Big Bad Media
The Democratic is holding their convention in Boston this week, an event which includes the offical adoption of the party platform. I found this article describing one of the proposed planks. It reads as follows:
"Because our democracy thrives on public access to diverse sources of information from multiple sources, we support measures to ensure diversity, competition and localism in media ownership."
Although it is ensconced in politically correct verbage, underneath this single sentance is, I believe, an important concern for the current political environment. I am certainly no Republican, but I am more Republican than Democrat, and thus initially wary of anything coming out of the Democratic party platform. On this issue, however, I can't say anything less than that I wholeheartedly agree with the concern.
The proposed plank is addressing changes made by the FCC which loosen regulations regarding the number of media outlets that can be owned by a single company.
On the one hand, the media is made up of several private, commercial, for-profit enterprises, and thus (according to free-market theory) should be left relatively unregulated by an intrusive government. On the other hand, however, the media is an entity with the power to shape and influence that government to a certain extent -- its election, its choices, its public face. This is why it cannot be treated as simply as any other business in the free market.
Maybe I sound like an elitist for suggesting that the people don't know how to make up their own minds, and need a benevolent government to regulate their information outlets to ensure "diversity" of source and view. On the other hand, it is a reality that we as a nation and a culture must rely on the media to inform us -- to introduce us to candidates with whom we are unfamiliar, to educate us on both sides of important policy battles and why they are being fought, to somehow tie together and relate to a nation that is -- can we deny it? -- far-flung, disparate of opinion, and yes, diverse.
Almost ironically, though, if the media is to accomplish this it must simplify, and in most cases, oversimplify. And as the nation's media outlets become themselves more simplified -- that is, the decision-making is placed in fewer and fewer hands -- the news that ultimately gets aired is condensed, trite, and falls short of giving the whole story.
I'll note three examples that I have personally witnessed: the first probably has little to do with politics per se and the Democratic party platform in particular, but I know I am not the only one who's noticed the rise of the Clearchannel corporation and their almost complete takeover of the radio waves in many major cities. Am I, however, the only one who is not comforted by the fact that the classic rock station in my town is going to sound identical to the one in the next state -- or half the country away? What is really "good" about removing local flavor from the radio? That one is just my personal peeve, the others are more on-target:
Secondly, I have noticed a phenomenon that I like to call, "And why is this news?" I note this in this context because it applies to seemingly all the news outlets -- major, independent, television, internet, etc. A recent example: John Kerry's wife gave a speech asking for a more positive attitude in the political process. Soon afterward, she said something nasty to a reporter. This seeming contradicion was the top story (for a while) on every news website I went to, as well as several TV stations. Why? Why is this news? Kerry's wife did something dumb. Great. Footnote it in the back of tomorrow's paper and let's all move on! But it seems the decision-makers at the top of the media pile (who apparently all think alike) have decided that news gets more viewers when it portrays politics with the triviality of daytime soaps than when it gives the political process the gravity it deserves.
Inserting another personal peeve -- apparently giving news-reporting a constant, frenetic, breaking-news atmosphere attracts viewers as well, for which I cite as evidence those scrolling headline-bars at the bottom of the screen which appeared in the wake of 9/11 and have never left.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I think the consolidation of the media industry will cement in the minds of the public a one-dimensional view of the parties and the political process. By one-dimensional I mean this: mathematically speaking, two points define a line, which is by definition one-dimentional -- it takes three points to make a plane, which has two dimensions. This is analogous to the current two-party system, which, as portrayed in the media and promoted by party propoganda, puts the two parties on opposite ends of the same linear system ("right" and "left"). This ignores the true multi-dimensionality of political idealogy, and the real relationship the two parties have with each other. This topic, of course, could warrant an article of its own, but it is related in an important way to the subject at hand.
All of this is to say that this plank, at least, addresses a valid concern, and the Republicans would do well to seriously reconsider their current stance on the issue. Fretting over liberal bias in the media may or may not be a valid position, but I believe this is the bigger issue at hand -- and if liberal bias is a concern, should not the prospect of monopolization of a liberal media be equally as disconcerting?
"Because our democracy thrives on public access to diverse sources of information from multiple sources, we support measures to ensure diversity, competition and localism in media ownership."
Although it is ensconced in politically correct verbage, underneath this single sentance is, I believe, an important concern for the current political environment. I am certainly no Republican, but I am more Republican than Democrat, and thus initially wary of anything coming out of the Democratic party platform. On this issue, however, I can't say anything less than that I wholeheartedly agree with the concern.
The proposed plank is addressing changes made by the FCC which loosen regulations regarding the number of media outlets that can be owned by a single company.
On the one hand, the media is made up of several private, commercial, for-profit enterprises, and thus (according to free-market theory) should be left relatively unregulated by an intrusive government. On the other hand, however, the media is an entity with the power to shape and influence that government to a certain extent -- its election, its choices, its public face. This is why it cannot be treated as simply as any other business in the free market.
Maybe I sound like an elitist for suggesting that the people don't know how to make up their own minds, and need a benevolent government to regulate their information outlets to ensure "diversity" of source and view. On the other hand, it is a reality that we as a nation and a culture must rely on the media to inform us -- to introduce us to candidates with whom we are unfamiliar, to educate us on both sides of important policy battles and why they are being fought, to somehow tie together and relate to a nation that is -- can we deny it? -- far-flung, disparate of opinion, and yes, diverse.
Almost ironically, though, if the media is to accomplish this it must simplify, and in most cases, oversimplify. And as the nation's media outlets become themselves more simplified -- that is, the decision-making is placed in fewer and fewer hands -- the news that ultimately gets aired is condensed, trite, and falls short of giving the whole story.
I'll note three examples that I have personally witnessed: the first probably has little to do with politics per se and the Democratic party platform in particular, but I know I am not the only one who's noticed the rise of the Clearchannel corporation and their almost complete takeover of the radio waves in many major cities. Am I, however, the only one who is not comforted by the fact that the classic rock station in my town is going to sound identical to the one in the next state -- or half the country away? What is really "good" about removing local flavor from the radio? That one is just my personal peeve, the others are more on-target:
Secondly, I have noticed a phenomenon that I like to call, "And why is this news?" I note this in this context because it applies to seemingly all the news outlets -- major, independent, television, internet, etc. A recent example: John Kerry's wife gave a speech asking for a more positive attitude in the political process. Soon afterward, she said something nasty to a reporter. This seeming contradicion was the top story (for a while) on every news website I went to, as well as several TV stations. Why? Why is this news? Kerry's wife did something dumb. Great. Footnote it in the back of tomorrow's paper and let's all move on! But it seems the decision-makers at the top of the media pile (who apparently all think alike) have decided that news gets more viewers when it portrays politics with the triviality of daytime soaps than when it gives the political process the gravity it deserves.
Inserting another personal peeve -- apparently giving news-reporting a constant, frenetic, breaking-news atmosphere attracts viewers as well, for which I cite as evidence those scrolling headline-bars at the bottom of the screen which appeared in the wake of 9/11 and have never left.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I think the consolidation of the media industry will cement in the minds of the public a one-dimensional view of the parties and the political process. By one-dimensional I mean this: mathematically speaking, two points define a line, which is by definition one-dimentional -- it takes three points to make a plane, which has two dimensions. This is analogous to the current two-party system, which, as portrayed in the media and promoted by party propoganda, puts the two parties on opposite ends of the same linear system ("right" and "left"). This ignores the true multi-dimensionality of political idealogy, and the real relationship the two parties have with each other. This topic, of course, could warrant an article of its own, but it is related in an important way to the subject at hand.
All of this is to say that this plank, at least, addresses a valid concern, and the Republicans would do well to seriously reconsider their current stance on the issue. Fretting over liberal bias in the media may or may not be a valid position, but I believe this is the bigger issue at hand -- and if liberal bias is a concern, should not the prospect of monopolization of a liberal media be equally as disconcerting?
2 Comments:
Politics and media are not my forte, but it appears you have spent some time thinking about this topic. Diversity in the media is a real dillema - it's comparable to the Classical and Postmodern views of culture - the former presenting a uniform, "this is how this is done" rigity, but the latter is so fragmented that it is reduced to a power-struggle. This is the immediate problem I see with diversity in the media. If the media did work toward diversification, when would it stop? Who determines that X number of perspectives is the appropriate number?
The incident with Mrs. Kerry is interesting because it supports the theory that the Presidential election is (somewhat necessarily) a celebrity race. Mrs. Kerry seemed to contradict herself. That is juicy to the American public because it a character-revealer. People want to know if these candidates are honest, trustworthy, etc. Why do they care? Mostly, I believe, because the American President is a national icon. This is not to justify dirty-laundry tabloids. The truth is, such tabloids aren't respected because people can see right through them. Diversity or not, there is a standard (however objective or abstract it may be) to good journalism, and (if I may be so bold as to put in a free-market ploy) if the market is allowed, it will let the better media organizations rise to the top.
No doubt, there is a malady in American media; the solution is neither diversity, nor monopolization, however - at least not in my opinion.
Carol: why don't you swtich to journalism?
Switch to journalism? I thought I tried that already :)
Two points: First of all, I said I agreed with the *concern* expressed, not necessarily the Democrats' solution. We all know, of course (good Stacey students as we are), that turning first to the government for the solution to any problem is not the right answer.
Secondly: as far as the market allowing the "better media organizations rise to the top," I would contend that the current market allows for the most entertaining organizations to rise to the top, and entertaining journalism is not often synonymous with good journalism. This may be more of a problem with the market than the organizations, but that does not mean the organizations couldn't do something about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home