Jay Rosen wrote prior to the election about the changes he sees in journalism, and the topsy-turvy world which has been created by the blogosphere and talk radio. A few of the issues he was thinking about are:
- Political attacks seeking to discredit the press and why they’re intensifying
- Scandals in the news business and the damage they are sowing
- The era of greater transparency and what it’s doing to modern journalism
- Trust in the mainstream media and what’s happening to it
- Bloggers, their role in politics, their effect on the press: their significance
- The problem of propaganda and the intensity of its practice in 2004
- Amateurs vs. professionals; distributed knowledge vs. credentialed expertise
I may have simply missed the political attacks, but all I saw came from “amateurs”–You know, those of us without credentialed expertise. I believe he sees changes far greater than the implication that MSM must change. And perhaps, as a professor of journalism, he sees the potential for the dissolution of the “profession” in at least the political realm. And I say that after reading his follow-up article. In it, he tries to predict some of the changes that will take place in the next four years as MSM attempts to redefine itself in relation to politics and the new players on the national scene.
In Bushworld, all is different. There is no fourth estate; an invalid theory, says Team Bush. The press is not a watchdog for the public, but another interest group that wants something. (Or, they say, it’s an arm of our opponents’ operation.) But the press is weak, and almost passe, in the Administration’s view. There is no need to deal with it most of the time. It can be denied access with impunity. It can be attacked for bias relentlessly, which charges up Bush supporters. It can be fed gruel and will come back the next day. The Bush crowd has completely changed the game on journalists…
Bush has made it quite clear that he sees the media not as the seekers of truth for Americans, but a group with an agenda of their own. He stated that once, without malice, but very plainly. The Washington media do not speak for the American public–As you were–they speak for a minority of Americans. They do fill a niche.
But if you want a full picture of things, you must look elsewhere. And from a business standpoint, MSM must change to take this difference into account. Rosen raises the FoxNews specter as a model to be emulated, but not in the way I should expect.
At some point between now and 2008, either MSNBC or CNN may break off from the pack and decide to become the liberal alternative to Fox, thus freeing Fox to find a more frankly ideological formula, as well. During the conventions the logic of this move became evident. The single most shocking moment for television news people came in late summer when Fox won the ratings for the Republican convention, the first time a cable channel had defeated the broadcast networks in that competition. Everyone realized at once the power of GOP-TV and how much sense that system–the more partisan system–made. (Like a political party, FOX has a base and it reaches out for other viewers, knowing it cannot alienate the base.) If one of the other cable channels goes left, will the remaining networks that are “unaligned” stand pat, go left, or hook right? Big question.
Does this mean that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC are DNC-TV? And FoxNews is the more partisan system?
Like an alcoholic, MSM cannot change until they are willing to admit their bias. FoxNews has some conservative on-screen personages. But they also have some liberal ones. The mere fact that they are not all liberal makes people claim they are right-wing. Talk about perspective!
One answer for Rosen can be found in Matthew May’s analysis of Dan Rather’s swan song election eve:
He and his band of knaves had been humiliated and defeated by the dastardly Swift Boat vets who dared to utilize their free speech, a simple-minded, stubborn President who would not allow the media to call the tune, and his knuckledragging, journalistically untrained minions in the blogosphere.
Lord, it was beautiful to watch.
To me, it doesn’t compare to Cronkite’s theory that Karl Rove got Osama bin Laden to make a video in order to help Bush.
How far have the mighty fallen.
It is interesting to me how the people who are most sensitive to constructive criticism are the people in the press who continually dole it out.
There is no more news on television anymore, with the possible exception of CNN’s Headline News. Without the need to post talking heads in every television show for opinion dialogue, they do a pretty good job identifying and posting large event news items. All of the evening news programs have become news magazine shows, such as Dateline or 60 Min. They just aren’t advertized as such. And anything on the cable networks is just opinion commentary. There is very little real discussion on an issue, just sound bite wars.
Newspapers relying on newswire reports from the AP, UPI, and Reuters are receiving a lot of editorialized news “facts.” Many times not all of the facts known are presented in wire service stories.
For me, I would enjoy a partisan press. I wish we went back to the days of our early republic in which all of the newspapers presented a specific bias openly. We already know whom the New York Times is going to endorse for president, along with the Washington Times for the other side.
The blogging community is really getting under their skin because many of the people who have influence in the media are being challenged by people who actually conduct research on topics. If one person really cares about a topic, he can find all pertinent information on it in this information-driven age. Bias is the only reason why someone would not, no matter what side of the spectrum they fall on.
Blogging and research should be embraced, but it’s a little more difficult when it doesn’t matter if you have correct information.
Comment by Slice — November 4, 2004 @ 3:16 pm
Great post. Fortunately, thanks to the blogs we DO know that the MSM is biased. The wonderful thing is that “casual” voters are now beginning to get it too…
Comment by Charles — November 5, 2004 @ 11:01 am
While I agree that it would be nice to go back to a partisan press, I see one major problem. How many of our cities are now one newspaper towns? In that case if they become even more partisan than they already are, what chance will the other side of getting their views out at all.
I worked for 2 years in Cincinnati. They have 2 newspapers. Amazingly they are published at the same place and one is liberal and one is conservative. One is AM and one is PM. There it would work very well. Not many places have that luxury, however. I would just like to see the news reported fairly and then the editorial page have a mix of liberal and conservative viewpoints on a daily basis. That, to me, would be a good starting point.
Comment by dick — November 7, 2004 @ 8:51 pm
Dick, I agree with your assessment. The golden days of the press were when many cities and towns, large and small, had at least two newspapers. Thirty years ago I lived in Little Rock, and we had a morning and evening paper as did Cincinnati. It gave you a well-rounded view of all the news if you read both.
I still like to pick up a copy of the NYT when I travel. It gives me something to read on the flight. But I know what I’m reading is only part of the whole.
Comment by Bunker — November 8, 2004 @ 5:27 am