American media: Competition, independence, effectiveness
Seniors Robert Cowan and Mark Stock discuss the state of our news industry
Robert Cowan and Mark Stock
Issue date: 9/23/05 Section: Opinion
| |
|
Robert: The news as we have come to know it has always had as its business a variety of things; relaying information to readers and viewers and providing commentary and opinion on that news have been the primary elements of the news. It is the conglomerates, that is, the big players that continually provide the best news, both in fact and in opinion.
Media conglomerations are powerful, and they hold big business and big government accountable in a way that private individuals nor small independent reporters cannot. As an exercise, call the office of Alberto Gonzalez asking for an interview on behalf of the Gonzaga Bulletin, then call posing as a reporter from the Wall Street Journal. Compare responses.
Larger news firms can afford to release condemning investigative reports at the expense of losing advertisers, as their limited ad spots are in such high demand. Local independents, on the other hand, rely heavily on every single advertiser, cautioning them against any missteps. Media conglomerates can afford to get opinions and commentary from the experts, while independents have anybody and everybody comment on contemporary issues.
National news services have much faster access to news, reporters worldwide, and national lines of communication, while a local independent might take a week to get its report on something current to print. In short, big media conglomerates make news work. The media market is hardly consolidated, though and rather balanced by big corporations, smaller national publications, and local independent work. It is only in a market unhindered by government intervention that these companies can exist together in balance.
Mark: Five corporations own the vast majority of our media (Viacom, News Corporation, Time Warner, Disney, General Electric in the U.S.). As a result, the mainstream news is presented through a narrow lens with little diversity, skepticism or alternate perspectives.
We've entrusted our media to the "invisible hand" of an unregulated marketplace and suffered dearly. The federal government and the media are enjoying an intimate relationship, supporting one another via relaxed policies and generous pro-government "news," respectively. In turn, the public is alienated from their own culture, armed only with a streamlined, easy-to-swallow news tablet.
Corporate interest takes precedence over public interest in our current media system. A recent Pew Research Center/Columbia Journalism Review survey suggests that nearly half (41 percent) of local and national journalists have neglected or diluted the tone of their stories to comply with the interests of their news organizations. Are we getting the news as it is, or the news according to corporate America?
The expansive freedoms awarded to the media were designed to create a firewall between government and the citizenry. Journalists, by duty, are not only to cover federal policy, but to analyze it as well. Without watchdogs, the public is socially ignorant, and democracy crumbles.
The Big Five offer an illusion of variety by providing multiple channels and programs. The only real difference between the major news stations (save Fox and its lunacy) is the channel they occupy on your television set.
Is there equal access in the media? Is it democratic?
Robert: One of the most remarkable parts of broadcast radio and television is that a receiver is open to signals from any source. While your TV antenna picks up ABC and CBS signals from giant satellites, it also will pick up any pirate station that someone decides to broadcast from a homemade transmitter. Furthermore, viewers choose exactly what they would like to watch, and are not forced to view anything.
The broadcast media, not to mention the print media, has the possibility to be the freest, most democratic institution in America. The only reason it currently is not is due to an overbearing government clamp on all broadcast signals. Most radio stations today have more paperwork in their offices regarding government regulations than they have manuals written about their transmitting equipment. New stations are rare not because of overbearing competition or conglomerates too big to allow new growth, but rather due to a government that refuses to grant use of airwave frequencies.
Presently, access is not equal in broadcasting. This is not because of anything inherently wrong in the business of media distribution, but rather due to overbearing government intervention.
Mark: Thanks to recent technological advances like the Internet and pod casting, the door to media access is ajar. Access to the mainstream media, however, where most Americans consume their daily information, is quite prohibitive.
Campaigning in America exemplifies the lack of accessibility in the media. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the broadcast industry has spent $222 million lobbying the U.S. government from 1998 to 2004. Money buys favorable candidates and legislation, and the biggest media outlets have the most money. It is a vicious cycle accessible only to a select few.
Instead of combating closed-door media policy, the government is supporting it. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continues to make it easier for the giant broadcasters to renew their licenses with little to no public review and enact legislation that allows these corporations to consume more and more of the American audience, thereby eliminating independent news organizations.
We must work to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which emphasizes the importance of local broadcasting. In order to do so, smaller broadcasters must be allotted some of the airwaves.
Are we getting both sides of the issues?
Robert: The biggest fear from a media market that is treated like a business is that the industry might consolidate into one company and distribute a homogenous opinion. This fear is unfounded, as we do not find it to be the case in our present media market, nor in any system we might theorize.
It is true that the Big Five media corporations (Time-Warner, Viacom, News Corp., Bertelsmann, and Disney) do own much of the media market. What is important, though, is what they do not own.
In the United States, it is the four big newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times that set the tone for opinions, and none of these are owned by the Big Five. Furthermore, important news subscription services like Scripps, Cox, Gannett, Hearst and the Bulletin's own wire service, Knight Ridder, are not owned by the Big Five, to name a few. These alone provide endless diversity of opinion.
Even among the Big Five, opinions are split. It is clear from just 10 minutes of viewing that the opinions expressed on Fox News, owned by News Corp., are quite disparate from those expressed on CNN, owned by Time Warner. If these options are not enough, the diversity of opinion that exists on the Internet is almost endless, and easily accessible.
Mark: Bias rules the mainstream media. The major news networks were reduced to cheerleaders during the weeks prior to our invasion of Iraq. Pro-war officials were interviewed far more than anti-war officials, republicans more than democrats. A study conducted by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) found that Fox News favored republicans by a ratio of 5:1 on the show Special Report in 2001.
The New York Times published several pro-war stories by Judith Miller that were later proved grossly inaccurate (Sadly, they were proven false after invasion). A published apology occupied page A-10 of the Times weeks later.
Even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), an outlet historically free of heavy government intervention, has succumbed to imbalance. In fact, several programs have been terminated after a federally appointed insider was hired to look for "liberal bias."
The embedment of the media in Iraq has only wed the Pentagon and the news. Most of the stories we read are written from behind smoking American guns. Reporters live with the soldiers, establish a connection, and naturally write in their favor. What about the other angles of war (the slain Iraqis, the wounded infrastructure, the countless American troops with post traumatic stress disorder)?
When both sides are presented, it is a cage match of extremism; full of accusations and denials but very little academic debate.
Is there ample competition in our media system?
Robert: The Columbia Journalism Review names at least 36 separate companies as players in the national media market, and there are countless others of smaller status. Economists who examine the media market in terms of indexes and measures of monopoly continually score the media market as being very competitive.
In fact, the media market today has far more players than it ever has in the past; for instance, years ago viewers could choose from three network TV stations, while today their options are countless. Competition will continue to thrive so long as the government does not prohibit start-up companies from entering the marketplace. By restricting new entries into, for instance, the broadcast industry, the government hampers the natural ebb and flow of the market.
Mark: Originally, the FCC recognized the power and preciousness of the media; the radio being the main outlet at the time. It sought to separate the worlds of commercialism and government. However, through a blind reliance on the corporate marketplace, the media evolved into what former FCC chairmen Mark Fowler, referring to the television, described as, "a toaster with pictures." In other words, a product needing no supervision.
This mindset pertains today, despite the growth of media outlets. Now, radio, television and the Web, which all play extremely influential roles in our daily routines, are part of a deregulated system that favors profit over social responsibility. The media has devolved into a stage reserved for those that can afford to advertise. Meanwhile the audience is no longer an uninformed citizenry but potential consumers instead.
Is there an independent voice in the media?
Robert: There is scarcely a town in America that does not boast its own local or independent newspaper or TV station. Each publication and broadcast offers a unique opinion, and the giant news corporations are not interested in these small businesses in the slightest.
Today, the Internet provides so many independent voices that it would be impossible to read them all. Some are more qualified than others, and many are of poor quality, but the independent voice is available now more than ever at the touch of a button.
In conclusion, those that claim that media conglomerations have hampered American citizens' reception of accurate news and opinion are simply blowing smoke. A free and open media market assures the possibility and existence of small independent local news options that provide a local, alternative opinion, as well as giant media firms that keep big government and big business accountable in a way that independent media cannot.
As long as outside forces are kept out of the free and open media market, a perfect balance will be struck, allowing for diversity of opinion as well as high quality news.
Mark: There is an independent voice, if you're willing to dig for it. The Internet provides the most democratic form of the press; however, it is estimated that only 10-15 percent of us get our daily news intake from the Web.
The Consumer Federation of America claims that only 281 of the country's 1,500 daily newspapers are independently owned today. According to trend, this figure will no doubt decrease, leaving us with even less public participation in the media. Independent voices also include those of minorities, who continue to be severely underrepresented in the media.
An independent voice is necessary to extend our commitment to self-government. It has fought against the safety of the mainstream to shed light on crucial issues like the Downing St. Memo and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. It opens the door to alternate perspectives, thus fostering societal progress through full intellectual debate.