For those of you on the left and the right who like to cry about how the media is tilted this way or that way, and isn't telling us the whole story, I offer this comparison for contrast. It comes by way of Brian Ruckle:
During halftime, prior to the festivities on the field, a commercial ran with football players and other celebrities encouraging viewers to "Choose to..." this that and the other with related images. I've written other bloggers asking them to help me fill in some of the details. I will update this post as I receive the information. Anyways, in the background after one of the messages was the famous picture of the Chinese protestor facing the tanks in Tiananmen Square flashed for a second on the screen. One of the bloggers living in China who also caught the message said that right after the image was "Choose to vote." I'm thinking it was a Rock the Vote commercial, but I may be wrong because I really wan't paying much attention at the time.This was probably the first time that picture has ever been broadcast on Mainland Chinese television. Last year, my wife and I were at a Beijing bookstore and I was looking through a book of 20th century photographs. As I was paging through, I noticed that three pages had been ripped out in the 1989 section. Looking in the appendix I found that those were pages that had included pictures of the protests. I mentioned this to my wife, who was then my girlfriend, and at first she didn't know what I was talking about. I proceeded to explain and she became very upset. I still don't know if she believed me. She is aware that there were protests but said that the students were simply persuaded to pack up and go home and that if any of what the Western media reported had occured it would be commonly known if not through the media then through word of mouth. We haven't talked about this topic since then.
That's censorship. That's a controlled media. Our news services may be biased, despite all claims to the contrary, but they are not controlled by either side. By selecting a variety of sources (I listen to NPR in the car, and check Fox News at night, with an occasional trip to Headline News, along with the local papers) you can get all the news from several perspectives.
Posted by Rich at February 2, 2004 11:58 AM | TrackBackBy selecting a variety of sources (I listen to NPR in the car, and check Fox News at night, with an occasional trip to Headline News, along with the local papers) you can get all the news from several perspectives.
Several, indeed: center, center, and center.
My thoughts about the media are best summarized by my synopsis of Calvin Exoo's book The Politics of Mass Media:
In each case, he presents cultural democracy's case for the (de)-evolution of the media's relevance and capacity for education into what is essentially a big commercial. The essence of this stance is self-evident in its name -- "cultural democracy" -- that all (or most) evolution in our culture happens because it's what the people want. In this case, the media we have now is simply the result of the media "giving the people what they want". In this democracy, our readership, subscriptions, and hours in front of the TV are our votes, and the many different media companies are the candidates.Posted by: Chris Wage on February 2, 2004 2:28 PMHowever, he tempers this theory with the suggestion that this "democracy" does exist, but that it's also limited, and contained. The election is rigged, so to speak, by the indelible forces of corporate hegemony. In a world where the almighty dollar is the bottom line, corporate influence has won out over the public good at every opportunity througout the evolution of the media. Exoo claims that consumers of media do indeed pick and choose what they want, but only from what they are offered -- a selection that is becoming increasingly narrow. As evidence, he cites numerous studies that show that a majority of people feel "unfulfilled" or "uneducated" by the news they read -- or that most, despite spending hours in front of the TV, have a nagging feeling they shouldn't be spending so much time "sitting in front of the boob tube". This is evidence that the will of the consumer is no longer being served, and that hegemony has won out.
NPR and Fox share the same point of view?
You must be living in some fantasy world, Chris.
The fantasy that our choices are constrained by what the corporate giants offer is just that; fantasy. If there is a demand for an alternative, somebody somewhere will meet that demand. We are seeing some of that in action here on the internet and in the blogosphere. New voices are speaking up everyday, and some of them are attracting a following. The dominance of major media conglomerates is over; just as cable took the big 3 TV networks down to the mediocre 5 (6 if you count UPN), the internet will reduce the dominance of the old line media companies. In the same manner, I'm predicting that the large publishing houses will follow the same route over the next decade as micro-publishing takes a large bite out of their sales.
If the need is there, it will be addressed.
Additionally, I completely disagree with the notion expressed by Exoo that for some reason, the media must perform in "the public good." First of all that phrase is so ill defined and nebulous as to be meaningless. What exactly is the public good? Who decides?
Which brings us to the second problem; Exoo assumes that the general public does not know what is good for it, and must be led by those who do know, and that is elitism of the worst kind. How can corporate influence triumph over "the public good" unless the people are incapable of choosing what's best for them?
Exoo is an intellectual snob, a common feature of liberals, who want to protect us from our own frailties. If I choose to watch "Alias" instead of some "educational" program, , that's my decision, not some faceless bureaucrat in Washington DC, who thinks I need to elevate my viewing habits by watching tapes of Senate hearings on the importance of the Mohair Subsidy C-SPAN.
Sure, there's a lot of crap on TV; always has been. But like the man said, 90% of everything is crap. This isn't news. The simple fact is that there is plenty of quality programming that is in the "public good," educational or entertaining, and not too infrequently both. Only someone with an ideological ax to grind would even attempt to suggest otherwise.
Posted by: rich on February 2, 2004 4:36 PMNPR and Fox share the same point of view?
No, but they vary only a very small magnitude from a very inoffensive, centrist viewpoint. The spectre of objectivity (an invention of the new york times) constrains actual discourse to a minimum, and advertising-pleasing blandness to a maximum.
The fantasy that our choices are constrained by what the corporate giants offer is just that; fantasy. If there is a demand for an alternative, somebody somewhere will meet that demand. We are seeing some of that in action here on the internet and in the blogosphere. New voices are speaking up everyday, and some of them are attracting a following. The dominance of major media conglomerates is over; just as cable took the big 3 TV networks down to the mediocre 5 (6 if you count UPN), the internet will reduce the dominance of the old line media companies. In the same manner, I'm predicting that the large publishing houses will follow the same route over the next decade as micro-publishing takes a large bite out of their sales.
