If people feel that mainstream media is ignoring alternative politics, then they can now create their own media. But how should traditional journalism respond? Should it change its ideas of impartiality to reflect the real diversity of contemporary politics? This is Polis Summer School student Steven Linett’s course paper that tackles this complex problem, citing media around the rise of US Militia movement

Linett, Steven

LSE Research Online

Polis Summer School2010-7-20US Militia, Wikileaks and the Tea Party: how alternative newmedia is destroying traditional ideas objectivity (guest blog)blogs.lse.ac.uk /polis/2010/07/20/us-militia-wikileaks-and-the-tea-party-how-alternative-new-media-is-destroying-traditional-ideas-objectivity-guest-blog/If people feel that mainstream media is ignoring alternative politics, then theycan now create their own media. But how should traditional journalism respond?Should it change its ideas of impartiality to reflect the real diversity of contemporarypolitics? This is Polis Summer School student Steven Linett’s course paper that tacklesthis complex problem, citing media around the rise of US Militia movement.How impartiality and objectivity in journalism changes in the New Mediaenvironment by Steven LinettThe new media environment has helped level the playing field for those outside themainstream media to publish and disseminate their views to the world.  Thisenvironment appears to be a godsend for the participatory models of democracy, which“emphasize the importance of ‘real’ citizens’ participation and their more activeinvolvement in democracy (Barber 1984).  As such, they criticize the radical separation of citizens from power, theelites and democratic institutions through representation” (Bailey, et al. 2008).But for all the opportunities it offers, problems arise when outsiders can challenge viewpoints that previously fellwithin the “preferred view of ‘reality’” (Bailey, et al. 2008).  Because these new voices are not held to thedeontological codes of impartiality and objectivity to which mainstream journalists subscribe, they have an appealthat the traditional liberal-model journalist does not.The case of the recent growth of the militia movement in the United States has put the question to journalists as towhether they will adopt a public journalist role that can act either for or against hegemonic forces by adopting morefluid interpretations of impartiality in “its plea for reviving the public debate, for centralizing democracy as a universalvalue and for a tighter link between community and journalism” (Carpentier 207).Neutrality and BalanceWesterstahl describes factuality, the relevance and truthfulness, and impartiality, the balance and neutrality, as thetwo parts of objectivity (Carpentier 205).  Objectivity, though accepted as a key component of the journalist’sprofessional identity, has been critiqued for a variety of reasons: “Some say that journalism is not objective, othersthat journalism cannot be objective, and still others say that journalism should not be objective (Lichtenberg, 1996)”(Carpentier 206).Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, believes that interests and biases have compromised mainstreamjournalist’s ability to offer a full, transparent picture to the public.[1] Because of this, journalists have lost somecredibility and audiences may turn to alternative sources, which have thrived in the low-cost new media environment(Moss 2010). Alternative sources have the freedom to frame an issue as they wish.  A source may have a bias orinterest, something which audiences with a specific viewpoint or background may find to be more appealing than anobjective approach.Sacrificing IdealsThe mainstream media may frame the rise of alternative media sources as a zero-sum competition that sees gainsfor one side resulting in losses for the other.  If this were the case, the mainstream media would stand to lose much1/4more with the amount of money that it requires for production and distribution.  Instead of competing, themainstream media should use the opportunity to adopt a public journalist model that would allow it to coexist withalternative media.  While sacrificing the ideal of being as impartial and objective as possible, opening up channelsfor two-way communication will bring the mainstream media closer in line with the public.Encouraging participation will rekindle debate and conversation by bringing in new perspectives and ideas.  Bothsides will act as one another’s watchdog and both together will form the “fourth estate,” with the goal of keeping thegovernment and others in check.  The mainstream media has already rooted itself in new media platforms, and hasat times applauded alternative media sources, such as the mass Tweeting and blogging that occurred during theGreen Revolution in Iran.  Taking the next step and redefining objectivity and impartiality to allow for freerconversation and collaboration between mainstream and alternative media outlets would be a mutually beneficialdecision.  The case of the rise of the militia movement in the United States challenges the traditional notions ofobjectivity and impartiality in journalism.The militia movement’s libertarian ideology has allowed it to lay claim to being true patriots with its strictinterpretation of the United States’ Constitution and Bill of Rights.  They believe that an expanding governmentpresence threatens American’s individual rights, as the founding fathers intended them.  To protect their rights,citizens have formed local, statewide, and regional militias that are often heavily armed and prepared with tactics todefend their homes.  Militia’s individual identities depart from this point, ranging from white supremacists toconspiracy theorists to those who act as community support groups.Radical VoicesUnlike in the early 1990s when the movement started to gain strength, the new media environment has made iteasier for militias to disseminate their ideas and materials to a wide audience.  The media has a civic responsibilityto step in to expose radical voices in the militia movement for what they truly represent, rather than continue to allowthem to espouse their rhetoric on a free platform.  The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the movementhas grown from 149 to 512 groups since Obama’s election (Guarino 2010).As was the case in the 1990s, few media outlets even gave coverage to militias before a serious incident.  