
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Written 11:35 pm Feb 19, 1991 by greenbase in cdp:mideast.media 


 GP PUNDIT WATCH #4 
 A Weekly Analysis of Persian Gulf News Coverage 


 "There is a risk, in this rush to judgment, of distortion, 
misunderstanding, blunder, and confusion of values. The joke at NBC used to 
be that if the network could only get a sponsor, the next war in the Middle 
East would be 'brought to you live.'" 

 (Former NBC reporter Marvin Kalb, assessing TV coverage in the 
introductionto the 1990 book "The Media and Foreign Policy [St. Martin's 
Press]).  

 Well, Mr. Kalb, the next war in the Middle East is being brought to us 
live, but the sponsors are another matter. This week in Pundit Watch 4, 
we'll examine the effect of the war on advertisers, and vice versa. We'll 
also look at the Network's Civilian Pundits-in-Residence at the Pentagon, 
and the war's acceleration of the disappearance of liberal commentators.  

 "People who watch Rambo movies, people who watch war on TV, some of these 
fellows who have never owned a draft card but are these great military 
analysts that we run into in our nation's capital who write columns 
advocating war, they don't know what the hell they're talking about." Gen. 
Norman Schwarzkopf (2/11 US News & World Report).  

 THIS WEEK IN THE PUNDIT TRENCHES The crinkling of paper could be heard all 
over Washington Friday morning. After Iraq's strings-attached peace proposal 
raised, then dashed hopes for peace, the five seers of the McLaughlin Group 
tossed out their "I Knew It All Along" speeches prepared for that evening's 
show.Pat Buchanan suggested that Saddam's peace ploy was an attempt to get 
out of Kuwait "with honor." The former Nixon speechwriter and caddy did not 
intend any Vietnam irony. Buchanan also flaunted his First Amendment wisdom, 
offering a novel defense of CNN's Baghdad correspondent Peter Arnett. "It is 
not the function of CNN to start pulling their guys out. If they're hurting 
the war effort, the President should (pull them out)." Jack Germond, offered 
a genuinely articulate defense of Arnett, but referred to his patriotism. 
Like NBC's Garrick Utley on Meet the Press a week earlier, Germond forgot 
that Arnett is a New Zealander.The intrepid Buchanan offered a prediction of 
ground war "before next week." Germond predicted an Iraqi coup "within the 
next two weeks." But the week's most enlightened comment came from Tom 
Friedman on the PBS show "Washington Week in Review." Friedman, whose varied 
resume includes a stint developing cultural sensitivity as a New York Times 
Middle East correspondent, likened the war of words in the Middle East to 
"arguing over a carpet." 

 SPONSORING THE WAR Some of the first stateside casualties of the Gulf war 
were the ad revenues of the major news organizations. Each of the networks 
has reported huge financial losses since the beginning of the conflict. The 
networks are now scrambling to "sell" the war to advertisers. Promises to 
compromise editorial integrity may be part of the sales pitch.  

 Gun-shy advertisers began pulling ads even before shots were fired, worried 
that hawking Big Mac attacks might seem ghoulish juxtaposed against news 
footage of Scud attacks. The networks delivered a 15% increase in viewers 
the first week of the war, yet losses from advertising revenues combined 
with the exceptional cost of covering the war could put losses as high as 
$1-3 million per day. The travel industry and oil companies have led the 
retreat. TWA put all advertising on hold with the outbreak of the war. Oil 
companies have scaled advertising back considerably, perhaps not wanting to 
seem overly gleeful about a war that's already boosted fourth quarter 
profits for some upwards of 50% for some oil companies (See Pundit Watch II) 

 Paradoxically, CNN, which appeals to clients accustomed to advertising 
during news programming, has attracted a surge in new advertisers, but is 
still losing money. CNN was able to jack up ad rates for 30-second 
commercials from between $4,000 to $5,000 before the war to $20,000 to 
$60,000 today for new clients.  

 However, expanded war coverage has bumped more than 14,000 of CNN's 
commercials prompting losses of up to $500,000 a week, according to 
Advertising Age (2/4).  

 Since the first week of the war, networks have cut back on war updates that 
pre-empted entertainment programming and dumped news specials about the war. 
 But even with these concessions and the dearth of actual combat images, 
advertisers still aren't buying. Advertising Age (2/4) reported that 
advertising giants like Procter & Gamble Co., General Motors Corp. and 
McDonalds are exercising options that allow them to cancel up to 50% of 
advanced advertising commitments 90days before the new quarter starts on 
April 1.  

