This week’s reading was equally engaging and depressing.  I suppose that I have always known corruption is pervasive in our political systems.  It’s one of those things that are easier to deal with if you don’t think about it.  Sweep it under the carpet so that you don’t have to see it and pretend it doesn’t exist.  Play it off as if it only affects others.

Like any other issue in life, you can only ignore it for so long.  McChesney does a great job of bringing several issues to the forefront and encouraging awareness of what has been happening in our political and media arenas.  It sickens me to think that our political systems are so corrupt that it’s hard to believe any politician is authentic.  It also disgusts me to think that the corruption is linked at the highest levels in our media and political systems.

Sometimes I have negative feelings towards protestors, standing up for issues they believe in.  I get more upset at myself because when I agree with their protest, I am not out there with them.  I get frustrated that other people like me that believe in that same reason for the protest aren’t out there protesting.  Instead we drive by them, stare and wish that they wouldn’t slow traffic down.

These protestors have the right idea, more Americans need to congregate and demand that policies be written in such a way that ‘we’ have access to information, investigation and research on people or issues that impact society.

How is America supposed to have faith in democracy and capitalism if all the large companies and politicians are in bed with each other for self serving reasons?

McChesney has given me a lot to think about.

Discussion question(s):

1. If media companies are in bed with big business and politicians and their stories are influenced by them instead of the truth; what can the average American or up and coming generation(s) do to change that?
2. How do we switch the flavor of the Kool-Aid the public is drinking?
3. If the corruption is at the highest level, how do we crack that nut to reveal the inner works?

McChesney (2008) argues that as new technologies enable the rise of commercial news media, there is an increased need for catchy stories opposed to quality news (p. 39). From the Pew Center’s State of the News Media 2008 report, “majorities think such things as journalists writing blogs, the ranking of stories on their Web sites, citizens posting comments or ranking stories, even citizens news sites, are making journalism better, a perspective hard to imagine even a few years ago. News people are less anxious about credibility, the focus of concern a few years ago” (p. 3).

Similar to the current online media landscape, as stated by McChesney (2008), “in the nineteenth century, if someone was dissatisfied with the existing [political] choices, it was not impossible to launch a new newspaper” (p. 27). The Internet enables the average person to establish their own media outlet in order to advance their own perspective. These personal biases are consumed immediately and resemble the “new dailies” of the past that break apart concentration of news, usually owned by the large media conglomerates.

Facebook recently updated its News Feed, selecting with its algorithm those posts it deems to be most engaging and running those at the top of a user’s feed. This forces communicators to think of clever ideas of engaging opposed to what they’re sharing, who they mention, the quality of their content, and the depth of their engagement strategy. They are simply looking at how to get people to come to their wall to say something. The quality of that discussion or the information they receive is not the primary objective.

Questions:

In a social media world where individuals are empowered to take journalism into their own hands, how do the media owners negate the freedom of press for the content owners that utilize these channels?

As we put value on increased participation and engagement with our audiences, what are the implications on the importance of quality of content? Will participation be more important than quality?

What changes in media policies and structures need to happen to maintain and reinforce the values and approaches to professional journalism?

While McChesney (2008) states there has been a relaxation or professional news standards due in part by the effects of budget cutting mania in journalism, how much of this relaxation is the result of the increased ability for non-professional journalists to participate in the media?

I thought folks would be interested in this piece from the New York Times Why Not Occupy Newsrooms?  by David Carr.  Should we grab the pitchforks ?

McChesney makes a strong argument regarding the modern dysfunctions of American news media. Of particular interest is his analysis of the three “biases” that have degraded “professional journalism.” Namely, reliance on establishment sources, lack of contextualization and the commercialization of the industry. What his analysis suggests, but doesn’t quite fully capture, is how those issues intersect and routinely ensnare on-the-ground journalists.

Speaking from a print perspective, I would say that the “commercialization” of journalism is the driving force behind the other purported biases (reliance on “official” sources and lack of context). But not entirely in the way that McChesney frames the debate. The economic realities of print journalism have created an overworked, underpaid and perpetually maligned profession of idealistic masochists. The vast majority of print journalists certainly don’t do what they do for money. Creative aspirations and idealism, naive or not, play a fundamental role. Still, cold, hard economics often undercut those ideals.

What relatively few positions remain for print journalists have mostly been converted into Mission Impossible job descriptions. The standard writer/reporter isn’t just a writer/reporter anymore. They’re also a blogger, photographer, videographer, podcast host and social media specialist. All under the relentless deadline glare of the 24/7 news cycle.

There is still plenty of “real” journalism to be found. But, without the time, capacity or culture for due diligence, it’s inevitable that context can be lost and primary sources relied upon far too heavily. Publicists, pundits and establishment sources step into that breach, creating McChesney’s “scoundrel’s paradise.”

Discussion questions
-Has the reemergence of partisan media in recent years enhanced or diminished the role of journalism to foster a truly democratic society?
-With a wide variety of media viewpoints more accessible than ever before, how much responsibility should be placed on individual media consumers for discerning news media content?
-Do you think technology and our “convergence culture” have made media consumers more active or passive in discerning content?

So, having read about the truly sad state of American journalism, I can’t help but wonder if the perfect system is unattainable. McChesney’s financial solutions are great in theory, but subsidies would never fly in today’s political climate, and without strong financial backing, news organizations won’t have the resources to do better work.

Our political system and our media organizations are equally at fault. Without resources, news organizations cannot keep corporations and politicians in check. Corporations save money and protect their interests in Washington, D.C. by withholding those resources. Finally, politicians understand that they have power over the journalists and tend to say whatever they want to say knowing that their statements are taken at face value.

The emergence of citizen journalism might counter some of these trends. Without managing editors or corporate ownership to consider, citizens are less constrained in what they can “publish.” Cell phone videos and first-hand descriptions that are mostly popular on social networks have made their way to mainstream media. For example, cell phone video of Lybia’s revolution has become a primary source for news. However, it is also important to understand that citizens who produce this kind of news have their own biases.

###

Is citizen journalism any more trustworthy than corporate media?

What motivation do politicians have to revive the investigative function of journalism if they are the ones that are being investigated?