Let’s try to channel some of that energy from the last post toward a more productive discussion.:) Here’s a little Flash movie about how the media are covering the presidential campaigns. I doubt any of it will be shocking to most readers of CT, but it’s still worth a pause and some thought.
The site that features the video offers much information about media ownership and is quite a resource. But I found it difficult to locate concrete things one may be able to do, except donate money to the cause.
One section suggests ten policies to fix the media. Do you find them convincing? Realistic? Necessary? Unnecessary? Hopeless? Too vague? Too ambitious? Not ambitious enough? Discuss.
…and put a ban on hiring graduates of Journalism schools (okay, somewhat hyperbolic but I am NOT impressed by what these schools have wrought). My own bias would be towards those trained in the sciences and perhaps engineering. You know, people who are numerate and are trained to be sceptical, to dig for information and to problem solve, not just act as gawking transcribers.
The missing step in in most reporting is describing what the actual situation is!
Liberal or progressive Democrats really ought to recognize that this is a life or death issue, or one aspect of the life or death issue. There need to be some seriously sharp teeth, back of those 10 policies. A “slice and dice” antitrust policy regarding Big Media would be a good start.
Kerry, if he wants to survice four years in the WH, would be well-advised to deliberately and decisively move to utterly and completely destroy Sinclair Broadcasting. Take them down. Shareholder suits, license revocation, investigation of government contracting; go after the executives for patronizing prostitutes or using drugs. Unrelenting attack, culminating in total destruction.
An good example is essential to effective instruction.
1. Create and support genuine, independent and noncommercial public broadcasting.
In order to replace a media bought and paid for by it’s advertisers, with a media bought and paid for by the government.
2. Independent media of all kinds must be supported. Views from outside the mainstream — in the realms of politics, the arts, and beyond — need to be nurtured through government policy and subsidy.
So that they will become terrified at the thought of pissing off the government, and losing that subsidy.
3. Legislation reversing mediaownership consolidation must be enacted.
So that the government will have an excuse for breaking up any network that doesn’t toe the line.
4. Diversity in media ownership, staffing and representation must be increased.
In order that the people who think alike will at least look different.
5. Our broken media regulatory processes must be revamped.
Existing media must be made more fearful of crossing the government than is already the case, by explicitly engaging in content based regulation.
6. Big Media must be accountable to citizens.
Through the mediation of the government, which will make the media acountable to the citizens whose concerns mirror it’s own.
7. Require broadcasters to provide free air time for all candidates.
So that the candidates I support can get airtime even though nobody freaking supports them.
8. Support micro-broadcasting and low power FM.
Give me time, I’ll figure out the malign aspect of this.
9. Keep media out of global trade deals.
Stop pressuring countries which already have government controlled media to losen their deathgrip on public discourse.
10. Prevent Big Media from stifling innovation and the free flow of information, on the Internet and elsewhere.
Ignore that corporations stifle innovation by getting the government to regulate in their interest. See DMCA, for instance.
On the other hand, Brett, you can’t accuse an organization such as the BBC of cheerleading for their government - so yes, you put forward a whole bunch of things that could possibly happen, but are they worse than the current state of the US media?
Brett,
Advertising media isn’t ‘free’ any more than tax-funded media is. Unless viewers withdraw purchases of all advertised products - an almost impossible task - they are paying through the products they buy. I no more choose to be barraged with advertising paid for by my groceries than I do be taxed.
Subsidised media isn’t automatically at the mercy of government. It depends on its funding mechanism (e.g. the BBC)
Diversified, independent media (subsidised or not) is able to question and hold governments accountable and mitigate precisely the bullying you describe. As in the UK example again, where diversified national press and TV has held the government accountable for its actions much more than in the US.
Accordingly, reversing or preventing excessive consolidation is a necessary step towards media diversification and promotion of democracy.
Better media regulation does not necessarily harm media either. It provides a framework in which the rules are unambiguous and can prevent political “morality crusades” etc a la Janet Jackson episode. It also prevents political favouritism to one group over another.
Big media can still be accountable without the government bullying it. An independent watchdog, with a non-political head/membership can achieve this.
The most laughable bit of that Flash video was the assertion that “Ad costs force Big Money into politics.” Nah, the virtually unchecked power — the power to favor one business over another in ways worth millions to the favored, the power of an 80%+ incumbent-reelection rate — these pale in contrast to “ad costs”. Mmm-hmmm.