 The networks have launched a counter-offensive to lure back sponsors 
whichmay threaten both the extent and the editorial integrity of their war 
coverage.  Broadcasting (2/21) reported that CBS and NBC sent letters 
similar to ABC's which assured clients that "no commercial breaks will be 
scheduled immediately before or after scenes of actions." 

 "After a segment about a chemical attack that includes a shot of a 
disfigured face, it might not be the best time to talk about Oil of Olay 
skin care," Richard Dale, an ad executive with Deutsch Advertising, told the 
New York Times (2/7). Ironically, as James Workman reported in the New 
Republic (2/18) an ad for Vaseline Intensive Care "to reduce that itchy, 
burning sensation" aired rightafter a CNN report on missile attacks in Tel 
Aviv that included a demonstration on how to minimize skin damage from gas 
attacks.  

 CBS went a step further, hinting it would provide plenty of patriotic 
coverage. Network execs assured advertisers that special programming could 
be tailored so commercials could be inserted after segments "that were 
specially produced with upbeat images or messages about the war, like 
patriotic images from the home front," wrote Bill Carter in the New York 
Times (2/7) 

 If in their desperation the networks are willing to play on patriotism in 
special news programming, it seems only logical to assume that regular news 
programming, which is losing money on a nightly basis, will also come under 
pressure to produce more happy news. This might explain why television has 
so thoroughly dismissed the peace movement, while playing up pro-war 
demonstrations. And what about the score in the Scud-Patriot game? Aerial 
duels continue over Israel,but television coverage of the attacks has 
dropped off dramatically, despite the fact that the Scud attacks account for 
what were until this week some of the only civilian bomb damage footage of 
the war.  

 A Network executive at ABC told Pundit Watch that the Network's number 1 
position protects news division programming. "We have the luxury of placing 
programming on the air that we know won't be profitable." For example, prior 
to theNovember elections ABC ran a special on the abortion issue that most 
advertisers wouldn't touch.  

 Peter Lund, executive vice-president of CBS broadcasting group, in 
explaining why CBS would produce less prime-time news specials despite good 
ratings, revealed just how beholden his news division has become to 
sponsors. "In fairness to our shareholders, we can't lose $1 million every 
time we do one of them, and we are losing an easy million between what we 
lose in ad revenue and the production costs." (NYT 2/7) 

 This corporate attitude completely contradicts the original mandate of 
network news, Mike Schiffer of NYU's Center for War Peace and the News Media 
told Pundit Watch. Network news divisions were originally established to 
provide a public service in return for the broadcaster's right to use the 
airwaves.  

 Traditionally it was expected that revenue from entertainment programming 
would carry the news divisions.  

 "When people are pulling advertising out from news programs and networks 
are saying that news programs have to carry themselves, it can have a 
devastating effect," Schiffer said. "One would hope that at some point 
somebody in there,whether Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings, would stand up and 
say 'we have to get the news out even if we are losing a 1 million a day.' " 

 The Pentagon "Correspondents" 

 Wolf Blitzer of CNN may have become an instant household figure in the 
waragainst Iraq, but Bob Zelnick of ABC, Dave Martin of CBS, and Fred 
Francis of NBC are the regular troops deployed in Room 2E770 at the 
Pentagon.  Reinforced by second string stand-ins during the round-the-clock 
vigil, these reporters get a few minutes nightly to provide military advice 
to the network anchors, and to the American people.  

 Pentagon reporting is not the front lines -- there are no gas masks, no 
on-location pictures of fighter aircraft or missiles, never an interview 
with thefoot "soldiers" populating the Pentagon battlefield. It is what the 
Pentagon correspondents have to say on the air, usually as talking heads, 
that is valued.  

 The Pentagon jocks are also valued for their inside information; their 
stories are always punctuated with talk of special "sources" and full of 
obscure information. They shy away from the laudatory commentary on US 
weaponry that befalls the anchors and the second string. Dan Rather 
practically gushed on the first night of the war about the F-15 fighter: 
"It's the best U.S. fighter.  It's generally considered, on a worldwide 
basis, to be the best in the world." Kate Couric, the Today Show's new 
bright star and former short-timer in the Pentagon, reported on February 17 
from the Pentagon that Operation Desert Storm "was virtually flawless." On 
February 5, Tom Brokaw opened the Nightly News saying that "America's 
weapons of war are performing with flying colors so far." Andrea Mitchell 
then described the E-8 JSTARs ground surveillance plane, a system most 
people nodoubt had never heard of, stating that it "has worked well in the 
desert." 

