|
|
Eric Alterman and Brock Meeks had trouble recently writing independently about their boss, Bill Gates. Their difficulties are an example of a problem that pervades the media.
When readers clicked on the headline, to go to the inside page, they were taken to another, slightly more complete, headline. Next to it was a caricature of what, presumably, was Bill Gates, his tentacle-like cables wrapped around a computer, with an illustration of the world on the monitor. "Bill Gates gives, could give more," the headline asserted. "Bill Gates' gift to libraries is impressive, but ultimately it may be more about marketing than anything else, says Eric Alterman," said the accompanying block of text. Since Bill Gates runs, and owns much of, Microsoft and Microsoft (along with NBC) owns MSNBC, this looked like it might be an actual outbreak of editorial integrity -- a major media organization taking on the man who pulls its purse strings. But another click that took readers to the column in question revealed that it is more complex than that. The column does criticize Gates, to a limited degree, and it raises questions about a contribution he is making to libraries. But, along the way, it also raises questions about whether MSNBC can ever cover the world of computers and the Internet with an independent voice, when it has to answer to someone who is at the center of that world. Those questions are raised almost immediately, since the column begins with MSNBC writer, Eric Alterman, expressing great pain at having to criticize his boss. "I must admit I’ve had happier moments than the one this morning when my editor at MSNBC called to ask what I thought of Bill Gates’ announcement that he was giving America’s less-affluent public libraries $200 million to buy new computers," Alterman starts off. "It’s not that I think it’s a bad idea," he continues. "Public libraries are perhaps America’s most under-appreciated institutions. They save lives, they open worlds, they combat ignorance and prejudice, and they do it for less than the producers of 'Waterworld' spent on Perrier. Any decision to give them anything — even books — is a good one." "But Bill Gates is (a) special case. In the first place, he is a hard guy to criticize, since he runs Microsoft, the company that owns half of MSNBC, the company I work for as an online and on-air commentator. Since I just closed on a new home, this is a matter of more than academic concern. But if Gates could put me in the poorhouse before breakfast — and, honestly, I have no reason to think he would — he also could do a great deal for philanthropy in this country without feeling a pinch in his bank book. So far, however, he hasn’t." Alterman ends his column with another reference to how Gates might respond to his criticisms. "In any case, Bill, let’s hear it for the First Amendment," he writes Now, one can argue that Eric Alterman is merely adding the personal touch with all this, letting the reader in on his feelings as he writes the column. And that's certainly a nice segue from a description of how Gates could put him in the poorhouse to a proscription for how Gates should be helping to lift other people out of the poorhouse. But it doesn't take a journalism degree to read another message that underlies this expression of Alterman's feelings: This column isn’t my fault, Mr. Gates, it all but screams out. It was handed to me by my editor. Try to ‘put me in the poorhouse’, in response to my criticism, it says, and you will be attacking the first amendment rights of a writer. And not just any writer, but a financially vulnerable writer who was put on the spot by his editor and would, apparently, think -- but not write -- these criticisms on his own. As Alterman depicts this David and Goliath scenario, most readers will undoubtedly sympathize with him and take his side. That is all the more true because many of them also feel small and vulnerable in relation to the multi-billionaire, and some wonder if there is a danger of retaliation when they publicly express negative opinions about powerful companies and individuals. Sandwiched between these verbal maneuvers, Alterman offers a fairly straightforward and competently argued case against Gates' donation of software and of money for computers, which will go to libraries serving poor areas. It looks too much like marketing, since it will help socialize young people into becoming future consumers who will use Microsoft products, Alterman argues. In addition, libraries and society need things that are a lot more basic than software, he writes. For Alterman, the fact that Gates would focus his efforts on such a self-interested contribution is an indicator of (I'm tempted to say a parable for) the lack of charity in affluent America. As he puts it: "Microsoft has made more millionaires than any company in history, but I doubt it has made more million-dollar givers. There is a hole at the center of the soul of America’s wealthiest, and it involves giving back…." "In our inner cities, children are forced to grow up in functional war zones run by drug lords and violent criminals. They need more than just better software in the library to give them a chance at the American Dream. They need a commitment from the rest of us. With all of his billions and the respect his achievements command, Bill Gates could be setting an example. He is rich. He is smart. He is King of the Hill of the most competitive business in the world….By failing to take giving as seriously as he takes making money, Gates is missing an opportunity to make an important difference in American society." So, in the end, Alterman does find his voice, to some degree, and is able to argue with passion that Gates' actions reveal something about a subject Alterman feels strongly about -- the failure of our society to help the poor. But what strikes me as so interesting about Alterman’s column isn’t what it tells us about the soul of millionaire/billionaire America, when it comes to giving. Rather, it is what it tells us about the relationship between this same affluent America and the news media. Today, it is the wealthy and the multi-billion dollar corporations that own most of the important media organizations, such as MSNBC. And they use their ownership, directly and indirectly, to control the words and images that audiences use to understand the larger world. The result is that the news that people get is even more censored than it might be otherwise. Journalists, who are already inclined to censor out criticism of themselves and each other, now also censor out and soften much of the criticism of the wealthy and the massive conglomerates that pay their salaries. And they are careful not to challenge the system, which has placed us all inside a virtual world in which the media is shaped by those with money and power, for their personal, financial and political ends. By graciously letting us look in on what is presumably his thought processes, Alterman has given us a chance to see how this situation is making it more difficult for people like him to engage in independent journalism. As he writes, when asked to do a piece about his rich and powerful boss: "Since I just closed on a new home, this is a matter of more than academic concern…." (My