“Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live…For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive.”
-Edward R. Murrow
All of God’s children should see “Good Night and Good Luck” (by now, it should be clear that I am the undisputed authority on what is befitting of God’s children). It’s not a long movie, but the message is no less profound. George Clooney’s activist inclinations used to annoy the hell out of me (as do the activist inclinations of most of the celebrity non-intelligentsia), but after “Syriana” and “Good Night and Good Luck,” I have infinitely more respect for the man. Kudos, George.
I was subtly reminded by one of my close compatriots that I had not blogged in recent memory. Indeed, I have neglected to spread the message (whatever that may be) since summer break started. A week of finals followed by a summer of full-time employment has left me with little spare intellectual energy. However, the finals weren’t that bad and my job pretty much rocks in every conceivable way, so I really have no excuse.
Returning to Mr. Murrow, I think it’s time we reflected on the American news media. A few days ago, I was watching Stephen Colbert’s now-infamous press club speech, in which he insightfully and snarkily lambasted not only the dear leader (sitting maybe five feet away), but the press corps who comprised the audience. Nobody in the audience knew just how to react, and I even admit to having felt a little bit uncomfortable the first time I watched the performance. I like to think that Murrow would have been proud. Kudos, Stephen.
Let us start with how the media should exist in an ideal world- As always, you are encouraged to disagree with my utopidemocratic (that’s right, I just invented a new term) vision. As we all know from high school civics class, there are three branches of American government that, in principle, “check and balance” each other. Let us envision the news media as the fourth branch of government, a capacity in which, I would argue, it has always existed. Nonetheless, it seems evident that the media should more formally be recognized in this capacity, at least by those who participate in the endeavor. Again, you are free to disagree, but I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of the modern news media to not only exist as the purveyor of current events, but as the pervasive, probing, editorializing, muck-raking (in the most responsible sense of the term ;-), penetrative, unabashedly critical, relentlessly investigatory, and definitive “check and balance” on government corruption, malfeasance, fraud, and general dishonesty.
It is not that I believe the American news media is too biased in one direction or another. Rather, it has become abundantly clear in the past five years that the media has rendered itself entirely impotent, irresponsible, and utterly useless as an institution. Through a readily apparent combination of whoring itself to the ratings game, bowing to government pressure (don’t get me started on “embedded” reporting), and submitting willingly to corporate vivisection (yes, I am proud of that metaphor), the 21st century American media has become an empty shell of its former self, insulating and escapist per Murrow’s clairvoyant vision.
Somehow, every news network, and unfortunately many print news sources as well, have latched onto the “fair and unbiased” paradigm of news reporting. I’m not exactly sure at what point the American media, or Americans in general, were ever fair and unbiased. If you want “just the facts,” these sources exist. The underappreciated and increasingly marginalized reporters of the Associated Press and Reuters do a fine job of fleshing out the details. However, in their quest to bring all of us calmly into the “no-spin zone” (I have a general abhorrence for catchphrases), the popular tier of news media, namely the networks, have watered down their presentation into a somehow uncontested insult to American intelligence.
In a sense (a very, very, very loose sense), I am loathe to say that Fox News is the only network that even currently satisfies my paradigm. Indeed, it is quite clearly a neo-conservative mouthpiece- it is very difficult to make a cogent argument that the network is anything but Republican in outlook, and I concede that I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing. However, where Fox News comes up short is in its continued insistence that it is “fair and unbiased.” Why is it so hard or controversial to simply come out and admit to the slant? I would have far less problem with Fox News if it came out and admitted its status as the “Definitive Conservative News Source” (okay, I admit, I’d still have a pretty big problem with Fox News at that point). Nevertheless, it would open up the door for a revolutionary change in the news regime, in which one could switch to a network and be readily cognizant of the bias, and then be able to filter and judge the news presented accordingly.
When one is presented with news that a dozen Iraqis have died in a car-bombing, this fact stands on its own as unbiased, regardless of whether it is presented by a liberal or conservative voice (12 dead bodies are 12 dead bodies, end of story). I like to think that most educated Americans have the ability to then separate the basic facts from subsequent editorializing. Is it so bad to stimulate critical thinking, to present the citizenry with intelligent opinions and informed critical dialogue? Granted, there are those who claim not to have the time or the desire to put in the necessary effort to separate fact from opinion in the news. This is fine and dandy. I would, however, argue that these individuals (who are by no means bad people, just differing in priorities) then have no place voting or otherwise participating in the democratic process. I have never studied medicine, and therefore I do not attempt open-heart surgery.
In flipping through the channels or surfing news on the web, I am brought to believe that Britney Spears’ baby, celebrity break-ups, and professional football hold as much current as the war in Iraq, the upcoming congressional elections (arguably the most important in my generation’s history up to this point), or the genocide in the Sudan. Now, one may argue that this is simply what Americans want- the networks only cater to the public whim. In a sense, I recognize that unfortunate reality. In another sense, however, I strongly believe that the media also strongly influences the public whim. If even a fraction of the same advertising dollars and creative effort were put into substantive reporting and presentation of serious issues as is invested in the cult of celebrity decadence, things might be a little different. Imagine if the paparazzi redirected their persistence and tenacity towards photographing the atrocity and tragedy that takes place in anonymity around the world everyday. This, of course, would be incumbent on the mediacrats (another new term- I’m on a roll) being willing to pay similar amounts of money for the pictures. I am led to believe, however, that a picture of Brangelina’s baby is of far more worth to humanity than potentially impactual photographic documentation of starving children in Niger.
But let us bring it all back home. I have perhaps gone a little bit far, but I obviously feel very strongly on this issue. I would argue that this fourth branch of government may be the most important, as it is the conduit by which Americans understand the dynamics of their community, country, and the wider world as a whole. It influences their voting decisions, where they spend their money, and even how they raise their children as future participatory citizens. I fear, however, that the slow and painful devolution of the news media into just another corporate fashion accessory will be yet another yard marker in the decline of western democratic consciousness.
In Ed’s immortal words, Good Night, and Good Luck.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment