Reporting On . . .

Reporting on…

By Byrne Washington

On November 12, U.S. bombs pounded Fallujah, and the Arab world reeled as Arafat was buried in Ramallah, but neither of these events, nor any of the other geopolitical crises unfolding across the globe, was significant enough to warrant a massive, 3-column banner headline in The San Francisco Chronicle. No. The scoop du jour most aggressively rammed down the public’s throat by our local Hearst Corporation affiliate, as well as mainstream papers across the country, was: Scott Peterson- totally fuckin’ guilty!

Not only was the Peterson trial deemed worthy of a rare, super-sized Chron headline, but it was also the only story humongous enough to spawn a mass media debate over whether it was getting too much coverage. In the days following the verdict, 24-hour cable news pundits furrowed their waxy eyebrows in deep contemplation and begged the question: “Is the media paying too much attention to Scott Peterson?” In other words, reporters were reporting on other reporters who were reporting too much about Scott Peterson (please note- any time any form of the word “reports” appears in this column in regards to mainstream media, it’s safe to mentally put those sarcastic quote marks around it). As if this hall of mirrors couldn’t go any deeper, the Scott Petersen saga has now inspired this reflection about reporters who report about other reporters who report too much on Scott Peterson.

So what’s the point of adding one more crank in a media circle jerk? Even the fucking paperboy knows the Peterson story was a cow that got squeezed so dry, that by the end it was shooting powdered milk. When the guy dyed his hair blond, the media acted like he’d just confessed to killing Tupac. Well, sometimes the media chooses to analyze itself because narcissism is easier to produce than journalism, but sometimes we’re left with no other options.

Last summer, I went to Monterey, where the Federal Communications Commission hid its only conference on localism for the entire West Coast. Supposedly, the point of this hearing (one of five held nationwide) was to gather public opinion on the quality of local media coverage for determining future recommendations to Congress regarding media ownership (de)regulation. Despite being concealed under the radar of the general public by its remote location and insufficient notification, a handful of media activists- mostly underground journalists, documentarians, pirate DJs, and academics- pounced upon this rare opportunity to speak directly to the government body in charge of regulating the content of the airwaves. Unfortunately, this “opportunity to speak with the FCC” (the three commissioners who showed up, excluding Chairman Michael Powell) was limited to two-minute comments, selected by a lottery system. Since most of us showed up 11 hours before the conference was scheduled to begin, to ensure access to the very limited number of tickets available, the grounds surrounding the Monterey Conference Center were teeming with media-makers all day long.

Getting back to the media circle jerk, the FCC commissioners refused to grant interviews with any non-corporate media. They actually cancelled an interview with a pirate DJ from Freak Radio Santa Cruz, with the explanation, “We know all about you.” So what did we do? We interviewed each other. Throughout the day, journalists took turns interviewing and being interviewed. After all, we were the ones being directly affected by media ownership deregulation, which has allowed corporate conglomerates to consolidate news rooms, de-emphasizing ‘real’ journalism, like public affairs coverage, in favor of McNews. So, as members of the media, we were all legitimate sources. By the time the cops opened the doors to the heavily-patrolled hearing, I had interviewed other media makers for a newspaper article and a documentary, and I had been interviewed for a radio show, a cable access program, and a book. I actually thought about interviewing myself and making a one-man play about it.

Sure, after the conference was over, I sought sources outside of the media activist world, and talked to union leaders, politicians, and “concerned citizens,” but the underground media had been marginalized by the FCC to the point where, lacking other resources, the only “news” we could gather was the opinions of our own colleagues, although considering the circumstances, this actually turned out to be a pretty valid angle.

Every industry, especially one with such a vast and complex set of responsibilities as the media, need analyze itself. The reason for looking in the mirror, though, should be critical evaluation, not hypocritical narcissism. Networks like CNN Headline News barely masquerade the fact that they’ve evolved into mildly politicized clones of Entertainment Tonight. In this climate, the Peterson trial was a soap opera focused on quack controversies like “Is Scott Too Sexy to be Found Guilty,” instead of how “Laci and Connor’s Law” might be the first slide in the slippery slope of reversing reproductive rights granted by Roe v. Wade. Did the media spend too much time talking about Scott Peterson? Yes, but only because it wasn’t really saying anything.