Strategically Communicating

Robert McChesney is a downer. As a journalism undergrad taking courses in advanced journalism studies, if I were to sit down and talk with Mr. McChesney over a cup of coffee at Floyd’s down the street any day this week, I think I’d go home and stay in bed for a couple of days until my wife had a chance to fill my Zoloft prescription. For that very reason, I’d like to take a second to address what I might call “The Beauty of Journalism.” The most beautiful thing about the deterioration of our field over the last decade is that rather than going away, journalism has simply shattered into subgroups of communication. Where McChesney complained about low wages for journalists, lack of contextualization and special puppet-like reporting based on the interests of the wealthy and large media conglomerates, I see citizens posting to blogs, updating Facebook walls and tweeting events and writing outside of the lines and rules of conventional journalism. I see the decline in mainstream media sources (or at least the perceived decline) like the morning news, paper newspapers and local news radio as an expansion of individual media choice where the mainstream consumer is no longer trapped with what journalists deliver, but now choose where to get their information. But most important of all beyond any argument about the state of journalism today is that the responsibility of interpreting the “truth” and personal impact of so much information that is so readily available regardless of time, social status, education level, race or location now lies in the hands of the individual. Like McChesney said in his reference to another time and the role of the media, “the media do not necessarily tell you what to think, but they tell you what to think about, and how to think about it;” I think it’s even better to have the freedom to choose who is telling me anything and leaving the thinking to me.
Discussion ?’s
Is it wrong for media organizations to be profit driven?
What role should the consumer play in responsible media consumption?

“Freedom of the press is in the Constitution to make self-government possible…in a democratic society journalism is the primary means through which the mass of people may effectively equip themselves to effectively participate.”

The reconciliation between democracy and capitalism seems to be at the root of this week’s readings.  While democracy and capitalism historically seem to be the most effective forms of governance and economy, together it is clear that in time they can slowly erode one another’s effectiveness due to the clash of their driving forces.  Journalism appears to be no exception.

At the root of the problem it seems that the nature of our free-market society is affecting the free flow of democratic ideas.  The structure of the “business of journalism” in our country is built on capitalist principles.  Therefore, the driving force in this business is profit, which erodes the idea of the freedom of the press to equip the democratic nation with the information necessary to make informed decisions.   Decisions of what to report and how to report it are based on making the most profit and not on successfully informing the public.  In addition, the regulation of the Internet is also profit driven and again this structure threatens the ability of the news media to effectively inform the public.

The United States, having adopted some socialist programs, is certainly not a pure model of capitalism however it the standard to which all capitalist economies are modeled.  There are many fundamental problems with our economic and government models but the delivery and content of the news in our country appears to be reaching a critical point because of this clash of ideals between capitalism and democracy.

Should our government put together a governing body that can regulate subsidies for the media outlets in order to protect the freedom of the press?

Will more regulation and more subsidies resolve or at least temper the current journalism crisis?

It’s hard to follow the maxim of hard hitting journalism to “follow the money” to the real story when:

• Journalism is owned by six huge conglomerates most of whom are intertwined with each other (according to freepress)
• The number of reporters is to follow anything is dwindling
• Following the money leads you to your own backyard

It’s also becomes increasingly hard to follow this simple rule when the only sources reporters have access to (and that the public views as credible) are official spokes people -like us- whose job it is to protect their employers and by extension their own jobs.

One other hurdle that McChesney doesn’t, yet address is the problem of consumers of commercial media simply accepting that the news put in front of them in their 70minute news window is what they need to know to be informed. People are busy and awash in information of all sorts; how are we to know what we don’t know amidst all the din of infotainment?  Our news is full of celebrity, crime, sports, sex, and scandal with the occasional child or animal story to leave us feeling good thrown in.  Yet, we rarely get  updates on the activities of our governments on any level. I can’t remember the last time I opened my local paper or turned on the local tv news or radio and received an update on city council activities, or activities of the day in the state and national legislature. How are we supposed to be active and informed citizenry without this information?

I find it difficult to not feel a sense of hopelessness and dread when thinking about any possibility of change or reform to the commercially owned media system.  After enduring the mainstream media’s coverage of our government and corporations over the past decade, I can see how more and more people are becoming depoliticized. The feeling of powerlessness that comes from reading and listening to the mainstream media’s drinking-of-the-kool-aid reporting even causes me to disengage. If I’m just reading official sources’ talking points and journalists are “merely stenographers to those in power” who are unable, due to professional constraints, to undertake any investigation of the story, then why bother? If our media abides by the internalized values of their profession (which seem to consist of expressing the values and political aims of their commercial owners and advertisers, as well as not questioning the government), how can we say that we have a free press in this country?

I’m not sure what the solutions are (I’m not entirely convinced that there are any that could work in our current political environment…?). McChesney brings up the need to increase funding of public and community broadcasters and newspapers based on their success in other nations at being a “stalwart of quality independent journalism and a way to buffer against commercial degeneration.” But, the political right in this country has been waging an all-out war against public broadcasting and PBS/NPR may be destroyed before we know it.

***

Were you struck by McChesney’s discussion of the Soviet journalists that visited the states: Do you see parallels between the Soviet journalists who (operating under the internalized values of the their system) report stories that coincide with the needs of the party & the state and US journalists who (operating under the internalized values of their system) report stories that coincide with the needs of corporate ownership & the government?

Do you think that more public and community ownership of media is a solution to counteract the corporate owned media? Do you think it is inevitable that PBS and NPR will cease to exist as we know it today?

I am trying to keep an open mind to Robert McChesney’s arguments on the state of journalism. Much of his research and many of his arguments make sense. The trend toward mega-media consolidation is going to have negative impacts. Big business (media or otherwise) is going to lobby for more subsidies and fewer regulations. Corporate and political relationships will impact the content of investigative reporting.

I was concerned that only about ten percent of his writing so far (p. 139 – 153) actually dealt with solutions. However, the concepts behind the proposals, vague as some of them were, did hold interest. Ubiquitous high-speed Internet access, net neutrality, and using new technologies “to find a lucrative market for quality popular journalism” all seem to have potential. Hopefully, the remaining two-thirds of the book will explore these more.

My problem with McChesney is that he is as unbending in his assessments and condemnations as any right-wing or big business interest can be at the other end of the spectrum. There is no room for compromise; there is no room to believe that maybe – just maybe – the corporate-political machine doesn’t have some grand conspiracy to destroy our nation. Take for instance:

“Commercial journalism in the United States has been … at worst a complete failure for democracy.”

“Journalism is of dubious integrity… and the political system is awash in corruption.”

And, my favorite: “The truth about 9/11 is still largely unknown.” Really?  The condescension and the conspiracies and the venom make even his more viable arguments hard to champion.

Discussion Questions:

1. Has the revolution in social media as evidenced by events such as the Occupy movement and the Arab Spring uprising helped to prove that citizen journalists and new technologies can have a positive impact on American news reporting? Or is it more of the same?

2.  Many of us work in PR. In McChesney’s view, can there possibly be any redeeming value in what we do or how we do it?

3.  In McChesney’s world, is there any democracy where the media system works better or more successfully? If so, what in that country’s political or economic model can account for that better media system?