MysteriousFaith

Blowdown Part 2: The Media and Society

The media, once envisioned as a necessary part of a prospering democracy, has become part of a set of problems uniquely contributing towards the erosion of our obligations as citizens. It is both ironic and sad that an institution once deemed essential to the protection of democratic rights now embodies, perhaps unwittingly, the erosion in many people’s willingness to participate in those processes that govern them. As the media has become increasingly sophisticated in its presentation not only has it changed culture in ways different than in the past, but its reliance on commercial advertising has put at odds the media’s advisory capacity with the need to put business incentives above all else.

The idea that an informed citizenry is necessary for a productive democracy has two elements to it, the first being individual responsibility to educate ourselves, and the second being the means by which this education takes place. Within the United States, the most popular method by which people educate themselves is by accessing the mass media, also referred to as the main stream media (MSM). When the path of education becomes corrupted ultimately so will the democracy itself. The blame for democracy’s current malaise does not lie solely at the hands of the media, but is shared with the responsibility of the individual. It is our collective response to the media which both stimulates and sustains either the advancing sophistication or declining sycophancies of our public dialogue. As with many parts of American culture, roles and institutions that formally had a certain nobility and impartiality, have now declined to the point where they are overtly partisan and insipid. The media has not escaped this decline and, in an effort to mold itself to what it perceives as the economic, social and political realities of contemporary culture, has abdicated its primary responsibility to stand outside of the culture it is set within and provide a reasoned perspective on those questions and cultural issues we may be insensitive to.

Nothing has more damaged the historical role of media than the necessities inherent in filling the 24/7 content requirements of cable, radio and internet news. The ability to broadcast continuously and the value this has for breaking news stories is not the same as the necessity of doing either. Once CNN established the ability to continually broadcast the first Iraqi War, the idea of having an always-in-place media outlet constantly ready to broadcast breaking news has been an accepted part of the media. This constant and immediate access quickly broadened into radio, further accelerating the growth of talk-radio, and was only further expanded with the advent of the always-on internet. Even if we were to assume no competition in the marketplace, the shear content requirements for filling a media outlet on a slow news day would have an adulterous affect on the news itself. This all-hour of every-day format has created another dimension to the difficulties encountered by the media, namely its transformation from being an entity designed to educate, to an entity designed for the purposes of profit. Before going much further, it has to be pointed out that the media has always danced with creating its own stories, and the nefarious impact of its profit motive complicating its supposedly enlightened objectives. Profit has its place, but the belief that every entity would be at its best if it were subjected to market pressures is to fall for the free market fundamentalism so prevalent in America now. We may find on the other side of a market-based totalitarianism that the media’s need for constant filler coupled with the sacrifice of its morality at the alter of commercialism may combine to allow easier manipulation of the media, and consequently the country itself.

Of the six virtues Socrates advocated, none is more prescient that the virtue of moderation. So many things that characterize American life now are innately not bad; but our fixation on individual consumerism has polluted any sense of balance, offsetting costs, or the greater social good that may be risked if we subject ever social institution to the profit motive. It is unmistakable that the best socio-economic system yet in evidence across human history is that of capitalism; however, capitalism has its weaknesses, one of which is the idea that the market can and should be the final arbiter of all social goods. Such a mindset is vacant with respect to a basic lesson of history which is that what people often desire is wrong, and what is profitable is many times morally repugnant, or at the very least not in the best interests of a culture. The pursuit of profit has to be balanced against the public good at risk within the sphere where profit is being created.

As we cast our purview to the question of how profit has affected the media, it is inevitable to see how a 24/7 news capacity to fill requires content be created. Giving birth to content is expensive if done properly (which most content being created today is not), but more importantly, the creation of content is inherently related to the means by which media outlets generate their incomes – through advertising. The increasing number of media outlets makes competition for limited advertising dollars voracious. What will a media outlet sacrifice in order to get scarce advertising money? Will they stifle certain stories? Will they focus on the stories that really are not stories, fully aware that by doing so they avoid the more problematic stories that implicate the companies from whom their survival depends? Is this perhaps a small part of the culture of fear Barry Glassner writes about in his book The Culture of Fear? Is it easier to build a news agency around the “if it bleeds it leads” – irregardless of whether or not the amount of coverage is consistent with significance of the story?

The obvious answer to each of these questions is that yes, these corrupting influences are almost impossible to resist. Is the answer to socialize the media? No. But I fear the answer to this question lies outside of the very way of thinking most people are being trained by: because the media goes so far as to market itself to a particular demographic (hence the success of the Fox News Network and its obvious pandering to the conservative movement at the expense of any degree of objectivity but in supposed response to the liberal bias of the other parts of the media), it implicitly recognizes that it can not pursue certain stories, or if it does, must interpret them through the preconceptions of the market it serves. Society will pay a terrible price for this as our willingness to be challenged on our beliefs gradually dries up as we feed ourselves only from those outlets whose presentation of the facts is consistent with our particular worldview.

When wrestling with solutions to this problem, the most obvious and perhaps most important first step is to reinforce the role individual consumer choice plays in driving the media’s format, content and interpretation. Unlike a solution that broadly socializes the media or somehow obtusely seeks to remove the profit motive but maintain the freedom of the media, a focus on consumer choice maintains a balance between the role of government and the freedom of individual choice. However, taking responsibility for our individual consumer choices has a much more important implication: by focusing us each on our individual role in shaping culture, it leads to the more sophisticated question of what worldviews are better than others. When we take responsibility for our role in shaping culture, it is much easier to take ownership for shaping our beliefs.

The likely aftermath of a media that leads America astray will not only be a reshaping of the media, but wrestling with the role of critical thinking on an individual, family and cultural level. It is this potential, the ideal of citizens properly informed and motivated, that lies at the other side of a media blowdown. As with nature’s blowdown, the short term pain may be dangerous and damaging, but the potential to build a better future is never closer than in the aftermath of failure.

previous post: What the Democratic Party is Missing …
next post: Jarhead Movie Review

• Posted in Social Activism, Politics
• no comments
• Trackback
• November 9, 2005

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website