It was interesting to watch the recent dust-up between Ted Koppel, the 42-year veteran of ABC News and Keith Olbermann, the one-time Sportscaster and Current MSNBC Commentator. Probably like many Conservatives, I have to admit to some perverse pleasure derived from watching a couple of flaming Liberals trying to knock the soup out of each other. Unfortunately, that entertaining aspect of the story obscured an underlying theme where it seems many Liberals are in agreement – i.e. A State-run Press is the ideal (Utopian) solution to the continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism.
Although a State-run Press is the consistent solution offered up by Liberals, their views on the cause are
often diametrically opposed. In Koppel’s case, corporate profits are seen as the villainous cause. Ironically, the other most common cause cited by other Liberals is the lack of corporate profits. This may be best detailed in a book entitled The Death and Life of American Journalism.Koppel’s perspective on “villainous corporate profits”, as leading the way to the deterioration of the American Press, is summed up in his Washington Post article entitled The case against news we can choose, where he says:
“What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.
To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence.
Network executives were afraid that … the Federal Communications Commission (would) suspend or even revoke their licenses.
On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable. Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its ‘60 Minutes’ news magazine in 1968.
Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth … (for) relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.”
My reaction to this echoed Jack Shafer’s opening observation in Slate, in an article entitled Ted Koppel, Bad Reporter, where he said:
“I know of no more sorry a spectacle than the wizened newsman weeping with nostalgia for the golden age of journalism—which just happens to coincide with his own glory days.”
Shafer’s general assertion in his article is that Koppel is just “dead wrong” about certain claims he makes. However, he doesn’t address Koppel’s declaration about “the heart of good journalism being facts, along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.” I think he’s “dead wrong” there too. Just think about Harvest of Shame, the 1960 documentary hosted by Edward R. Murrow, the leading Saint of American Broadcast Journalism to Koppel and his peer-group. No doubt, Harvest of Shame is a great example of American Journalism shining the light of truth on the sordid conditions of American migrant agricultural workers of that day but to say that the related facts were presented “without fear or favor” isn’t even close to the truth. In fact, one might argue that the “fear” and “favor” aspects of that documentary were essential for the positive impact of that journalistic effort. Regardless of the good that I believe resulted from the work of Murrow and his colleagues, with Harvest of Shame, I think the “fear or favor” evident in that work should give us all pause, to consider the implications of Koppel’s comment that “Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth … (for) relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.”
The primary target of Shafer’s “dead wrong” assertion, however, is Koppel’s claim about those “villainous corporate profits.” To support his assertion, Shafer cites Michael J. Socolow’s paper, in Journalism, that details “The myth that network news didn’t make money (until Don Hewitt birthed 60 Minutes) owes its origin to artful bookkeeping.”
Before digging into how The Death and Life of American Journalism conflicts with Koppel, in terms of the cause of the present decline of the American Press and its congruence with Koppel’s views on the paramount solution for this predicament, it’s important for me to share a bit about my experience in reading this book. If you’re wondering why a vocally Conservative guy like me would be interested in reading a book which, as I stated earlier, addresses the most common cause cited by Liberals for the continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism, you’ll be puzzled further to learn that the answer is: Because another Conservative friend recommended it. In recommending the book, though, my friend said, “You may not agree with all of the ideas the book offers.” My response was, “So this is an instance where I should be prepared to chew the fruit and spit out the seeds?” My friend’s reply was, “That’s a good way of putting it.” It didn’t take long for me to understand why this book would have significant portions that, for me, would be “fruitless.” In the Preface, the co-Authors (McChesney and Nichols) set aside an entire page to acknowledge Contributors. These include folks such as Phil Donahue and Arianna Huffington; and the dedication in this section says: “… when we are asked to provide an example of the journalism we seek, we respond … with a single name, Bill Moyers.” With that backdrop, let me share with you what I saw as “fruit” and “seeds”, relative to the subject at hand.
First, when it comes to “the heart of good journalism being facts”, McChesney and Nichols seem to be in agreement with Koppel that this should result in “… relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.” In The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols frequently state “facts” about the GWB Administration that they, apparently, “believe the public need to know.” These “facts” include statements such as: “When the United States geared up to invade Iraq in 2002, commercial broadcast news media, with only a few brave exceptions, parroted Bush administration talking points for war that were easily identified as lies.” Since these “facts” are presented as just that, “facts”, without any reference at all for their basis in fact, these were the first “seeds” I spit out.
The area where McChesney and Nichols are in complete disagreement with Koppel is the cause for the ongoing decline of “traditional” American Journalism. Koppel says it’s corporate profits. McChesney and Nichols say it’s just the opposite … the lack of profits. I’m in agreement with McChesney and Nichols on this. The one area where I’m in agreement with Koppel, as well as with McChesney and Nichols, is that the entire “traditional” American news-media system is disintegrating. When it comes to the State-run Press that these Liberals have in mind as the solution for this dilemma, as you might expect, my position diverges dramatically from theirs.
In The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols attempt to build the case for a State-run Press by stating that doing so is in alignment with the “Founding Principles” of our nation. The first “seed” to spit out here is in noting that McChesney and Nichols first speak of a “Free Press”, then they equate that with their definition of a “Functional Press” and from there forward, they use the terms interchangeably.