italics) It can be argued, of course, that interesting as Alterman's column may be, it does not, in itself, form a pattern that reveals anything about MSNBC. But it turns out that he isn't the only one suffering pangs of self-consciousness over referring to Bill Gates. In another MSNBC column, media writer Kathleen Quinn goes through the same kind of out-loud thought process as Alterman, in which she explains why it is okay to write negative things about her boss. This time, it isn’t the editor that made her do it. Rather, she tells us, it is Bill Gates himself who announced that it is okay for MSNBC journalists to express themselves. "About the Boss (Gates, not Springsteen)," Quinn's column is headlined. "Can Microsoft make the Web into a movie?" "Sooner or later, if you are a media columnist, you can’t and shouldn’t avoid writing about the boss," Quinn starts out. "And that’s doubly true when the boss is both the most-watched television news organization in the country (NBC) and the most-talked about new entry in the world of media (Microsoft) since Ted Turner launched CNN." "I think I can safely avoid NBC a while longer, but not Bill Gates: Just about every other week, he buys another media property," she continues. "So this week I write about the boss — fearlessly, because in the February issue of George magazine, when Gates was asked by John F. Kennedy Jr., if he might use MSNBC to reflect his own views, he replied: ‘ The people you hire to be editors and writers, they have their own opinions. That is their job.’ " " Thanks, boss. Enough said." Quinn’s phrasing sounds braver than Alterman’s. But the truth is, her column contains nothing fearless and no real criticism – just some discussion about whether Gates will get more heavily into content and entertainment, and whether that content will be like the movies. Reading Quinn's column is a lot like reading Alterman's: it inevitably makes you wonder -- if they have to agonize this much when they offer such mild stuff, what else that is more critical of Gates is being left unsaid? And how are their apprehensions influencing their larger coverage of computers and the Internet? These questions are raised again by a third column at MSNBC that also deals with Gates. This one, by Brock Meeks, defends Gate’s library donation. But, here, the writer starts off by explaining that he really has a reason to dislike Gates. Apparently the act of defending Gates’ creates its own concern -- that one will be accused of acting as a front man for the rich and powerful. So the writer first distances himself from his subject. "Potshots at Gates’ initiative miss mark," Meeks’ column is headlined. "Suspicions about billionaire’s new library program are misguided." "Kudos to Bill Gates for opening his personal check book and bleeding green to the tune of $200 million in cash to help libraries get wired," it starts off. Meeks then continues: "Now before you ravenous dawgs of the Net rush to your keyboards in an attempt to portray me as some kind of running-dog lackey for Gates and Microsoft, a word of caution: If you really believe that then you haven’t check(ed) my pedigree." "Short story: Two years ago, thoroughly fed up with that brain-dead operating system known as Windows 3.1, I sold off every piece of ‘Wintel’ equipment I had, bought all Macs and declared my home a Microsoft-Free Zone. It remains that way to this day." "I am no great fan of Bill Gates or Microsoft in general. Far from it. But skimming that $200 million from the edge of his estimated $35 billion net worth moves that debate to a new plain and at least helps counter previous criticism that he has been relatively tight-fisted with his personal wealth…." Looking in on all three of these columns from the outside, one can’t help but wonder if the people at MSNBC know how all this appears to the rest of the world. One columnist starts off telling us how much he dislikes Microsoft, before launching into a defense of Gates. The other starts off telling us how uncomfortable he is criticizing Gates, and then he criticizes. A third implies that Gates said it is okay to write about him with an independent voice, and then she never quite gets around to doing so. It’s almost as if we are looking in on some strange journalistic ritual – you can criticize Gates if you show some deference and discomfort, first, and you can praise him if, first, you trash him. At a certain point you begin to wonder if they should rename it MSNBG – Microsoft News about Bill Gates. Contemporary journalism, in general, and MSNBC, in particular, clearly has a big problem. The owners and journalists increasingly are the story. And they are unwilling to cover themselves with the same independence they (often) use to cover everyone else. Fortunately, there is something Bill Gates can give to America that is more precious than his billions. He (and NBC) can tell MSNBC to write, and live by, a declaration of editorial independence – from him, from NBC, and from every other possible vested interest that might generate fear or favor in its journalists. It is past time for MSNBC (and the rest of the news media) to put its ideals into practice, stop hemming and hawing, and assertively cover the world we live in, in which the media and media owners are part of the story. That means MSNBC would stop walking on egg shells and simply cover Gates, Microsoft and NBC like other subjects. It also means that MSNBC would treat Microsoft competitors and opponents with consistent fairness, and without self-interested motives. Whatever it does, MSNBC had better do something soon. Otherwise, it will find that it is becoming increasingly entangled in the web that is Bill Gates.
At least that was the case when MSNBC was examined on Wednesday, June 25. When it was examined on Thursday, however, things had changed. The link to Alterman's critical column had been bumped from MSNBC's front page and it lost its place of prominence on the front of the opinion page, as well. The Gates caricature (which, oddly, looked more like Alterman than Gates) was also gone from the front of the opinion page and the description of what the column was about was softened. But the link to Meeks' column defending Gates remained on the front page of the World section. Thus, did the delicate balance of MSNBC's coverage, tip, perhaps inevitably, to defending Gates.
The following email letter was received on Sept. 23,
1999. From: Brock Meeks "Just now saw your column in which to take MSNBC columnists to task for their coverage of Gates' $200 million personal donation to libraries. "Fair enough commentary, I suppose. But how about following up with how we've done covering Gates and Msft. as you so boldly stated? "And I'll point to my own coverage of the Microsoft antitrust trial. No other journalist wrote more critically or covered the company and Gates more harshly than did I, knowing of course that critics such as yourself would be looking at my coverage with a microscope. "My coverage did not escape the eye of Brill's Content, which makes sport of slicing and dicing sloppy journalism. Brill's gave my coverage a nod in it's "honor roll" section, in a piece headlined: Meeks Covers Trial with a Critical Eye." ____________________________________________________
|
