Media: Mediocrity or Meaning?
There is a maxim in critiques of the media that the content of programming reflects what the audience wants. I find this hard to believe. Surely, even the most ardent Michael Jackson fan must tire of "experts" dissecting the autopsy, second guessing why he died and manufacturing hypothetical scenarios of what his will might or might not say. John Daley had a hilarious segment of would-be experts and reporters in a frenzy seeking some "degree of separation" with the famous man: "I met someone who knew someone who met him once at an airport...." Daley followed this with a spoof of a reporter walking through an empty house pointing to where (supposedly) Jackson's furniture used to be.
Until recently I assumed that this kind of coverage was simply banal and that one could simply turn it off. Unfortunately, all the channels now seem to follow the same programming formats -- a breaking story followed by days of drivel with experts "counterpointing" each other on whether Rush Limbaugh is really gay or whether Sarah Palin is really going to make a play for the presidency in 2012. Could it be that it is less costly to cover one story ad nauseum rather than maintain balance over a spectrum of relevant news?
I liked Al Sharpton's rebuke of the media in focusing on the questionable or bizarre aspects of Michael Jackson's life, in spite of the fact that he did a great deal of good in addition to the contributions of his prodigious talent. I was impressed that Anderson Cooper on CNN clearly agreed with him and was almost apologetic for CNN's role in fanning the flames of idle opining and gossip that serves no one and undermines the credibility of the media, an institution that is a central component of any democratic society.
To be sure, more and more people are expressing concern for a media that has lost its raison d'être. The fact is that not only do we need a free press (with all of its technological permutations), but we also need at least some of the media to be relatively objective. Otherwise, we have only organs of propaganda. In the crush for profit and market share, "infotainment" has replaced news and pundits have replaced reporters. I don't know if there was ever a totally objective media, but schools of journalism and men like Edward R. Morrow aspired to that ideal and had the courage to stand against the short-term interests of their publishers and producers.
I once wrote that, in my view, one of the most powerful aspects of our Constitution and American Democracy is that two institutions were explicitly set up to operate beyond the fray of daily affairs and allow "the people" to have a reasonably objective perspective on themselves and the consequences of their decisions. The press and the judiciary were seen to be the "mirrors" that could enable a free society to correct its mistakes and navigate in uncertain times. When those institutions become co-opted and sucked into the systems they are intended to "mirror," then we have lost the most important component in our guidance system. The result is governance by polling, media by pundits, and a society of spectators that becomes increasingly self-referential and disconnected from "reality." In this case, sooner or later, we will "hit bottom" and lose faith in our leaders and each other.
© 2009 Jim Selman. All rights reserved.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It seems as though the current television media, anyway, all plugs in to one feed. You can turn from one network channel to another network channel and each of the varioius networks are running a nearly identical story simultaneously with the other networks. I think concentration of ownership has put the major media in too few hands and in the interests of profits and cost cutting, they all tend to go on the same hobby horses that God knows who at the upper levels decides will be the story of the week and then they are all off and running with it. Since the 1980s we have gone from dozens of independent media organizations to now only a small handful of them. Mega corporations own every major network: what we have is excessive concentration of power in too few hands. We saw during the last election that the press tended to pick issues and then proceeded to tell people what to think. I have been saying for a long time that we need trust-busting on the major media owners and we need to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine so that one party or point of view doesn't prevail in such a lopsided manner as it did in the 2008 election cycle. It seemed to me that the press was basically a mouthpiece for the GOP in many cases. So how do we get trust busting and Fairness Doctrine out of a Congress that is bought off by corporate lobbyists?
The biggest problem with the media's coverage was just the content, but the sheer quantity of it.
And I don't understand how the author can complain about the dangers of the media being "propaganda organs" and questioning their objectivity in one paragraph and yet laud the contributions of Anderson Cooper (who hung out with MJ when he was ten) and Al Sharpton in the one immediately prior. Sharpton and Cooper are hardly objective when it comes to MJ.
The Michael Jackson umbrella over American newsrooms is a sad reminder of how heavily celebrity obsession and gossip has leaked into what should be professional media.
It seems that most big businesses, and I assume media is the same, are more and more often run by people who don't have firsthand knowledge of that particular industry. Entertainment companies run by accountants, media run by men who made their money in logging or oil or beaver pelts or something. Once the person or people with power see Americans lining up for something, it's on--that's where the cameras go. I hate to call stupid people stupid, but frequently a group involved in mass hysteria or slavish devotion to a man who basically got paid to sing and dance is not an accurate representation of the intelligence in the American people, so when the cameras follow that crowd, what do we get? Dumb news.
By the way, I think it's weird that in the same sound-bite someone can mention Jackson's incredible wealth and follow with the "gift" of his talent. I certainly never walked into a record store and got one of his CDs for free.
The dumbing down of America's media , and thereby it's people, is just another effect of the Republican ideology that has infected the government over the past 30 years, whose only goal is freeing the corporatie conglomerates of all governmental restraints in order to enable them to pillage the Country. And if "We the People" don't insist on cleaning house of this infestation , the Country will be toast sooner than later!