Next, McChesney and Nichols state that, “… government in fact created the free/(functional) press … with aggressive and often enlightened policies and subsidies.” They, then, go on to “… argue that Americans need to embrace this tradition as they respond to the present crisis.” A typical line of reasoning the Authors use here is the one about the U.S. Constitution giving the government the responsibility “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” According to McChesney and Nichols, when Post Roads were first built there were tolls for their use but publishers were allowed free access. For McChesney and Nichols, that adds up to the government subsidizing the press. When you stop and think about it, giving publishers free access to Post Roads isn’t much different from publishers (along with everyone else) having free access to the Internet today. However, in both the case of the providers of Post Roads, as well as the case of the providers of the Internet, allowing free access to the channel of communication doesn’t mean the provider should be given influence over the communication itself. As you read more about the plan these Liberals have in mind, you’ll see that their idea for a State-run Press is much more far-reaching than just giving the government authority over the Press’ channels of communication.
To more fully understand the Utopian solution our Liberals friends have in mind here, let me give you a synopsis of the four-part proposal presented in The Death and Life of American Journalism:
1) Immediate measures to sustain journalism, each of which transitions to a permanent subsidy if successful;
If nothing else, one has to be concerned for: Whose definition of “journalism” and “successful” would be used here?
One of the specific subsidies proposed would include a “News AmeriCorps”, a New Deal style organization for producing “the great investigative reporters, editors …” The obvious question of concern here is: By whose standards?
The proposal that troubles me the most here is one for “a dramatic expansion of funding high-school newspapers and radio stations.” Is it just me or does this sound like something you’ve read about before under the heading of a Goebbels-led program for Hitler Youth?
2) A plan to convert the collapsing corporate newspaper into what we term a “post-corporate” digital newspaper, with print versions at the very least until there is ubiquitous broadband;
Actually, I see this as “fruit” but it’s already happening as the result of the forces at work in the American economy. In other words, the Laissez-faire approach is working fine and nothing State-run is needed.
3) Converting public and community broadcasting into genuinely world-class civic and democratic media;
Much as with point 1), one has to be concerned for: By who’s standards?
and 4) Spawning a vibrant, well-funded, competitive and innovative news-media sector on the Internet.
Here too, it seems to me that the forces at work in the American economy should take priority. And, what should we do about the time after/beyond the time of the Internet? At the turn of the last century the Laissez-faire approach seemed to work fine in addressing the challenges presented by the decline of the once-thriving Buggy Whip Industry. I’m betting we can count on it to be just as effective in dealing with the transition to whatever we develop beyond the Internet.
Although I firmly believe that the forces at work in the American economy should take priority, McChesney and Nichols do offer one proposal here that I saw as having “fruitful” potential. It’s a proposal for an L3C Model – a Low-profit Limited Liability Corporation – to attract significant investment in projects that seek to serve charitable or community interests. Of course, even with this, one should be concerned for whose definition of “charitable” and “community interests” would be used. However, I’m aware of business owners who are interested in developing “digital newspapers”, as alternatives to declining “traditional” newspapers and this L3C Model could be a worthwhile catalyst for sort of turbo-charging those interests.
At the end of The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols sum up their proposal by stating that the need is to move from Public Broadcasting to Public Media and they pose the rhetorical question, “Why the state?’ Their answer is, “It is the American way.”
My answer is, “No, it isn’t!” McChesney and Nichols claim that the answer is “the State” and that “It is the American way” is another of their claims that has no basis in fact. Liberals, simply, believe that “the State” is the answer for everything. The continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism has painful aspects to it for us all. It’s always going to be that way with a truly Free Press. This is well-exemplified in Voltaire’s quote about Free Speech … “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Living that out often requires what can be some pretty painful patience. But, it has consistently proven to be worth the price. I think it’s more realistic to view American Journalism as being in a state of metamorphosis, rather than a state of decline that equates to its death throes. I’m in full agreement with McChesney and Nichols that a Free Press is essential to the survival of our Republic but I say, “No more NPRs, thank you!” Generally, my suggestion for the current metamorphosis of American Journalism is the same as what has proven to be best with the metamorphosis of a caterpillar … when it goes into its cocoon, leave it alone (Laissez-faire)! If you don’t, you’ll really screw up the beautiful butterfly that would emerge, otherwise.
Comments
LinkedIn Comment
Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2010-11-30 05:26.
0
+-This Comment, left on LinkedIn:
Susan Bender Phelps We' ve always had news supported by advertising. We've always had yellow journalism. Except for a few courageous publishers, editors, and reporters, the news has generally been skewed either by what wasn't told or what was. I'm not interested in government-owned media outlets. If journalism is truly to be the Fourth Estate, it cannot be gov't owned, it can be gov't sponsored. I don't object to the owners of newpapers, radio and television stations etc., making a profit. I object to corporate monopolies that have resulted in fewer organizations generating the news and the monopolization of our airwaves 24/7 with sensationalized news. When everything is sensational - nothing is sensational.
Free Press
Submitted by Susan Bender Phelps (not verified) on Wed, 2010-12-01 13:20.
0
+-We' ve always had news supported by advertising. We've always had yellow journalism. Except for a few courageous publishers, editors, and reporters, the news has generally been skewed either by what wasn't told or what was. I'm not interested in government-owned media outlets. If journalism is truly to be the Fourth Estate, it cannot be gov't owned, but it can be gov't sponsored. I don't object to the owners of newspapers, radio and television stations etc., making a profit. I object to corporate monopolies that have resulted in fewer organizations generating the news and the monopolization of our airwaves 24/7 with sensationalized news. When everything is sensational - nothing is sensational.
