Like American’s founders, I am a passionate believer in the importance of an informed electorate to a functioning democracy. As citizens, we depend on news organizations to help inform and educate us. I’ve been watching some disturbing trends lately in journalism. There are many changes afoot, some brought about by technology, some by economic decisions, some benign, some not.
Over the centuries, mankind has used a variety of means to transmit information — clay tablets, papyrus, parchment, paper. Once electricity was harnessed, entirely new ways of transmitting information were possible — telegraph, radio, television and finally the Internet. With each new transmission means, it became possible to reach more people at lower cost per person. But each new transmission method has brought new challenges, including how to incorporate the new medium into a viable business model.
For a number of years, we’ve seen mergers and acquisitions as an important trend in American business. The media industry has participated willingly in that trend. Two of the three major broadcast networks are now owned by entertainment conglomerates, the third by a key defense contractor. While those acquisitions may have been beneficial to the parent companies, the more important question is their effect on The Fourth Estate and its ability to educate and inform.
One noticeable effect is a shift to a view that the news department is simply another cost/profit center. News gathering is a time consuming and expensive activity. Without reporters located where the action is — Washington, DC, major US cities and foreign capitals — networks are hampered in their ability to dig beyond press releases and reports from the wire services. So in-depth reporting and analysis to say nothing of investigative journalism become increasingly challenging, often left by the side of the road as a cost-cutting effort.
Then there is the question of priorities. The news shows too often are seen as a few short but important stories sandwiched between sensationalism and fluff pieces that amount to little more than advertising for the network’s entertainment shows. The conventional wisdom is that blood brings eyeballs, and eyeballs ensure advertising revenue, and advertising revenue, not public information, is the name of the game. Just consider the percentage of television coverage of Britney Spears’ very public breakdown, or Paris Hilton’s problems with alcohol, or Anna Nicole Smith’s death and the subsequent custody fight over her infant daughter. All this occurred early in 2007, immediately before the US troop surge in Iraq — at a time when sectarian violence was rising, and the future of the US mission there was in doubt. While the timing of the various events was certainly coincidental, one wonders if the non-stop coverage was equally so. Or did its sheer volume serve a political purpose as well — to minimize public discussion and debate of President Bush’s planned surge, which was met initially with much skepticism.
Now, I try not to be a cynic. But given the ways in which the previous administration used (and I use that term intentionally) certain media outlets and specific reporters to promote its case for going to war in Iraq and to smear its opponents, I can’t help but consider the possibility that the amount of coverage given Britney Spears, Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton were no accident.
In addition to dubious priorities, the closure of bureaus and subsequent reliance on wire services has the effect of homogenizing the coverage for both print and television news. And relying on press releases rather than real reporting tends to slant the news towards the perspective of the organization writing the press release. This is compounded by the perceived need to self-censor in order to remain in the good graces of one’s sources — particularly when those sources are part of government at any level. When one shapes reporting to please a source or sources, it is a slippery slope on the road to becoming a propagandist. Propaganda is not a role for a journalist. And it certainly is not conducive to the kind of active informed debate on issues that is critical for a functioning democracy.
Over the coming days and possibly weeks, I’ll tackle some of the other trends I have observed.
This page has the following sub pages.
I am finishing a great book on this topic, “Unreliable Resources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in the News Media.” – A must read for the development of critical thought. Possibly, the scariest factor in the media power is the revolving door between the States Departments and the major media outlets.
A while back, I had an exchange, with someone who occasionally comments on this blog, in which the idea of American Imperialism came up. To most people I know the idea is objectionable, but the fact remains that the USA has been meddling in foreign affairs for quite some time. Too often it is with the willful absence of opposing views or even non-government opinions. How many times have you seen a commercial/ PR campaign for a company during a show that is really contradictory? Such as a Dow Chem. commercial during a news broadcast about a toxic chemical spill. Are we supposed to believe that it is just a coincidence? The media’s complacency and penchant for cheap headlines has put the “Fourth Estate” in a coma.