 The Pentagon correspondents have stayed away from making too many 
predictions -- Clever little environmental geeks might look back and see 
what they said.  Besides, that's what all the "consultants" are paid to do. 
Nonetheless, they can't always resist, though they should. For example, Fred 
Francis, on the firstnight of the war, said that the war plan was "evolving 
a lot slower than we anticipated that it would." In all fairness, the most 
accurate reporting has comefrom Dave Martin at CBS. He provided a 
particularly sober assessment on 22 January that the air campaign would take 
weeks before a ground offensive could be ordered: 

 "Pentagon officials say the major success so far has been 
 the small number of aircraft lost. But they acknowledge not 
 everything is going according to plan. In at least one 
 instance, the wrong building was hit. And there is 
 disappointment with the number of bridges destroyed. Also 
 this search for Iraq's SCUD missile launchers has turned 
 into what one source called a, quote, very serious 
 diversion." 

 Bob Zelnick's Military "AWACs is certainly one," incorrectly referring to 
the airborne radar plane as an electronic warfare plane, January 16.  

 "Pentagon officials privately say cluster bombs and cruise missiles have 
rendered 80 percent of Iraq's combat aircraft useless,...," although a few 
days later the Pentagon reported officially that only a handful of planes 
had been destroyed, January 17.  

 "...the U.S. has a much better chance that the Israelis of finding them 
[SCUD missiles] because the U.S. night-vision equipment is much better and 
their ability to search armed by escorts is also superior to the Israelis'," 
falsely reporting supposed US advantages over Israel (who had bombed an 
Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 using US supplied weapons, the very same ones 
in Saudi Arabia), January 18.  

 "[While the US] does have radar-imaging and infrared equipment not affected 
by clouds, these systems are not as clear and take longer to interpret," 
explaining the effects of weather on the US assessment of the bombing, yet 
wrong about both accuracy and timing, January 21. "Pentagon officials 
say...the [Iraqi Republican Guards have been pinned down, preventing them 
from launching an offensive before the U.S. is ready," launching an attack?, 
January 22.  

 "Now Iraq is operating from only five of its more than 50 air 
facilities,"after the Pentagon reported that activity had been seen at five 
airfields the day before, not that only five were operable, January 23.  

 "Pentagon officials privately express concern that the stock of advanced 
Patriot missiles is dangerously low," (the Pentagon said phooey), January 
25.  

 "Pentagon sources say that military and intelligence officials disagree 
about the need to extend the bombing campaign and delay the ground offensive 
in order to reduce the fighting condition of Iraqi forces enough to lower 
U.S.  casualties substantially," (no such controversy exists), February 5.  

 Carpet Bombing Watch Brokaw: "Is it likely that we'll hear of some carpet 
bombing before too long?..." 

 Francis: "That's part of the overall war plan, that they would be 
carpet-bombed at some point. But I don't think that would happen in the 
initial stages of combat." January 16.  

 "B-52s carrying 100,000 pounds of bombs apiece took buildings and 
carpet-bombed Iraqi armored units in Kuwait..." Kate Couric contradicting 
Fred on NBC, January 17 "the campaign to liberate Kuwait has entered a new 
and bloodier phase, as the U.S. begins carpet-bombing Iraqi troops." Dave 
Martin, January 19, first reporting carpet bombing.  

 "B-52s perform area carpet-bombing against troops and supply 
concentrations, as well as refueling centers." Bob Zelnick, January 20, a 
carpet bombing Johnny come lately.  

 "B-52s flew round-the-clock raids on Iraq's elite tank divisions today. One 
source said carpet-bombing," explosives saturating several-square-mile 
areas,was expected to be very effective." Fred Francis, January 22, finally 
getting with the program.  

 Good Intelligence 

 "The Iraqi government was reported around midday today to be trying to move 
chemical weapons within reach of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia." (It didn't) 
Dan Rather, January 16.  

 "A senior Air Force commander here predicted that the air war, the 
establishing (sic) superiority in the air would take the Air Force 
approximately two days." (It didn't) Bob Simon, January 16.  

