But however we see it, it seems to me that we need to have a serious discussion about the role of media in our culture. If I were President, I would advocate more attention to some kind of independent funding for news, or at least a requirement that every "news" organization had to return to some idea of the public good instead of measuring their news output just as another revenue stream.
Yeah, I am not holding my breath either. And no one should fear a President Streak anytime, well, ever.
*****
Yesterday was largely a day spent trying to clean up the backyard and catch up on a little sleep. But during a visit to the grocery store, I had a funny exchange with the young woman sacker. She kept looking at me, and finally said, "you know, you look a little like Johnny Depp." The checker then chimed in and said, "oh, I see it too."
I asked if that was a compliment, and they assured me it was, but that it might mean I need to grow a goatee and mustache. That won't happen, btw, but if you are wondering, evidently, this is what Streak looks like....
Well, maybe not....
9 comments:
It's true! I see it, too, though I'm not at all unbiased. The cheek bones and eyes. Yes! :)
If I were President, I would advocate more attention to some kind of independent funding for news, or at least a requirement that every "news" organization had to return to some idea of the public good instead of measuring their news output just as another revenue stream.
I am not sure how this would work. It would seem like you would be replacing one bias with another bias, which would be that of the organization that would be in charge of the oversight or distributing the funding.
I agree that this is a problem, but I just don't know what the solution is. Ideally, it should be coming from the journalism programs and news outlets, but they will just say they are giving the public what they want.
She kept looking at me, and finally said, "you know, you look a little like Johnny Depp."
Have you seen Charlie and the Chocalate Factory?
Yeah, it would be really nice if the various media outlets answered first to the public good, rather than their shareholders. It is possible to fulfill your ethical guidelines to the people who fund you and take care of the public as well; it just takes a focus on several things at once, rather than just the monolithic goal of profit.
I think (depending on the specific wording and implementation) I would be in favor of stricter "No media monopoly" guidelines that would have prevented things like Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal. I'm starting to wonder if the next Really Bad Social Idea (the last one being fascism), whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, will be de facto rule by corporations, where governments have their hands tied by funding restrictions imposed by multinational companies. I know this is already somewhat a factor in parts of Africa and southeast Asia, but I don't know if it's true in those places on the scale I'm imagining.
It's worth doing some Google-fu on the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC, and Ronald Reagan for some background to why media currently feels less than concerned about ethics and bias. This article came out after the 2004 elections, and concerns Sinclair Broadcasting's intention to show the Swiftboater's anti-Kerry documentary unchallenged during prime-time before the election. It's a good place to start.
I don't know if you can get the media to care again the way they used to -- once a gentleman's agreement is gone, it's probably gone for good. I will say that I'm not holding my breath for any change from the corporations themselves; the public good, in and of itself, makes for a lousy profit center.
***
GROCERY SACKER GIRL: Paper or plastic, sir?
STREAK: UM . . . Do you have any boxes?"
I don't know if you can get the media to care again the way they used to -- once a gentleman's agreement is gone, it's probably gone for good.
Did the media ever care? Reading about some of the early elections in our country makes me believe that an impartial media is a myth. Noam Chomsky has a good book on this subject, Necessary Illusions, where he suggests the media only supports the status quo.
I think the modern media has gone through a couple of transitions. Early 20th century was marked by the yellow journalism of Hearst and others. Perhaps the objective media we want to believe in never completely existed, but in the aftermath of Murrow standing up to McCarthy through Watergate we had something approaching it. From Watergate to the rise of cable, it almost seems as if mainstream media was coasting on bringing down the President, and then found themselves pretty easily cowed by Reagan. Then cable news began and the fairness doctrine was scrapped and the corporatization of media and the corporate conglomeration of media increased. Now, it seems to me, news is just another segment that has to bring in a profit.
I still remember arguing with my brother about public broadcasting and he said that the market could support good journalism. Unfortunately, I think he is wrong. Yes, there is a market for good journalism, but it is small. The big market is for coverage of "shark attacks" and "suri cruise."
However we have gotten here, we have a horrible media now. The ABC debate is just the most recent example.
Streak- I think the news media has always "had to bring a profit" as you put it. From selling papers to selling tv ads, it is first and foremost a business. Maybe what has changed is what will sell papers. Maybe there was a time when "good journalism" sold them. I have to agree with you that our news media is terrible right now, but I think the answer is to stop looking at it as journalism in the classic or "what is taught in school" sense and really consider it fully part of the entertainment industry.
I have to agree with Steve that regulating it isn't the way to go. If they can make the business work, that's capitalism at work. What they SHOULDN'T get, however, is any special treatment AND they shouldn't get use of the public space i.e. broadcast frequencies, preferentially. One other area that I think could quickly reflect the true market is the ability to pick and choose your satellite or cable stations. I never watch Fox news but I have to pay for it to come into my house. Once we get to choose what comes into the house and revenues are based more on view usage, then if the masses follow Rupert, so be it. Right now, though, choice is limited and regulation hasn't, it seems, helped much in these areas in the past. Just more government fingers in the system.
Leave me with my reruns of MANLY movies since I can't get good manliness training in church.
Later- BB
I don't mean to say that I'm yearning for a media past that never was. American media has always been cutthroat and about profit first. Suffice it to say, I absolutely remember The Maine.
I think that's why I have to respectfully disagree with Bootleg, regarding market solutions to this. We've been there; we're there now. The market has quite obviously dictated that entertainment makes money more than news does, and the news departments and especially the cable nets have all responded. The reliance on simple narrative, black vs white conflict, and emotional appeals, that's all stuff that you can see any night of the week on Dancing With The Stars. It also happens to be the way we like our debates, turns out. Who knew?
I don't think that media should be shackled to onerous regulations, but something like the FCC's Fairness Doctrine (which, according to my reading, was almost completely voluntary) could at least give the media an opportunity to be virtuous, give it a little breathing room to indulge some of that pure journalism that is being taught and promptly forgotten at schools across the country.
Hey Bitebark- I'm definitely no journalist or historian, and I agree that the broadcast news agencies should be held accountable in some way as long as they are using public airwaves. Other more private sources such as a newspapers seem to be set up more clearly as businesses to make money, exert influence, etc..... If I don't want to read your paper I don't subscribe or pay you. Cable news networks seem to fall inbetween a little since I pay to get the service but not specifically YOUR channel. Then there's PBS whose run of partisan oversite for a while lately came close to REALLY giving Bush his Pravda. Anyway- I'd be for Streak's oversite but I have little confidence our government is going to regulate quality into the media. Treating it as a monopoly/fair trade issue may be another way to look at it..... Later-BB
Post a Comment