Then itwas Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing and this time, in March, the Hutarees were raided before theyacted on their plan to assassinate law enforcement officers in Michigan and incite a revolution.  The Hutarees havea strong web presence based at www.hutaree.com, complete with their Christian Patriot mission statement, a blog,training videos, group photos of members, and a forum with subsections that include the “Evil Jew Forum” and“Weapons: the things you kill with.”Despite the incendiary language that the Hutaree and other militias with similar views use on the Internet, presscoverage has been minimal.  The Washington Post and Newsweek (owned by The Post) are the only national printmedia to have mentioned the Hutaree in a report since the beginning of June.  Eugene Robinson’s March 30 columnsuggested, “the danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction—the right, notthe left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day—and, quite regularly, atTea Party rallies—is calibrated not to inform but to incite” (Robinson 2010).White Terror?Courtland Milloy’s June 23 op-ed piece considered the racial double standard, “On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Courtruled, in effect, that you can go to prison for trying to hold a peace talk with groups deemed to be foreign terroristorganizations. But if the group is a home-grown white terrorist organization, it’s apparently okay not just to associatewith them but also to offer them military training as they plot against the country” (Milloy 2010).In both cases, comments on The Post’s website were overwhelmingly critical of the writer’s opinions.  Without thesupport of other mainstream media sources, reason is losing out to extremist viewpoints that have entered the2/4discourse of national politics.  Those like Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann argue that citizensshould be “armed and dangerous because we need to fight back…if we’re not going to lose our country” (Somaiya2010).  When people who incite hatred and violence move into the mainstream discourse, it does not seemreasonable for journalists to stand down without fighting back.Following the Oklahoma City bombing, the mainstream media took a strong interest in the militias when it wasrevealed that Timothy McVeigh had loose ties to the movement.  The media framed the issue by including voicesfrom the mainstream community and from the deviant community, the militias.  “Celebrities” of the militia movementregularly appeared in the media, promoting rhetoric and conspiracies that helped to delegitimize and “other” themovement.  Reports often framed the militia members as racists, conspiracy theorists, extreme gun activists, orreligious fanatics.  They also connected them to the terrorist image by presenting them as a significant threatoperating with a loose network of cells.Do Not BelieveThough people do not believe everything the media tells them, “if people have little prior experience with an issue,the media’s influence is likely to be strong” (Chermak 2002).  By using a militia’s own new media productions inreports, a journalist could claim objectivity and impartiality, while also pushing an agenda in defense of democraticinstitutions.  The new media environment has given militias the opportunity to connect with like-minded people, but italso has the detrimental effect of being equally available to the general public.  If audiences are empowered by themedia to learn more about the movement from the source, militias will more likely than not end up otheringthemselves out of existence.The new media environment presents a number of opportunities and challenges for the journalistic values ofimpartiality and objectivity.  Alternative media sources have become readily accessible, but they are not held to thesame deontological codes as mainstream journalists.  To combat this problem, the mainstream must use new mediato its advantage by increasing community participation and encouraging a public journalism model.  Especially incases where extremist views begin to enter the mainstream discourse, journalists have a civic responsibility tosacrifice some objectivity and impartiality to protect liberal-democratic institutions and values.  If they seriouslyconsider themselves to be the “fourth estate,” journalists must use the means available to them to challenge militiasand others who incite hatred and violence.Works CitedBailey, Olga G., Bart Cammaert, and Nico Carpentier. “Four Approaches to Alternative Media.” UnderstandingAlternative Media. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill/Open UP, 2008. Print.Carpentier, Nico. “Identity, Contingency and Rigidity: the (counter-) Hegemonic Constructions of the Identity of theMedia Professional.” Journalism 6.2 (2005): 199-219. Print.Chermak, Steven M. Searching for a Demon: the Media Construction of the Militia Movement. Boston: NortheasternUP, 2002. Print.Guarino, Mark. “Hutaree: Why Is the Midwest a Hotbed of Militia Activity?” The Christian Science Monitor 30 Mar.2010. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 13 July 2010.Milloy, Courtland. “Tolerance of White Militias Exemplifies Racial Double Standard.” The Washington Post 22 June2010. 22 June 2010. Web. 13 July 2010.Moss, Stephen. “Julian Assange: the Whistleblower.” Latest News, Comment and Reviews from the Guardian |Guardian.co.uk. Guardian, 14 July 2010. Web. 14 July 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/14/julian-assange-whistleblower-wikileaks>.3/4Robinson, Eugene. “The Hutaree Militia and the Rising Risk of Far-right Violence.” The Washington Post 30 Mar.2010. 30 Mar. 2010. Web. 13 July 2010.Somaiya, Ravi. “The New Revolutionaries.” Newsweek – National News, World News, Business, Health,Technology, Entertainment and More – Newsweek. 4 July 2010. Web. 14 July 2010.<http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/04/the-new-revolutionaries.html>.[1] “Journalists…let other people take the risks and then take the credit.  They have been letting the state, bigbusiness, vested interests get away with it for too long, and a network of hackers and whistleblowers hunched overcomputers, making sense of complex data and with a mission to make it freely available, is now ready to do a betterjob” (Moss 2010).Copyright © 2014 London School of Economics and Political Science4/4

US Militia, Wikileaks and the Tea Party: how alternative new media is destroying traditional ideas objectivity (guest blog)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online