 "...you can't fly 2000 sorties when you begin the attack at 7:00 P.M. 
Eastern Time. Three's just not enough hours in the black night to do that." 
(We did)Fred Francis, January 16.  

 "military leaders tell NBC News tonight that Iraq may, may have been 
preparing a backdoor attack against the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf with 
Iran's complicity." (They didn't) Fred Francis, January 20.  

 "While the air war is expected to continue for at least another week, U.S.  
troops, tens of thousands of them, moved closer to the Kuwaiti border, 
poised for a ground attack." (Still waiting) Fred Francis, January 20.  

 "Pentagon officials say that Saddam may launch another ground attack into 
Saudi Arabia sometime in the next 48 hours." (They didn't) Fred Francis, 31 
January.  

 Really Good Intelligence: 

 "...if one finds an important target that has a key communications node, a 
key area where communications come together, and it happens to be in an area 
where civilians live, it would still be important, I believe, for the United 
States to take that out." Air Force General Michael Dugan, CBS Consultant, 
January 16.  

 Could you explain that again, Fred?  

 "...to be successful, they have to take out the leader of the country 
because, especially in this case, this man's word is law. And if they have 
to ask for surrender, they want to ask from this man. Or if he's not there, 
they hope the country just sort of crumbles, the military leadership 
crumbles around him." Fred Francis, January 16 (answering a question from 
Brokaw on whether the US was targeting Saddam Hussein).  

 "...before a great and bloody land battle, U.S. forces are trying to talk 
the Iraqis into surrendering." January 20.  

 "One Administration concern is that Libya might attack Israel, and in 
thatway try to break apart the coalition. The [US aircraft carrier] 
Forrestal could be in the way of that attack." January 20.  

 TALK FROM THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE RADIO DIAL Often referred to as one of 
America's last truly democratic institutions, talk radio serves as a sort of 
a national village green where political ideas from the left, right, and 
center canbe exchanged. But for the last twenty years, there are increasing 
indications that business and political pressures have surrounded the 
village green with "Keep Right" signs.  

 That evidence came home to Columbus, OH talk show host Jim Bleikamp on 
thewar's opening day. Bleikamp, a liberal weeknight talk host on WTVN Radio, 
interviewed local Congressman John Kasich on Jan. 16. An early supporter of 
continued sanctions against Iraq, Kasich switched to a pro-war stance before 
the 16th.Bleikamp's questioning on the Congressman's switch prompted station 
managementto suspend him for one day. Bleikamp resigned in protest, 
admitting that he hadmade a "mildly sarcastic" remark to Kasich, but 
insisted that he "acted accordingly." 

 Bleikamp's resignation-in-protest is at least the second war- related 
lossof a liberal media voice. Columnist Warren Hinckle, whose discipline by 
the SanFrancisco Examiner was reported in PW 3, has been ordered to take a 
"vacation" by the paper. But Bleikamp noted that it's not likely that more 
liberal commercial talkshow hosts will be lost. "There aren't many 
left-of-center talkshow hosts left in the country," he said.  

 Indeed, liberal hosts like Mike Malloy of Atlanta's WSB and Gloria 
Kennedyof WALE in Providence have disappeared in recent years, replaced 
either by network programming or more politically neutral local hosts. 
National talk radio's hottest commodity, Rush Limbaugh, is a conservative 
whose bombastic style makes Morton Downey, Jr. look like Dick Cavett. Pat 
Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network has also gotten into the act, 
stringing together a struggling three-station network in Washington, 
Charlotte, NC and Oklahoma City.  

 Jim Ackerman, a former radio talker in West Palm Beach, FL and St. Louis, 
agreed that liberal talkshow hosts are a vanishing species. "A couple of 
decadesago, you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative on talk radio, but 
now it's reversed. I've been asked at various stations to better represent 
the "common man's point of view." 

 Ackerman left talkshow hosting two years ago, and now works for Metro 
Traffic Control in South Florida. Despite acknowledging strong political 
pressure for his viewpoints, Ackerman said that his decision to leave was 
his own. "At one station, shortly after the election of Reagan, I was 
pointing out the shortcomings of Reagan Administration policy," said 
Ackerman. "I was asked flat out by the Program Director "'Can't you say 
something nice about the President?'" 

 "Most program directors are trying to balance a very tight line. It's 
really hard to say (if the balance is changing).  

