More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Paul Abrams

GET UPDATES FROM Paul Abrams

New Rules for Media: Fight Back, and Help the Country

Posted: 09/05/11 06:38 PM ET

There is an increasing likelihood that the 2012 candidates will decide that a better strategy is to avoid the media, hoping to employ unlimited corporate resources to deliver their messages without scrutiny.

This constitutes a major threat to the relevancy of news reporting and analysis. If the media does not fight back now, it will never regain its relevance.

Sure, the media can continue its inane blather, and it can continue serving as a tool for any campaign whose statements it decides to report.

Is that why people go into journalism?

Moreover, the media -- mainstream, lamestream and otherwise -- has the power to improve our political climate without losing or costing itself a dime and maintaining its relevancy.

Ideally, of course, one would like some real discussion, with follow-up questions and fact challenges. Media that actually did that would be of enormous value to the country, but it would require a change in format. It would require risking a guest it believes draws viewers no longer appearing. It is stunning but not surprising, for example, that Dick Cheney has made the rounds of TV without ever being asked why he ignored warnings prior to September 11.

Here are a few new totally non-partisan rules, however, that media, including this one, could adopt that would maintain their own relevancy and foster a more accountable politics at the same time:

  1. If a candidate is avoiding a media outlet, that outlet should not cover his or her campaign. Do not relate what that candidate or his or her campaign said, or what events it holds. Nothing. Blackout. A candidate who refuses to meet with a newspaper's editors or correspondents, or who refuses to be interviewed on a radio or TV station, ought not to be covered by that paper or by that outlet. Otherwise, the media is transformed into an arm of that campaign, trumpeting its press releases and spin. Of course, a candidate cannot be everywhere simultaneously, so some reasonable time from a request for an interview or appearance would be granted.
  2. Refuse to run any ads without full disclosure of the sponsors. Insist upon a statement, similar to ones candidates must make, that "this ad was paid for by X-Y-Z." Moreover, do not permit intermediaries to cloud the true sponsors; insist that the ultimate sources of the money be disclosed.
  3. Do full financial disclosure, just like CNBC does, on any guest's or author's conflicts of interest. A guest or author should have to sign a conflict-of-interest statement, including that person's current employer, and whatever clients those employers may have whose interests would be affected by the subject matter should be disclosed. For example, it is insufficient to say that a person is a former member of Congress. What firm he or she has joined and who that firm's clients are need to be disclosed.
  4. For current members of Congress, have them list their top five donors.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court discovered that the original intent of the Founders was to have corporations treated as "persons" for purposes of the First Amendment, but it was clear that nothing in their opinion would preclude Congress from requiring disclosure.

The media need not await Congress to act. They have it within their power to set their own rules regarding guests' and authors' financial and other conflict-of-interest disclosures. They have it within their own power not to cover campaigns of candidates avoiding them.

As long as the rules are stated and enforced equally, there can be no credible claim of bias.

Fox, of course, will not do this.

But everyone else can and, in so doing, elevate their own credibility.

It takes only one to start.

 

Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001

 
 
  • Comments
  • 134
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
06:21 AM on 09/08/2011
Because of their active role in promoting and protecting Obama during the 2008 election the MSM will be viewed this election as partisan activists and will be treated as such.To put it mildly the 2012 election will be unlike any election this country has ever experienced. Buckel your seatbelts it is going to be a bumpy ride.
09:02 PM on 09/07/2011
At least you see where the problem lies. The fourth estate has abandoned every good intention that Jefferson thought would keep us free and informed. But, it isn't just Fox. It's bias in news at all. CNN started that way before Fox got around to it, and I don't mean some bias to the left or the right. I mean they started discussing the merits of the news and playing with the facts cause 24 hours of news is a lot. Fox was simply the next step. A step that was taken because the foundation of turning news into money had already been laid. Oddly enough, people prefer to hear that they are right and having many channels that fulfull any need is the problem because none of us are right all the time. Freedom of the Press simply means that we are all free and able to dig and discover what the truth is. When people tell you what it is then you stop searching. I didn't like Reagan cause the Arizona Sun Times broke the story in '79 that he was a paid informant for the FBI against the very union that he ran. I don't like snitches. I didn't like when I learned that Obama had a Pritzker in his campaign. Especially the fact that she was the one who started the first sub-prime mess a decade before anyone else had thought of that scam. An impartial mind starts with no bias and works from there.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dfvboulder
10:18 AM on 09/07/2011
Great ideas! And of course Fox would never do those things. Then they would be exposed for what they are.

