Introduction

Last month a small town American newspaper，the Toledo Blade，shocked the international journalism community by its expose of war crimes against civilians committed by America’s elite “Tiger Force” during the Vietnam War. The brutality of the crimes and indifference to murder of Vietnamese civilians scandalized the international community. But despite the enormity of the actual atrocities，what most shocked veteran journalists was how such a huge investigation involving hundreds of victims，requiring an enormous amount of manpower，money and resources had been scooped by a small town paper with its meager circulation of 150，000. The “Tiger Force” massacre and cover-up story seemed like a project more fitting for big rich media like Time Magazine or “60 minutes”. It appears in this incident，a bigger richer media does not necessarily mean a better media.

At about the same time as the tiny Toledo Blade struggled to expose American War Crimes in Vietnam，the American media giant，CBS，one of three major television networks in the United States，cancelled a dramatic documentary mini-series on the life and times of Ronald Reagan. CBS had already invested over nine million U.S. dollars in the production of the series which presented a bare knuckles presentation of the Reagan Whitehouse，including unflattering portrayals of the First Lady and the former president’s policy on AIDS and AIDS victims，a policy that many have criticized as unfeeling，judgmental and opportunistic. Rumors of the program’s less than laudatory approach to the former President reached powerful conservative political players who mounted a program against the series （though no one outside CBS had actually seen the program or its script） centered on a threatened advertising boycott of the program and CBS should the program be aired. CBS promptly cancelled the series but insisted that its decision was based solely on the fact that the show lacked a balanced point of view. But others saw the CBS decision as an indication of the media’s readiness to comply with the financial and political power of conservative extremists.

Further examples of the U.S. government manipulation of the media through disinformation—false information provided by the government to intentionally mislead journalists. One recent account is the breathless coverage of the professionally fabricated story of private Jessica Lynch’s ordeal in Iraq. Lynch was captured when Iraqi forces ambushed her military unit after taking a wrong turn in the dessert. After the U.S. military successfully saved private Lynch from an unarmed Iraqi hospital，U.S. officials satisfied the media frenzy over the dramatized and hyped rescue mission by combining myth with reality and disinformation. The Washington Post led the media pack with stories containing quotes from an anonymous U.S. official who claimed Lynch “was fighting to the death. She did not want to be taken alive.” An U.S. official also told reporters Lynch sustained multiple gun wounds when she shot back at the Iraq army，firing her weapon until she was out of ammunition. But in reality，Lynch never fired a single shot. Her gun was stuck. All the accounts were later found to be pure fabrication to fuel the public’s sentiment for a much needed victory.

Are these merely isolated incidents or additional proof that the America’s press is failing its watchdog role？How could such abuse of public trust by the U.S. government and U.S. corporations go unchecked？Is the American media watchdog asleep？

American Media Watchdog in Theory

Liberal democratic press theory asserts that America’s press is free from government censorship and national bias. The natural law of open market competition enables a multitude of voices to be heard.

As the only profession that actually has a clause in the U.S. constitution specially designated to its protection，America’s press is armed with the legal mandate to be the independent monitor of the establishment-namely the powerful and the elite. In common slang term，this role of the journalist is called “the media watchdog”，also known as “muckraking journalism”.

The “public’s right to know” and “in the interest of the public” are two most commonly cited reasons to exercise the protection of the first amendment. In theory，the American media has the sacred duty and obligation to monitor those who exercise power，in the name of the public interest. The idea is that power scrutinized is harder to corrupt.

The U.S. media is also referred to as the fourth estate. The term originated from 1790s England，where the press was seen as ranking in importance to the other national estates. Acknowledging the press’ability to influence the public，British statesman Edmund Burke stood in the House of Commons and proclaimed the press to be the ‘fourth estate’，more powerful than all the rest （Penner，April 2002）.

History of U.S.