Assistant Professor of Political Science at DePaul University, Norman. G. Finkelstein, visited the University of Bergen with his lecture “Does the Media Tolerate Dissent: A Personal Analysis” on March 20th, 2006. As an excellent, dynamic, and at times hilarious, speaker he captivated the audience with his main gospel: always look meticulously for the truth and don’t accept academic sloppiness.
Although Dr. Finkelstein often convey what - by a critical mind - can be interpreted as embarrassing victimization and a request for more attention, his experience with respect to the fight for publishing the results of his own scholarship was an interesting tale. Therefore, it is just too bad that his whole performance suffered from what he was speaking against; namely false claims and academic sloppiness.
Now, in all fairness, it should be said that Finkelsteins exposition of dissent in the (U.S.) media was announced as a ‘personal’ analysis. However, one should take for granted that ‘personal’ does not signify the right to say things that are untrue, especially since it comes from a well read academic pronounced in a lecture at a serious university.
Below are some of Finkelstein’s hopeless claims in his March 20th lecture, compared with some facts/questions. (It has to be said that Finkelstein’s own webiste was useful in order to find some facts contradicting some of the claims he made!)
I share Dr. Finkelstein’s wish for and belief in the pursuit of truth. Hence, this little exercise is not done to discredit him or his views, but simply because it is ethically impossible to not speak out when faced with his stuipd claims too. So, this is done in order to put some facts (which he constantly calls for) out there.
1) “Fox News is a dominant actor in the U.S. and most Americans get their news from Fox”
This is perhaps the most outrageous statement by Finkelstein in his lecture. Of course, it is based in a popular notion in Western Europe that the majority of Americans are glued to Fox News and that this ‘right-wing mouthpiece of the White House’ is where Americans get their information from.
Now, if one talks about cable-tv (a distinction Finkelstein did not make), it is accurate that Fox News is the major actor. Data from 2004 shows that when looking at total viewers Fox News has about 55% of the cable news audience, while CNN has 30% and MSNBC about 15%. (source)
In raw numbers, the most watched program on cable news is Fox News’ ‘The O’Reilly Factor’ which draws an audience about 2.2 million as compared to Larry King’s poor 901 000 on CNN. (source). Mind you that these numbers does not include international viewers. With respect to ‘prime time’, median numbers from 2005 suggests that Fox News has approx. 1.5 million, CNN 725 000 and MSNBC 335 000 viewers (source).
Does this mean that most Americans do get their news from Fox News? No, it means that most Americans who watch cable news get their news from Fox News. But what about network television?
Data from Nielsen Media Research shows that in March 2006 about 25.7 million Americans get their news from NBC (9.3 mill.), ABC (8.5 mill.) or CBS (7.9 mill.) (source). The ratio has been more or less the same in the recent years. Not only does these numbers signify that the networks have about 24 million more viewers of their newscasts than Fox News has, but it also means that Dr. Finkelstein is - at best - misinforming his audience at the University of Bergen, leading them to believe this dogma of the left (often voiced by Air America Radio) as well as Fox News’ own propaganda about them being ‘The Most Powerful Name in News.’ Taken into account the right-wing agenda of Fox News, one can be glad that Finkelstein and Fox News are not telling the truth here.
2) “Not one - literally not one - media outlet in the U.S. have reviewed the book” [Beyond Chutzpah]
At the time, I did not pay attention to this very powerful rhetorical argument, but thinking about it later I asked myself why is Finkelstein relatively ‘famous’ if nobody has paid attention to him? This does not add up.
On Finkelstein’s own webpage there is a section which include reviews. Here are listed various well known and respected media outlets in the United States that have reviewed the book, among them: The Nation, Tikkun, National Catholic Reporter, Z Magazine, The American Conservative and Christianity Today. Further, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reviewed the book in November (Vol. 24, #8, p.42), it got a favourable note in Booklist October 15th, 2005 and, as listed by Finkelstein himself, a review in The Middle East Journal # 1, 2006.
That the book is not on every front page of U.S. magazines and newspapers, and neither - so far - have received extensive reviews in numerous scholarly publications is true. However, the book is only 8 months old and these things, at least for most authors, take some time. In comparison with an ordinary academic, Finkelstein is doing very good with respect to reviews.
3) “Not until the pamphlet 9-11 [published in October 2001] did Noam Chomsky get any attention from the mainstream U.S. media”
It has to be more than 15 years since New York Times labelled Chomsky as “arguably the most important intellectual alive.” Since then, his views have been cited in U.S. media over and over again (perhaps much less than the left would have preferred). Although Chomsky seldom appears on front pages, he is present. It is true though, that Chomsky is much more famous internationally than in the U.S., but that his books and views have received broad attention, is beyond doubt. Just do a search in the New York Times Book Reviews and see for yourself.
Now, the fact is that after 9-11 Chomsky became a target of the conservative right in the U.S., and consequently received much attention from them and their media outlets. Among the most notable ‘critics’ of Chomsky is David Horowitz with his tasteless attacks on Chomsky. “The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky” is a classic in that regard. So, what happened after 9-11 was that Chomsky got a lot more attention in the right-wing media in the U.S. With respect to the mainstream media, the references to him and his view are about the same as before 9-11.
4) Eric Hobsbawm “a leading Holocaust scholar”?
When Finkelstein listed the impressive pool of Holocaust scholars that have endorsed his scholarship, the name of Eric Hobsbawm suddenly appeared in the name dropping. Eric Hobsbawm is regarded to be on of the foremost left-wing historians of out times. He is an important and excellent thinker (if you have not read his autobiographical Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life, you have lost a great read). However, (I might be wrong about this, since I am not a professional historian) it is totally new to me that Hobsbawm is a ‘leading Holocaust scholar.’ I doubt that Hobsbawm himself would agree to such a description. Thus, the question is if it intellectual honest by Finkelstein including him on such a list?
So, where are we after all this? Does it invalidate the basic message of Dr. Finkelstein? Not, at all. It just makes it more difficult to support him and take him seriously. The experience with him at the University of Bergen through his lecture “Does the Media Tolerate Dissent: A Personal Analysis” just proves that it is even more important to take his call for academic rigor and truth very serious in a university setting. Finkelstein has made a living by attacking others for being sloppy and dishonest. It is just a shame that he does not subscribe to his own medicine.
Perhaps Finkelstein would do better by remembering the title of Al Franken’s 2003 New York Times bestseller - at least when he speaks at universities…