And...if the rest of the media does not do those things, they will also be exposed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:50 AM on 09/07/2011
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are the only two news shows left on television.
They wouldn't exist in a nation where the press did its job.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edward Wilkes
Poet/Stage Actor
07:46 AM on 09/07/2011
Yes, Media please help your country by telling the truth, and by giving proper coverage to worthy causes and by giving equal time to the type of politicians that want to work for the people and not just the ones that Wall-Street has chosen.
03:54 AM on 09/07/2011
the media has less credibility than the political candidates. There r a few good journalist......there are Diane Sawyer , and there is....... (well, actually 1 good journalist). The media has no credibility because of the likes Rachel Madden, Oberman, Limbaugh, O'riley,.......and now Al Sharpton......it's a pathetic circus
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edward Wilkes
Poet/Stage Actor
03:40 PM on 09/07/2011
Agree!
09:21 PM on 09/06/2011
This is a great list. I find I watch and read less and less news. There is so very little true investigative factual hard reporting out there. I would love to see a media outlet grow a pair and implement this. If they stood by - and touted - these principles, I think they would be pleasantly surprised by the positive turn out.
MThomasNC
Retired, Sassy, Senior Citizen
03:55 PM on 09/06/2011
No way is the media going to give up their lazy, easy gathering and reporting their so called news - it's called steno 'he said, she said.' Most of the news scrolls along the bottom of the tv screen than what is coming out of their mouths.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:12 PM on 09/06/2011
1. News outlets have a professional obligation to cover the news, and that means covering significant political candidates.

2. Political candidates have no obligation to talk to news outlets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
boilinabag
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
10:48 AM on 09/06/2011
hey, you want to know whos really running the show at the GOP? read this http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=8700
MThomasNC
Retired, Sassy, Senior Citizen
03:51 PM on 09/06/2011
Yes, they are: the Koch Bros, ALEC cabal and have been planning this coup for over 40 years with think tanks, publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, blogs. Now it is here.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:16 AM on 09/06/2011
The mainstrwam media is a lhopeless lapdog of the corporate agenda and zeitgeist...their whole impetus is "dumb'em down; fear 'em up"....given america's basic malleability via the corporate "headlock" ( i.e. tv), lack of intlellectual cuirosity and mindless conumerism as the "new badge of citizenship", hoe does not spring to the fore...
10:11 AM on 09/06/2011
First of all most of the mainstream media are corporations and have executives that all are subject to taxes. Wouldn't it make sense that they would favor the "no increase in taxes" pledge of one of the parties?
10:02 AM on 09/06/2011
Too much money on the line for this to work. I'd love to see it happen but I'm not holding my breath.

(Also not on Facebook and unlikely to be until coerced by force of law.)
09:46 AM on 09/06/2011
Sorry, I meant to say that Tony Blair was godfather to one of Murdoch's relatives.
09:40 AM on 09/06/2011
The media is not going to cut off their nose to spite their face. Do you really think that the media would cut ad revenue? Further, look at the incestuous relationship between Murdoch (Fox) and the leaders in Britain. Isn't Murdoch godfather to one of Blair's relatives? Little coverage here but read The Guardian news in UK. One of the best to find a little balance on U.S. news.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Paul Abrams
09:58 AM on 09/06/2011
No reason to expect ad revenue to be effected. If a media outlet has "reach", the campaigns cannot ignore it. They will disclose if forced to do so.