 It's hard to say how much is political, how much is from sponsors," 
continued Ackerman. "It's a line that moves a lot. A lot of talkshow hosts, 
for political survival, take a more conservative position. I recall one host 
saying, "'If I blurted out my real feelings, I'd be in trouble.'" 

 Pat Aufderheide, a writer and media expert with the Benton Foundation, said 
that talk radio's conservative domination is merely a sign of the times. 
"Talk radio works on opinion, not neutrality." 

 Both Ackerman and Bleikamp said that radio program directors are walking 
atightrope between the commercial concerns of running a profitable radio 
station and representing a wide range of opinions. "The commercial radio 
industry tries very hard to mirror the public mood, and the country is 
pretty conservative -- more so with the war," said Bleikamp.  

 But Bleikamp expressed discomfort with talk radio's blurred line between 
journalism and commerce. "There is a very serious conservative bias in 
American talk radio," he said. "People who are concerned about fairness in 
journalism should be concerned about this." 

 A MERCENARY MAG AT THE FRONT: "Over the last three days the local tv 
networks in Dhahran have discontinued the continual, around-the-clock news 
coverageof the war and started playing reruns of old American sitcoms. CNN, 
the prime source of news in this area, has been reduced to late night and 
early morning coverage. This may be due to reports that local merchants are 
having difficulty getting their employees to report to work. One Saudi firm 
opted to imprison several employees who refused to come to work. But it also 
may be that something isup." (Soldier of Fortune Magazine correspondent 
Steve Elswick in Dhahran, 1/22.) 

 WITHHOLDING INFORMATION THAT WOULD DAMAGE SECURITY: "Q: Does General 
Schwarzkopf ..... weigh 250 pounds? A: General Schwarzkopf is a big man, but 
regulations prohibit the disclosure of his weight." (Walter Scott's 
Personality Parade, Parade Mag., 2/10) 

 NEWSWEEK TAKES A DIFFERENT LOOK AT BLINKING: PW3 cited a Time Magazine 
report suggesting that Saddam Hussein's rapid blinking during his CNN 
interview (40 blinks per minute) was a sign of his imminent mental 
breakdown. The 2/18 Newsweek replied with its own version of what 
constitutes sanity. Newsweek cited a Boston College researcher who, while 
watching the same CNN interview, clocked Saddam at a dizzying 113 blinks. 
Newsweek also reported President Bush's top speed at 69 B/pM.  

 WE'RE NOT MAKING THIS UP: The BBC sent a memo to 37 local radio stations 
suggesting "caution" in airing these and other songs during wartime: "Bang 
Bang (My Baby Shot me Down) by Cher; "Give Peace a Chance" and "Imagine" by 
John Lennon; "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins; "Atomic" by Blondie; 
"Love is a Battlefield" by Pat Benatar; and the Bangles' "Walk Like an 
Egyptian." (Entertainment Weekly, 2/8).  

 The controversy over Pentagon press restrictions is scheduled to move to 
Capitol Hill on 2/20. The Senate Government Affairs Committee will hear from 
witnesses including former Most Trusted Man in America Walter Cronkite; 
Sydney Schanberg, a Pulitzer winner, columnist, and plaintiff in the suit 
challenging Pentagon restrictions; Pentagon flack Pete Williams; veteran war 
correspondent Malcolm Browne of the New York Times; war pundit Harry 
Summers; and former Vietnam-era Saigon Embassy flack Barry Zorthian.  

 THEOLOGICAL OBSERVATION OF THE WEEK: Christopher Hitchens greeted his 
CNN debate opponent Charlton Heston on 2/5 by declaring "It's not every day
one gets to debate the Middle East with Moses himself." (Washington Times, 
2/8).  


 NEXT WEEK: More Civilian Pundits; Pre-August Media views of Iraq. Writtenby 
Andrew Davis, Jeanne Whalen, Bill Arkin, Peter Dykstra, and Julie Brenegar.  


 End of text from cdp:mideast.media 
 Source: Peacenet Via New York Transfer News 718-448-2358, 718-448-2683
---

[ This file has travelled through the Socialism OnLine! BBS
  at +1-203-274-4639, 24 hours, 300-9600 bps HST/MNP/V42bis,
  on its way to you, the reader of this file.  Please share
  any information you have about "big brother."  Venceremos! ]