All that I can say is that I became increasingly annoyed yesterday at being unable to hear the real news that was going on. Instead we were all force fed a steady diet of Michael Jackson, morning, noon, and night. It was extremely frustratin
It was just so overdone and I don't mean to disparage his family and fans. I extend my condolences to them...but the whole media blitz was a bit much, don't you think?
Media reform is essential if we are to survive as a democracy. It's been said here before but how could we ever have allowed just five corporations to own more than 80% of our media -- print, radio, and tv? It's a surefire prescription for disaster.
Our citizenry is so badly misinformed by this corporate cabal that it feels nearly impossible to effect needed political change. The "status quo" is so thoroughly embedded in our political institutions -- what with special interests and lobbyists dominating the political decision-making process -- that I often feel hopeless and helpless.
We are in serious need of political reform in several areas. And, certainly, the media is one of them.
5 corporations own 95 percent of media. 91 percent of radio talk is right wing propaganda. If a free press is necessary for a Democracy to thrive, we are in big trouble.
How else can you explain Healthcare? 72 percent of Americans want a public option (at least) and the Dems have a majority in both houses and have the WH, but the Right owns the message...
No one talks honestly about what the Insurance Companies have done to millions of Americans that thought they had insurance until they got sick. They deny, ration and terminate care routinely. Where is this discussion?? Maybe those commercials selling Viagra, Ambien etc are controlling the content.
15,000 Doctors have signed on to a single payer option(Physicians for a National Health Program).
Are THEY ever on the news or cable? no Who runs the Country? Not us.
Without a free press,I fear that our country will no longer function as a Democracy. For all intensive purposes ,we might start calling ourselves the United States of Corporate America. The corporations own our news media and therefore own our brains. One of the few newspapers with actual world news , is The Financial Times.. Check it out you might actually get real news and objectivity.
We need a REAL cable news channel, 24/7, no feeding frenzies, talking heads in a spin contest - just truthful reporting.
But I think for that to really work, we need to tear ourselves away from the idea that there is a necessity for 24 hr news (I'm talking about constant updates and headlines as opposed to lengthier in-depth reporting). That's hard considering how attached we are to existing cable news networks and constant access to information. Cable news has trained us to believe that we need to know the latest status of MJ's second will NOW when really, there is not much that happens that necessitates breaking news coverage.
That said, I do still think 24 hr cable news channels have a role to play. Imagine if the usually mindless midday programming was replaced with 15-30 min (or longer) features on a specific news story. Instead of Bubbles the Chimp, how about some better coverage of the rioting in northwest China?
Yes but it is very expensive and MSM is motivated by profit, thats the killer. Meantime you can get some relief by watching FSTV, GRITv etc, far superior and no glitz.
Media executives must be under tremendous pressure from their corporate bosses and advertisers to fill their air time and news pages with non-controversial material. The result is that Americans are getting less and less information about news events. Stories such as the recent Honduras coup are given a minute or two of air time but are never explained. Even big stories such as Mideast situation or Afghan war are given short shrift, with most coverage consisting of gushing praise for our troops while crucial information about the situation on the ground is not included.
Clearly, the media execs are under strict orders to avoid providing information that could draw criticism, and their news budgets show it clearly. Alarmingly, those news budgets now seem to be coming from some central source, as if the "news" is being vetted and sanitized before it's given to media outlets.
Faux controversy is aired and "debates" are held daily on various talk shows, but little useful information is provided to the public. Instead, the same bland talking points are rehashed endlessly and predictably.
The ridiculous Michael Jackson coverage thus was quite predictable. It set the standard for the future. Every news topic is trivialized to fill air time between commercials and space between print ads. All this is just another example of our society being taken over by the corporate capitalism that, ironically, now threatens to enslave us with chains made of debt and addiction to consumer products.
Fox News, is not helping with this "America'smedia problem." They are making it worse.
IS Rush Limbaugh really gay? I must have missed that one.
Great article! I agree with you 100%. My sister and I have been saying that it's no wonder people in the media (which last I knew was technically plural but I guess you could say has become singular) were surprised that Obama could do more than one thing, because they sure can't.
I agree with this article. It is spot on with its viewson the media and what it represents today. My disdain for the media has naturally grew in recent years, as you can see they are not serving real 'news reports' to the public. They only care about competition and who will break the news first. They are not serving the people or delivering what they think the public wants. They want the public to accept what they dish out with no integrity or substance of news report. The article mentions Michael Jackson, and this saga confirms for me the nature of the media in today's time.
The American media went to hell in a handbasket when audiences accepted "Caught on Tape" with it's dramatic narative as real news. Don't blame the media, blame the consumers, the audience.
While you have a point and I certainly fault the viewers/consumers for their role, I think it's a little disingenuous to place all the blame on the receiving end. The media also has a conscious choice not to air these obscene non-stories. They are just as complacent as the rest of us - which is part of the reason disasters like the Iraq war or the financial crisis are allowed to happen. The media don't take their responsibilities seriously either.
By chance, is Mr. Selman refering to last night's Daily Show clip where he mocked reporters falling over themselves to claim some attachment to Jackson? Otherwise great article.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