…with some “Reflection” … Lately there has been a series on MSNBC called “Born in the Wrong Body.” The car wreck that television is – it did draw me in. Beyond the consistently misrepresented reinforced norms: there was one glaring inconsistency. Anatomical censorship has been a pet peeve of both my wife and mine since at least the “NYPD Blue” thing with the guy’s bare a**; Lo-o-ong before J.J.’s … uh…not-pink-enough?…SB1/2 time “malfunction.”
Now, this particular episode of “Born in the Wrong Body” was of a post-op man (born XX =F). There were a few video shots of “him” walking around without a shirt. We asked ourselves if the “southern” part of the “procedure” had been completed at the time. Moreover, did THAT even matter to the censors? Let’s be honest, he was a topless woman!
Then, I remembered a story of some wacko that took a bet from a “friend” to get breast implants for a year. He was pictured, often, post-implants and topless and they blurred his nipples. Why? HIS boobs!?! His FAKE boobs! Big, waxed, male-skinned, man-nippled sacks of silicone… are these sexually provocative BOOBS?!? – My wife wonders if he had been un-waxed – had a man sweater – Would they still have blurred his nipples?
In an episode of “Nip/Tuck” (wife’s the watcher – “I’m not a ‘fan’ fan!”) there was a shot of a woman’s solitary nipple, sans-breast, lying on one of those stainless steal rolling operating platform trays, un-blurred! The camera then panned to the woman ~ Sans-Nipple ~ un-blurred! This is on an F/X; a Fox, News Corp., R. Murdoch, original series; which in is in itself the epitome of hypocrisy in censorship; a total contradiction to the network’s “Fair and Balanced” claim of its dissemination of news to further their desire for a Pavlovian lack of dissent.
On health channel plastic surgery shows–ALWAYS, blurred! …unless that is the nipple is only attached to the breast tissue and fat, basically a skinless breast in a nurses hands on its way to the surgical tray (a mammary sundae with an areola cherry on top!), just to blur it again while its reattached to the woman!! What!?! We DON”T GET IT!!! What IS it about Nipples!?!
If this is the way it’s going to be, I’d rather just have the censors being hyper-critical on the networks. Remember the good old days when they made that illegal alien Cuban guy sleep in a separate bed from that redheaded card-holding Commie. Those two had good American Family Values!
…and don’t let the editor/wife get started …;o)… …”From where I sit, there is no real news anywhere on television. I’m laid up, I should know. What absolutely ludicrous hypocrisy of nonsensical censorship, in the guise of trying to… 😦 … “pwotect ouwah childwen” from bad influences they might SEE on TV!?! Violent scenes and sexual innuendoes are rampant on TV shows. I thought that parental controls on all new television sets took care of all this crap!! People are naked for reasons other than sex, but apparently, the powers-that-be, using sex to sell everything, must not allow bare bodies running amok in non-sexual scenes to desensitize us to the advertisers’ half-naked hot women so alluring to the advertising demographic. If we saw “T & A” on the TV on a regular basis, Americans might find out that we’re all pretty much the same; we can’t be “sold” by some hot, fake blonde/tan/breast/teeth/nose/whatever, airbrushed “sex-pot” to run out and pick up whatever the advertisers are trying to sell us. How can we blame them when it obviously works so well? Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this particular discussion.
I can’t help but think that if we showed non-sexual nudity on American television the rate of violence would go down; even if you changed NOTHING else. This of course is sure to remain an untested theory! Certainly, there would be less time for all the violence and “death shows” (CSI x3 and Law & Order x3, just to name a few) that have a much more negative influence on our society than ANY nipple EVER could. … ok; Wifey’s done!”… “Coming Soon … BASTRONGVILLAGE”
I’ve always thought it “odd” to say the least that graphic violence on TV and movies is fine, but that any reflection of sexuality is out — unless it’s in a commercial.
We know that especially local news broadcasts almost always lead with a story of some bloody accident or murder… that’s ok because it draws viewers. But a “wardrobe malfunction” so brief that it required replaying it in slo-mo to see anything other than the “schocked” reaction results in a huge outcry and a fine. That the audience (and supposedly the media folks) were shocked given that MTV had produced the half-time show was the ultimate joke, given the visual content of many music videos.