I agree, and Exoo in fact discusses the advent of new forms of media in his book as well, I believe.
Additionally, I completely disagree with the notion expressed by Exoo that for some reason, the media must perform in "the public good." First of all that phrase is so ill defined and nebulous as to be meaningless. What exactly is the public good?
Well, that which is in the best interest of the public. This, in my opinion, is not necessarily the same thing as "that which entertains the public".
Who decides?
The public.
Which brings us to the second problem; Exoo assumes that the general public does not know what is good for it, and must be led by those who do know, and that is elitism of the worst kind. How can corporate influence triumph over "the public good" unless the people are incapable of choosing what's best for them?
No. By definition, he assumes the public decides what is good for it. He asserts that the public good has been compromised by corporate influence and hegemony. This is why he cites the studies showing a lack of satisfaction with the selections they are offered in the media, news, or otherwise.
Exoo is an intellectual snob, a common feature of liberals, who want to protect us from our own frailties.
That's quite an inference, considering you've only read my (hasty and incomplete) synopsis of his book. Must everything boil down to liberal or conservative? Incidentally, assuming frailties exist, why would you not want to protect people from them?
If I choose to watch "Alias" instead of some "educational" program, , that's my decision, not some faceless bureaucrat in Washington DC, who thinks I need to elevate my viewing habits by watching tapes of Senate hearings on the importance of the Mohair Subsidy C-SPAN.
That's not really his (or my) point. Recreational viewing is different, in that it serves a different need. What Exoo focuses on is the role of the media in its historical form and function as a locus for public discourse and information. However what we see emerging is a blend of recreational viewing -- "infotainment" -- and shallow reporting lacking in much substance that has supplanted this function of the media.
That is, the problem is not that you would choose to watch Alias instead of C-SPAN. The problem is that the media is consistently offering less genuine news or discourse, and more of whatever doesn't offend and draws viewers. So what you get as a result is that there's very little polarization in the media at all. There's very little deviance to either a liberal, conservative, or any other viewpoint, because the point right square in the middle is where you maximize your viewer potential.
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 2, 2004 5:42 PMThat's quite an inference, considering you've only read my (hasty and incomplete) synopsis of his book. Must everything boil down to liberal or conservative? Incidentally, assuming frailties exist, why would you not want to protect people from them?
The charge of intellectual snobbishness (snobbery?) stands based on his thesis that the public is not capable of determining their own best interests, and must be guided by the state. That idea strikes at the very heart of personal autonomy, which is why I don't believe the gov't has a duty, much less the right, to protect us from our own frailties. We are either autonomous individuals, or wards of the state; there is no tenable middle ground. Any time the government takes on a paternalistic role (seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws) it erodes our autonomy, and reduces our freedom.
That is unacceptable, regardless of the perceived benefit.
That is, the problem is not that you would choose to watch Alias instead of C-SPAN. The problem is that the media is consistently offering less genuine news or discourse, and more of whatever doesn't offend and draws viewers. So what you get as a result is that there's very little polarization in the media at all. There's very little deviance to either a liberal, conservative, or any other viewpoint, because the point right square in the middle is where you maximize your viewer potential.
Good point, however, as I pointed out and you concurred, that corporate media dominance is fading with the advent of new technologies that are transforming the media into a niche-market based paradigm, rather than a conglomerate. Barring UN interference, it won't be too much longer before broadband access will allow narrow casting to become the norm, rather than the exception.
Of course, the challenge then will be to maintain some semblence of cultural cohesiveness, since as our interests lead us into different areas, our shared experiences begin to dwindle. Rather than becoming a global village, we might just move in the opposite direction, becoming a loose collection of communities bound together by interests and philosophies rather than economics, nationalities or physical locations. I don't expect that we'll all retire to our computers and forsake the real world, but it seems clear from the continued popularity of MMORPGs and internet chat sites that the balance will continue to shift from physical to virtual.
Posted by: rich on February 3, 2004 11:10 AMThe charge of intellectual snobbishness (snobbery?) stands based on his thesis that the public is not capable of determining their own best interests, and must be guided by the state.
When did I ever say that was his thesis?
Good point, however, as I pointed out and you concurred, that corporate media dominance is fading with the advent of new technologies that are transforming the media into a niche-market based paradigm, rather than a conglomerate.
When I agreed with you, I agreed that "the internet will reduce the dominance of the old line media companies" -- "will" being the operative word. I wouldn't go as far as to say that corporate media dominance is fading, or that it necessarily must. It will be a battle, in any event. It's easy, perhaps, in the self-aggrandizing and self-congratulatory bubble of the "blogosphere", to feel like perhaps media's heyday is over, but for most people, bland newspapers in 16 eye-catching colors owned by Gannett, and violence and sex peddling TV stations owned by Rupert Murdoch are still the dominant source for media, and this current administration is doing very little to stem the tide.
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 3, 2004 11:37 AMMust everything boil down to liberal or conservative?
from your post "His liberal bias definitely shows." I simply followed your lead.
When did I ever say that was his thesis?
Sorry, you are correct. I made that assumption based on his political ideology as demonstrated by his writing and quotes I found in the media. I don't know for a fact that he advocates a governmental solution to the "problems" he describes.
But I'd bet a dollar on it.
Posted by: rich on February 3, 2004 1:58 PM