalists. The link can also be more direct, e.g., offering to purchase advertising space, offer "access". In return the outside agency seeks to obtain favorable coverage. The outside agency and also the media producer often seek to produce a symbiotic relationship.
Israeli propagandists exploit the symbiotic relationship in many ways.
# The GPO Each foreign journalist working in Israel has to be vetted and then is assigned to a General Press Officer (GPO). The vetting process is already a first filter in obtaining the desired coverage -- anyone viewed as potentially hostile or too independent doesn’t obtain accreditation; it is very difficult for a free-lance or someone from the left press to obtain accreditation. After this stage, the GPO acts as a monitor of future coverage and often interacts with journalists. The GPO scrutinizes issues of language, emphasis, coverage, and these are all discussed with the journalist. The GPO is also a gatekeeper; if the GPO determines that the journalist seeks to cover something favorable, then all doors are opened, background material provided, even so far as to providing articles that could easily be put together into a final article/or news item. That is, the GPO marshals resources to make the journalists' life easier. On the other hand, when the GPO disagrees with the coverage to date of a given journalist, then a series of ratcheting obstructions are put in place making the journalist's work harder. The first level is discussion about the content of an article with keen attention to the type of language used. The second level is the denial of access and non-cooperation in terms of supplying reference materials. Third is harassment -- the treatment at border crossings or the airport becomes rough. During the first intifada Gloria Emerson, an eminent American journalist and war correspondent, chose to write about the Palestinians and subsequently all the stages of obstruction were applied to her.Gloria Emerson discussion with Paul de Rooij in September 1989 in Gaza. The process culminated with strip searching at the airport, stealing her notes, and intimidating behavior at border crossings.The GPOs are very smooth operators and they are selected to have mostly the same background as the journalists they are supposed to shepherd. Recently, when an English journalist with an Cambridge background was posted to Jerusalem, his GPO was also of English origin and with an Cambridge education.In 2003, Paul de Rooij discussed the GPO relationship with an English-Jew, Cambridge graduate, who migrated to Israel for ideological reasons. His first years in Israel he worked as a GPO and then advanced to more senior levels in media control. He admitted that the GPOs were assigned according to the similarity in backgrounds. During the first intifada, an American-Texan TV journalist with a major US network was posted to Jerusalem a GPO with a very good Texan accent had been assigned to him. Furthermore, the GPOs sought to socialize with the journalist, but once the relationship soured because of the type of coverage produced, the relationship became cooler and eliciting immediate feedback from the GPO to discuss the article. Again, much attention was paid to the type of words used.
# Indoctrination -- or see it our way. Every year several zionist agencies pay travel expenses for journalists to visit Israel and to be exposed to the Israeli point of view. The most prominent of such agencies is Project Interchange which targets key social groups around the world, but specially focused on the United States, for an extended indoctrination process. Journalists are the principal group targeted by this operation.
#The soft sell: Elaine McArdle writes:
::A key tool in the subtle art of persuasion, he said, is reciprocity: offer someone a pleasant experience or gift and they feel an almost irresistible obligation to return the favor. The norm of reciprocity cuts across every culture, and the value of the gift is irrelevant: a cup of coffee is as effective as an extravagant trip. Another tool is to provide friendship and human connection - it's inevitable that a bond will develop when you spend substantial time with someone, especially in a foreign place, where you depend on them. In the case of the AIPAC junket, it was a one-two punch: an unforgettable and emotionally charged week with warm, likable people - generous hosts and tour guides whom I worried about after returning to the safety of life in Massachusetts.Elaine McArdle, I was lobbied by the 'Israel lobby', Boston Globe, 7 October 2007
:Jeffrey Blankfort comments about McArdle's experience:
::This is an important article because the writer questions how she has been influenced by an all expenses trip to Israel paid for by AIPAC, as she clearly has.Blankfort, email list, 8 October 2007.
==Journalistic and editorial sight-aversion at the Globe and Mail==
When a newspaper has a correspondent in a minor city it is considered a big deal. The Globe and Mail has sent Mark MacKinnon intermittently to Beirut, and the curios aspect of his reporting is that he focuses on demonstrations and actions by "pro-Western", "Cedar Revolution" or "free market" forces. The Globe also tends to highlight stories favoring such groups on its front page. The opposite holds for Lebanon's other actors, e.g., Hezbollah, here MacKinnon's reports are brief and superficial, and the small articles are only published in the inside pages of the Globe. The last feature is the fact that MacKinnon minimizes mention of the Israeli aggression in Lebanon and the reaction of the local population. Christoff and Jay state:
: Today, a responsible journalist--or a minimally competent one--would have to ask why residents of the very same villages bombed by Israel and described by MacKinnon above are now demonstrating for political change in Beirut.It's hard to imagine that MacKinnon is ignorant of this direct connection between the current demonstrations and the recent Israeli attack. A more likely explanation is that he is conscious of the interests of his own career, knows what his editors want to hear, and is willing to severely compromise his own journalism in service of both. If Mackinnon were to be replaced, his successor may have a slightly different journalistic style. The ideological and political exigencies of the Globe and Mail's editorial board, however, would remain. We predict the result would hardly be an improvement, regardless of the skill of the correspondent.Stefan Christoff and Dru Oja Jay, The Manichean Middle East of Mark MacKinnon, Electronic Intifada, 3 January 2007.
==References and Resources==
===Resources===
*Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The political economy of the mass media, Pantheon Press, 1988.
*David Edwards and David Cromwell, Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media, Pluto Press, 2006.
===References===