What Happened to the News

Given that our media are themselves corporations, it should come as no surprise that journalistic autonomy and dissenting voices have virtually disappeared from mainstream news coverage.There is little to no business sense in encouraging the autonomy and independence of journalists given the corporate structure of media: It makes far more sense for owners and shareholders to hold their news divisions, like their television and film divisions, to a fierce accounting that demands profits over investing resources for controversial investigative work.

The result of this corporate logic is that news programming has become as formulaic, watered down, and sensationalistic as entertainment programming – the point being to keep corporate stock prices high by keeping ratings high, slashing budgets and cutting costs.

The journalism that has emerged from this new business model is as economically sound from acorporate perspective as it is bankrupt and impoverished from a democratic perspective.

Easy stories – puff pieces, natural disasters, and celebrity news – have come to crowd out morecomplicated and in-depth stories that address issues that have the most bearing on citizens’ lives.

Likewise, the claims made by public officials are no longer challenged or checked for accuracy "balanced" news means airing different opinions from official sources without any attempt to interveneand figure out who’s telling the truth – if anyone.

This regurgitation of the claims of those in power is precisely what one would expect from a systemdominated by a handful of very wealthy corporations – and precisely the opposite of the kind of guts journalism that used to be expected and admired as fundamental to democracy.

» In terms of foreign policy coverage, it simply illogical to expect these firms to foster journalism that isc ritical of the U.S. role in the world, and perfectly logical that we have ended up with "journalism" that reflects the interests of owners.

» In terms of the coverage we get of corporate power, it is similarly illogical to expect corporate media tofinance the kind of healthy journalism that might have provided real and sustained coverage of the endemic, structural corruption that led to recent corporate scandals.

» This pro-corporate bias has also manifested itself in news coverage of free trade issues and policy.

Given that their parent companies have a vested interest in status quo approaches to free trade, itshould come as no surprise that news organizations like the New York Times, and TV networks, provide blatantly propagandistic coverage that distorts – when not completely eliminating – the rational voicesof critique and protest.

» Such stories are considered business stories and relegated to the business pages, meaning that thesources will be business sources.The result is a conflict between the need of owners to make money, andthe public need for a vibrant journalism.

» Given the understandable logic that informs this perversion of professional news journalism, it makeslittle sense to expect change unless the institutional nature of the industry changes.

» Key to envisioning such change, and to making it happen, is to understand first that the system as it stands now is not a natural or organic entity – that it’s the product of continual policy decisions.

» Given that these policy decisions have been all but removed from the political arena of discussion, debate, and dissent, legislators are much more apt to respond to pressure from lobbyists who represent the corporations that dominate the media industry and the political system.

» The fact is that this behind-the-scenes lobbying actually points to the very real potential for change,because when these decisions are understood, when they reach the light of day, people across thepolitical spectrum can see what’s going on.

 

 

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION & WRITING

1. Why, according to McChesney, does it make perfect sense that our major media sources of journalism dedicate more "coverage" to sensationalistic stories than to stories about the issues that most affect people’s lives? How does the logic behind this different from the logic that governed news reporting in the past? How aboutits difference from the logic that informs news coverage in some other countries and cultures?

2. In the current media climate, according to McChesney, what counts as "balanced" news? And if this purported "balance" is actually imbalanced, toward what view of the world is the balance tilted? And what gets left out?

3. How has one of the traditional functions of journalism – fact checking – suffered as a result of the changed nature of our news media? How does what McChesney says about the reliance on official sources fit into this?

4. What are some of the specific ways that the interests of parent companies shape the way their networks cover news (e.g. coverage of foreign policy; corporate culture; trade issues)?

5. It’s often said that the media are "liberal". How might the analysis in this section respond to that interpretation of things?

6. What are "lobbyists"? What role have corporate lobbyists played in shaping the media system we have today?

7. What is the relationship between corporate lobbying and the democratic process?

8. What does McChesney see as the key to changing the media system?

9. Why, specifically, does he say he is hopeful about change?

ASSIGNMENTS

1. Read "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream," by Noam Chomsky (www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm).

Summarize Chomsky’s major points, relate them to the major arguments made in Part 2 of this video, and provide your own point of view on this issue.

2. Keep a running daily news log over a one-week period (minimum). Focusing on CNN, Headline News, Fox News Channel, or one of the other major all-news networks, do the following: for each day: list the stories that are covered over a one-hour period (the subject matter); the time dedicated to each story; the qualifications of the "experts" (if any) who are quoted or who comment within the story; and a brief description of the images that are featured in each report, and the language used to tell the story.

Be prepared to share your findings with others, along with your conclusions about any patterns you discover, and how you think they relate to the analysis in this section provided by McChesney and Miller.

3. Do some research into lobbying firms and their influence. There are several good sites on the web that list the most powerful lobbyists, the amount of money they spend, and what they spend it on. A good place to start is the website of the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org). Within this website, the following links are especially useful:

» www.opensecrets.org/pubs/lobby00/lobby.asp This link features a chart of the 128 lobbying firms that reported at least $1 million in income for 1999, and reveals the rise of lobbying firms with Republican Party affiliations. According to the site, "Since 1997, firms that gave over 60 percent of their donations to Republicans saw their revenues increase byover 20 percent; the figure for firms that donate 60 percent or more to Democrats was slightly lessthan 8 percent." Click on lobbying firm names for client lists.

 

» www.opensecrets.org/pubs/lobby00/index.aspLabeled "Influence, Inc", this link features the Center for Responsive Politics’ third annual lobbying report, including "the first-ever year-to-year comparisons of lobbying spending on Capitol Hill. It provides the mostrevealing picture yet of the industries and interest groups that fund and deploy the army of lobbyiststhat constitute Washington's $1.45 billion influence industry."

» www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=BThis link provides a list of lobbyists representing the communications and electronics industry andtheir spending.

W?