INFORMATION AND THE MEDIA
No one has to tell any of us that we are in the midst of an information explosion. With thousands of radio and television stations, countless newspapers, magazines and periodicals, and new books, films, CD’s, and video and audio cassettes being released every day, we are never at a loss for information. Add to this mountain of information the avalanche of data and information coursing through personal and business computers and you have more information being produced in an hour than an individual could weed through in a lifetime.
When expressing infinite number we’ve often resorted to images such as all the grains of sand on earth, or stars in the heavens. We now could replace these images with sayings such as all the pictures on television, or all the bits of information contained on a computer network.
Not only is the quantity of information produced awe inspiring, but so is the quality and depth of information being dispersed. At any given moment the latest research in a number of scientific disciplines from around the world is being shared via computer, fax and telephone. University libraries are being accessed and updated as often as we breathe. Medical, legal and economic decisions are being wired across miles in seconds during every possible business moment.
The quality most of us busy our lives with is relatively useless, repetitive and trite. Yet, even the most complacent couch potato knows that a sea of information lies within their reach. The glut of information seems endless, and whatever is imaginable is possible data to be shared.
The sheer volume of information is not only overwhelming, but has us believe that there are no secrets. Even though not everyone is speaking the truth, it seems impossible to imagine the truth about every matter being spoken. Yet, is this belief founded?
Well, even if all truth is uttered, it is unlikely that it is ever heard. Information gains power and influence through popularity not accuracy. As George Orwell pointed out, a lie repeated often enough will usually be accepted as the truth.
Fiscal considerations dominate each and every aspect of our media and the organized release of information. Since almost all newspapers, television and radio stations, publishing houses, colleges and universities, computer networks and news agencies are commercial businesses, much of what they choose to say and repeat is decided upon by market popularity.
Decisions regarding what information is to be presented are based upon commercial considerations such as trends, past response, surveys and the wishes of their economic partners (sponsors, advertisers, underwriters and corporate affiliates). Even those publishers and dispensers of information who claim to be non-profit or publicly funded have significant investors whose feelings and concerns they need to consider.
If the money I pay to advertise in your newspaper is rather sizable it is only natural that I would have a vested interest in what your paper says. If you say things which alienate or offend my customers, I am not likely to continue advertising in your publication. I would definitely threaten to pull my adds if you said something negative regarding my company, or the products or industry with which I’m associated. In the eyes of an advertiser this is not censorship, but just practical business sense. Placing adds in a periodical which is not assisting “my” sales is plain foolish, and not to be confused with a violation of a publications right of free speech.
The majority of the information industry is dominated by huge conglomerates. The independently owned newspaper or television station is becoming exceedingly rare. The communication industry thrives on expansion and affiliation. Communication and publishing giants are part of huge conglomerates having numerous subsidiaries, all part of even larger networks interdependent on the success of many related business associates and customers.
The sheer size and range of these conglomerates makes it almost impossible for a communications firm to stay free of all conflicts of interests. Selecting what to print or say can become a very complicated task when one is trying to be sensitive to one’s friends and economic interests.
We’ll use the example of General Electric’s ownership of NBC as an example. Since GE is a major defense contractor, how does that fact effect the NBC’s news division in the reporting of military policy, international events and the general coverage of our political leaders? What form of direct or indirect political censorship does this fact hold for all programming?
These questions being asked of NBC could be asked of many others. Almost every publication and communication network has direct or indirect ties with influential lobbies and special interest groups.
A documentary for PBS can only be made and distributed if it attains sufficient funding. A documentary or book highly critical of our government, or an influential corporation can often find sufficient monetary backing to get released. Yet, the costs of exposure are high, and unless significantly bankrolled, even the best information will be short lived. This is why relatively few opinions are popularized.
Though numerous political options exist for almost every social issue, we are usually exposed to only a handful. In fact we are led to believe most issues have only two solutions. Even with all the diverse global and historical information available we usually end up viewing issues in terms of a conflict between two camps. We choose between good and evil, conservative and liberal, republican and democrat or a number of other arbitrary and often simplistic opposites.
This tendency to reduce all issues to two sides seems foolish when we look at all the information available. Yet, many people feel overwhelmed by the prospect of choosing between a multitude of options. Since most of us prefer dealing with only two or three choices, few of us complain of being short changed by the lack of alternatives standardly given.
Our system of free speech is limited not only by our inclination towards dualistic decisions, but also due to the commercial nature of our social structure. Seldom will someone jeopardize alienating their consumer audience by saying something startling or different. Even if I have an opportunity to tear apart a rival, I may choose to tread only on familiar grounds in order to avoid a devastating retaliation. Though politicians like to complain about the dirty tactics of their opponents, they fully realize what is accepted and not accepted in these battles. Corporations, too, understand the unspoken rules of politically correct competition.
Though we can always find exceptions in the actions of politicians and corporations, we usually can find a followed code of ethics in even the most blood thirsty thieves. Everyone tries to get the upper hand or acquire highest market share through playing the game.
The media often brags of their glorious and never ending fight to protect our precious right of free speech. We have often been treated to stories of hard working writers who have sacrificed everything or gone to jail in the name of journalistic integrity. The newspaper man has standardly been shown chasing stories with the tenacity of a blood hound in famous movies and novels spanning the last six decades.
At the same time the media has come under attack for its obsession with tabloid journalism, in which its desire to tell a sensational story breaks all bonds with human decency. These journalists defend their choices of stories by saying they only print what the public wants to read.
Newspapers must indeed publish what sells in order to survive. They must also publish what their business partners, sponsors and affiliates are comfortable with in order to keep their support. Occasionally, for a host of reasons, the media will expose or report on a political cover-up such as Watergate, but most often they will follow the sensational story such as O.J.
If they reported many Watergates they would alienate the entire political crowd, losing all their connections which supply them with their daily scoops and stories they depend on. Without remaining somewhat friendly with politicians of both parties they would be out of the loop, and have no one to interview. Journalists must, therefore, be very selective of what they report in the highly volatile and corrupt world of Washington politics.
The economic realities of selling newspapers along with the social necessity of maintaining relationships with those who you write about and get information from highly limit the integrity of all forms of written and visual journalism. This influences not only what is presented, but how it is presented.
Over the years we’ve all become more accustomed to and accepting of the role of public relations in even the smallest of businesses. Stacking the deck in one’s favor, or exaggerating the strengths and benefits of a product while glossing over its weaknesses and harms is taken for granted and almost expected.
No longer do corporations and politicians try to minimize or hide their focus on public relations. We know that much of what we read is carefully tailored for our eyes by spin doctors and damage control experts. Yet, for some unknown reason, many of us still believe what we read.
Maybe people feel that they are able to see through the deceptions and manipulations and discern the facts for themselves. Maybe people feel that most of the deceptions are relatively minor, and outright lies will eventually be exposed by either investigative journalists or their competitors. Yet, who’s to say that many important lies don’t serve the common purposes of both Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as the journalist who cover them.
When a politician or corporation misleads us with sugar coated language, why don’t more journalists point out the deceit and misrepresentation being slammed down our throats? Why is an action performed by our governmental or intelligence agencies hailed as heroic, while the same action done by another nation is labelled as terrorism? While other nations have propaganda and censorship we on the other hand have sensitive information and a concern for national security.
We know that special interest groups and lobbyist dominate our legislature. Yet, how come we ignore the role of these same groups on the media and the publishing and distribution of information in general?
Much would change if journalism were truly dedicated to the free flow of information. Instead, the media and all modes of disseminating information are dominated by the rules of commerce.
The occasional investigative expose should not lead us into believing in the overall freedom of information. When something important or earth shattering is revealed we can be fairly confident that economic concerns underlie the decision for it to be released.
First of all, the publications revealing the scandal would have to fairly sure that their decision to cover the story would be popular with their readers. Controversy sells, so its not controversy the media shies away from but rather alienation of either the public or their long-term sources of information.
Secondly, they must be relatively certain that they will continue to elicit the financial support of those that advertise in their periodical. If they stand to lose some support, they may still be able to publish the story if they foresee increased sales attracting new support, or if a number of the older sponsors increase their adds in response to the investigation. Conservative republican interests would support a probe into a democratic candidate, and liberal democrats would likewise want to assist a publication covering a story regarding the corruption of a public figure known to be a conservative.
This does not promote a free flow of information, but only explains why an occasional Watergate arises. These isolated exposes serve the purposes of the wealthy and powerful, while at the same time convincing the general public in journalism’s sincerity and dedication in their quest for the truth.
The American press brought us nightly installments of gunfire and bloodshed during the Vietnam war. At first the war coverage focused on the noble efforts of our young men in protecting our freedom against communism. Many watched with a mixture of pride and fear as our battle against evil forged on. The emergence of an organized opposition to the war especially on college campuses began to steal some of the media’s attention.
Due to the length of the war and the growing national turmoil fostered by anti-war riots and protests, America’s tolerance of the war in Vietnam began to decline. The media responding to the growing concerns of the public began to give sizable air time to issues such as the dangers of Agent Orange, napalm, civilian casualties, and the deaths and drug abuse of American soldiers. These issues, though surely not new ones, began to be given more attention.
Media executives responded to the government’s concerns regarding the negative focus of the press defending their coverage saying they were only reporting the facts. They claimed they were only responding to national interest and that their coverage had always been objective and accurate. The change, they stated, was in the American public who now wanted to hear about the darker side of American involvement which they had always reported.
In the Gulf the media was not allowed to move about or film their own coverage of the war. Instead, for issues “of national security” they were issued releasable film by the military. Our media was relatively quiet and accepted this blatant restriction on their 1st Amendment rights. When the Iraqi government placed similar restrictions on American coverage. Our press verbally attacked this “censorship” and added a verbal disclaimer to almost each and every sentence they uttered claiming that the report was censored and approved by the Iraqi government.
Instead of complaining about their coverage of the war being spoon fed by our government the press generally gushed over the fighter pilot “home videos” we got to see. When we destroyed the Iraqi “military machine” the world’s “fifth largest army” without so much as getting a nose bleed, no one questioned why we needed to crush such an overmatched opponent. When thousands of Iraqi soldiers were seen surrendering without much of a fight, no one asked how we could have mistaken this unorganized and unprofessional looking military for a formidable opponent.
Influenced by the 90% approval rating the war supposedly had, the media did little more than cheerlead our efforts to squash a dictator and a nation which we had supported against Iran just a few years before. No questions, no debates, just wave the flag and express amazement over the “surgical” bombings we were performing on their military installations. This claim of performing “surgical” air strikes was not new, but was used by our military during the Vietnam war. Yet, even though our government greatly minimized the massive civilian deaths our air strikes inflicted on the Vietnamese, our press did nothing to validate our military’s claims at efficiency in the Gulf.
One morning during the Gulf war I was watching CNN. Former Secretary of State, Ramsey Clarke, was being interviewed in Iraq. During the interview Mr. Clarke began to discuss the numerous civilian casualties which he and the American Red Cross were tending to. The interview was quickly interrupted by the anchor back at the studio announcing a need for a commercial break. When the break was over, so was the interview. During the next hour they never went back to Mr. Clarke, or discussed his accusations of massive civilian casualties.
Yet, if patriotic censorship were the only issue, than events such as Watergate, the Iran-contra affair and the My Lai incident (massacre) would never be uncovered and reported. The selectivity of when to report political and military scandals must be based on something more than coincidence. The most logical conclusion is that the decisions to publish our countries darker side are made for monetary and political reasons.
Once a governmental scandal is leaked by one major network or publication, others must respond to the story. The more the story gains popular interest the harder it is for others to refrain from publishing it, no matter how damaging the story might be to its economic partners (such as defense contractors).
Even the most loyal Republican journal had to begin to give the Watergate break in some ink after its interest climbed. They of course could attempt to appease their financial backers by minimizing the event or even defending Mr. Nixon’s innocence. Yet, no matter how much they hesitated (which many did) they still were forced into reporting the story. Once the story became hot their need to respond to a popular issue and to appear to have journalistic integrity necessitated they cover the story.
One wonders why My Lai was covered and not any of the hundreds of other “incidents” where our soldiers executed and killed Vietnamese civilians, or why Watergate was exposed and not similar corruptions practiced by almost every other administration this century. The answer can only be that the stories were forced out in the open by people with their own political and economic agendas. It is hard to believe that no journalist witnessed other civilian casualties in Vietnam, or viewed the devastation we inflicted into the landscapes of both North and South Vietnam, Iraq and any other home of the several police actions and interventions we’ve conducted over the last few decades. Even if all of our journalists had blinders on, its impossible for anyone with an ounce of integrity to not follow up on the numerous accounts of our international misdeeds published in respected periodicals in Europe and all over the globe.
Yet, just as damaging to the integrity of journalism as their practice of selectivity is their goal of obtaining exclusive rights to a story. If the media were indeed dedicated to free speech and the free flow of information than no journalist would strive for an exclusive. Getting an exclusive interview or obtaining exclusive rights to a story is in direct opposition to the goal of free speech. Instead of information being freely shared and presented from a number of perspectives, in an exclusive, information is hoarded and controlled by a specific publication. Monetary gain and not journalistic integrity is behind this practice. A practice which is becoming more and more common as publishers and publications battle for dominance.
The inconsistency of the media in its coverage of news is never more apparent than in how it handles its “major” stories. By and large the news stories that have received the most coverage over the last few years have been highly sensational. Taken from the pool of all possible stories they are also rather trite and unimportant.
Stories such as the OJ Simpson case, the Menendez brothers, Lorena Bobbit and Amy Fisher have enjoyed the greatest amount of coverage and scrutiny. Similar tabloid style stories such as Michael Jackson’s alleged pedophilia, Heidi Fleiss, Manuel Norriega’s trial, and David Koresh’s standoff in Waco began strong and ended rather abruptly.
Why the first set of stories went on ad nauseam and the latter died abruptly could be explained from a financial stand point. In the first set of stories there is not a lot of money being spent by individuals or special interest groups to squash coverage. Where in the second batch of stories it is only logical that a number of economic pressures were used to help terminate coverage.
In the cases of Amy Fisher and Lorena Bobbit, there were no wealthy parties involved to interrupt the voyeuristic press. Even though OJ is not a poor man, there are a number of women’s rights activists who would lobby to keep the story of sexual abuse in the public eye. Also, as of late, inexausted coverage of a criminal case has benefitted the defendants more than the prosecution (Bobbit, Menendez, etc.)
Michael Jackson pretty much bought himself out of his trial, and has given the press much else to cover to distract their pursuit of his alleged molestation of children. Though some children’s rights organizations would love the public focus the Jackson case would provide their cause, they are probably afraid of appearing racist by going after another black icon. Also, these organizations have little wealth and influence in comparison to the Jackson family and the Sony and Pepsi corporations who have strong economic interests to protect.
The trial of Heidi Fleiss is very important to the reputation of a number of Hollywood stars, politicians and judges who have reportedly helped her in her prostitution business. The money being tossed around to dilute this story must be hefty indeed. As for the stories of Norreiga and Koresh they went along fine until their court cases began to investigate our governments role in these matters. As soon as Norreiga implicated our government as playing an important role in international drug trafficking the case disappeared from sight. Likewise, once the actions of the ATF became sullied by the courtroom testimonies of Waco survivors coverage stopped rather abruptly.
Often times it appears that the emergence and demise of a story depend on an economic and political tug-of-war between opposing forces. In instances such as major oil spills such as the Exxon Valdeez initial pressure placed on the press by environmental groups is later overmatched by the pressures of the major oil companies. Major corporations from tobacco companies, to auto makers, chemical companies and paper refineries all face opposition from a number of health, environment and consumer service groups (lobbies). Pressure from these organizations often force the press to cover an issue which they know will be forced out of the news in a relatively short period of time by the corporations under attack. Issues detrimental to one political party will always be financed to continue. Even if the press goes no further than occasionally repeating the accusation, its political purpose has been served. The Iran-Contra affair, Paula Jones and Whitewater are three examples of stories that have gone nowhere, but served the purpose of casting doubt in voters minds. Newspapers, magazines and television stations dependent on funds from both Democratic and Republican sources may have a vested interest in their investigations stalling. In this way they are allowed to provide a service and be a part of the game without seriously endangering their economic survival.
Not only is the dissemination of information a highly regarded right in our society, but so is an individuals right to the access of information. Even in the most restrictive institutional settings individuals have the right to become informed through having access to newspapers, television, telephone and all other forms of public access.
This right to information, though an important social value, often is inferior to its economic value. Though all have a right to a quality education, many children cannot afford going to college and therefore are deprived equal access to knowledge. Computer time, too, is quite expensive and again limits the number of people available to its services.
Any information highway currently being constructed by our society is dominated by economic and not human rights concerns. The fraction of the populace available for access to the computer world is still rather slim. Of those who own a computer those able to afford access to the number of information networks dispersing specialized information and open communication are even more few in number.
The ability to form a national information highway has existed for some time now. The delay of course is caused by commercial concerns and not technological ones. The first priority is not our right to information, but how much profit this medium can produce. The second concern is not democratic access, but rather who will own and distribute the information and how profit producing competition markets can be built in.
Not too long ago the cable industry exploded onto the market in direct competition with “free TV”. Though cable promised to take a chunk out of the audience of the major networks, both were quite lucrative. Recently the free networks worked out a deal in which they charge cable companies for re-broadcasting their shows off the satellites they use.
Our television and telephone companies have been using communication satellites circling above our planet for decades. The communication’s industry taps into these transmissions with huge satellite dishes. Some time back private individuals were allowed to buy satellite dishes for personal use. These huge and cumbersome dishes though somewhat expensive functioned as any other antennae and were allowed to pick up numerous television signals in much the same way a high powered radio antennae was able to pick up national and international stations and radio transmissions.
Since most people did not have the space or aesthetic toleration for these huge and obtrusive dishes the satellite market stayed rather small. Cable TV flourished by charging people monthly rates for the opportunity to view a fraction of the stations they were able to receive via satellite. As high-tech advances the size of the product shrinks, just think of the size of the first televisions, transistor radios, computers, video cameras and tape recorders. The same downsizing of hardware makes it possible for us to produce dish type antennae at a fraction of the size.
Since these mini-dishes are quite capable of receiving transmissions for hundreds of channels, the need for us to use the cable middle man becomes unnecessary. Yet, instead of providing the same amount of information at a fraction of the cost we’ve chosen a way to preserve the costly and inefficient cable companies.
Our inalienable right to the dispensing of free information, has once again succumbed to the economic values which dominate our society. Instead of using the relatively inexpensive original format by which an individual buys a television antennae to receive public broadcasts, we are adopting the unnecessary and highly exploitative business formula of cable TV.
The old huge dishes were expensive, but after the initial outlay its continued use was free. The smaller dishes being convenient and relatively inexpensive would allow a great percentage of the population access to a number of programming choices with little financial hardship.
Yet, instead of going forward we are forcing this new technology to be comparable to cable. Like cable, these mini-dishes will carry a monthly charge. Without this charge your ability to receive satellite transmissions will be impaired. This totally unnecessary restriction on the technology is being done to protect the cable industry as well as maximize the profits of those distributing these newer dishes.
This should be a warning to anyone fostering any idealistic visions of the upcoming global information highway. Our values are economic in origin, and any possible humanistic or democratic uses of any technology will always take a backseat to economic concerns. For years we’ve been told that the dynamics of free enterprise produces the highest quality goods at the lowest price. The above example of how we are utilizing the new mini-dish technology should be enough to destroy the myth of the relationship of free enterprise and quality products. This one example could be repeated endlessly in almost every business field from auto manufacturing to medicine to education. The fact is, free enterprise currently suppresses the benefits of new discoveries, inventions and ideas until they can comfortably fit in to our current system while producing the greatest profit.
There are many factors which can make information worthy of mass dissemination or being referred to as news. Anything which impacts or alters a number of lives, effects the quality of life or nature, is novel, educates, informs, inspires, warns, edifies or limits or expands the options we have can be considered news worthy.
All of these factors, plus many more are considered when publishing decisions are made. Yet, there is no denying that decisions regarding the dissemination of information are dominated by economic concerns, influences and ramifications. Fiscal concerns pervade not only what is published, but why and how it is presented.
Many concerns and variables are weighed when anyone decides to disseminate information. When possible many in the media prefer their data and information to be accurate, reliable, honest, productive and important. Yet, all of these considerations must take a back seat to the economic survival of their publication. Even professors and scientists must protect the fiscal resources which make their work possible.
Ethical and moral concerns regarding the content of our news continues to impact the decisions being made. Fears of censorship are always to be balanced by the common good. Many working with the printed and spoken word, as well as visual mediums, profess a desire to avoid the glorification or acceptance of violence, bigotry and hatred.
Yet, when all is said and done, most will admit they are slaves to popularity. Many in defense of the content of their publications state that they only publish what sells, blaming the American public for their emphasis on the gruesome and sensational. We have already pointed out in this section how this is only partially correct. Though it is true that tabloid journalism is popular, it is also true that publishing bizarre and sensational stories is safer than exposing the illegal or hazardous practices of a major corporation or special interest group.
The publishing of any news truly having an impact on our society or the quality of our lives is bound to step on the toes of some very wealthy and powerful people. Our global economy increases the number of connections each business has with each other. An isolated business is a dying business in today’s business world. When one considers the vast commercial tentacles of any major corporation the possibility of any story ending up angering or alienating some of the papers financial contributors becomes fairly likely.
Though what we have said has been quite negative, one should not be overly harsh in their judgement of the media. No they are not living up to their ideals, but what industry or business is? They, like everyone else, claim to be doing the best they can considering the political and economic realities of the real world. Even those most dedicated towards practicing the highest standards of journalism find themselves adapting to and adopting the sub-standard practices of popular tabloids.
In every business and industry in America economic competition forges the best and worst aspects of these endeavors into the marketplace. In our free enterprise system no other value can get exposure unless the value of economic success survives. A publication without funds is a silent, dead one unable to promote any values or forewarn people of impending disaster.
In this chapter we have focused on the dynamics of political and corporate interests on the media and information in general. We just as well could have centered on the fiscal and professional factors which dominate the dissemination of information in the scientific, educational and even spiritual realms. In future chapters we will be exploring the impact of monetary concerns on the values of all of these areas plus many more.