Here’s a pretty good Reason article about media consolidation: http://www.reason.com/0401/fe.bc.domination.shtml. Among other things it debunks the idea that the media is particularly consolidated, or that it’s much moreso than it was in the past, and the idea that smaller media entities produce more or better news and public affairs programming.
I think the recent decision by the Sinclair Broadcast Group to dictate the broadcast of an anti-Kerry documentary is a strong argument for media reform. De-regulation has markedly increased the ability of media owners to shape the agenda of the public space that broadcast media occupies. Public affairs belongs in the public arena, and should be accessible to the public. As things are now, it is not.
So what should be done? I agree wholeheartedly with the first point of the media reform recommendations. In spite of what Brett writes, I do not think the freepress.org is talking about a government monopoly of media. What is needed is a true diversity of media, which is to say there needs to be some media space which is not driven by the profit motive.
I suggest academia could take the lead in creating a little broadcasting space of its own. I have just started blogging on this idea. Please feel free to visit my blog and comment.
If I want to read a national newspaper - all I ‘ve got to choose between it the NYT and USA today.
And when you switch on the tele CBS NBS and the other BS are virtually indistinguishable.
Any way Bret nailed it – the whole arguments just narrow minded cranks gunning for subsidies.
I know you are all smart and intelligent people. And while there certainly appears to be quite a few shared flaws between all the news corporations, they still exist in a competitive market.
And this market is currently undergoing a remarkable shift. A single cable news station is blowing the big three out of the water along with the other news cable stations.
Might it not be possible that we are about to see a remarkable realignmnet of the news industry as the market becomes quite a bit more competitive?
Or is this market driven realignment what you are trying to stop?
Asq - the Reason article is flawed. For example: “The idea that Rupert Murdoch’s Fox media empire or Arthur Sulzberger’s at The New York Times can overwhelm the voice of the people seems a little more absurd with each new broadband Internet subscription”
It’s not absurd at all. Hence why such so many people believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
In a genuinely competitive news market, the facts might have had some traction. It begs the question how poorly served the public are by the media on subjects of lesser importance.
Compaine throws out a lot of numbers on how many players there are to hide the fact that a small group of national players control the market.
He dismisses the idea of market share as relevant, “It may indeed be”. When market share is the most important point in any discussion of monopoly/oligopoly.
It’s a bit like saying “see, there are hundreds of software companies, Microsoft doesn’t have a monopoly on desktop software”. By focusing on the numbers of companies, and mixing apples and pears (record labels, news providers), Compaine tries to obscure the obvious.
Read Ted Turner for an alternative view. The Fox News example is supposed to show how a small player can build up an established market share. It belies the fact that Rupert Murdoch was already an established market player. The only other new entrant, CNN, grew before the change in media ownership rules.
An unfortunate case where both views are accurate. Large media conglomerates tend to support the candidate that adds to their bottom line. On the other side, public media (i.e. government owned) in western democracies tend to support the candidate that most closely agrees with the views of the media staff. Neither model is particularly concerned with the actual views of the populace at large.
1. I think it’s a little facile to blame media consolidation for widespread misconceptions about Saddam’s nonexistent link to 9/11 (or, on the other side, Halliburton’s profits), when political irrationality is a far better explanation. Now maybe you can argue that media consolidation, if it exists, encourages political irrationality, but that’d need a post in itself.
2. How does Compaine “dismiss” market share? He gives examples of the Herfindahl-Hirschbaum index in the media industry, and points out that they are well below standard DoJ guidelines for oligopoly, much less monopoly.
(I’d also dispute the point that market share is the most relevant point in any discussion of whether an industry is monopolized — I’d say that place is occupied by pricing behavior. A market with a single firm is not monopolized if the threat of competition prevents that firm from raising its prices.)
3. He also points out that while there may be a smallish number of players, the lineup is constantly changing, which suggests competition.
4. Even if the Fox News example doesn’t work — which I dispute — what about Comcast?
What the…? Campaign finance is money-dominated?!
The bastards.
I agree with Brett that government funding is corrupting and not ideal - although I’d still rather have the BBC than not have it at all.
What I propose instead is: more not-for-profit Internet news sources, supported exclusively by reader donations. An example of such a media source - which needs our support and backing - is US-based, progressive online newspaper, The New Standard. They are doing sterling work for barely more than minimum wage. They have no corporate or government ties. (Of course, some of their journalists might also write for less independent publications, I don’t know, but you can’t have everything.)
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review