After The ABC News Debacle: How To Change Media

Why Making Media The Issue Is Crucial For Saving Democracy

How ironic that in the same week that the National Association of Broadcasters gave actor Tim Robins a platform to challenge media gatekeepers to open the airwaves to more perspectives ABC NEWS gave us all a classic example of how a network can dumb down a presidential debate and turn it into a disgraceful hit job rather than an enlightening hit.

Rather than advance the political high that so many are having with an exciting campaign, it set a new low in TV coverage and was a blow to our political discourse.

Oddly, the other big news revolved around the Pope’s visit. Benedict knew how to get attention in the US press—by talking about sexual perversion. What he didn’t discuss, and what the media didn’t remind us of, was the last concerns of his Saintly predecessor Pope John Paul 11. That Pope focused on a subject that most media outlets cover the least: their own performance.

That “holy father” focused on what the media should be doing in his last apostolic letter.

Let me remind you since I was struck by the irony of Pontiff’s last wish, it was during the “live” coverage of the death of the Pope—one of the major media moments of 2005, that brought an army of journalists to cover the multitudes of mourners. In a sense it was his dying wish. I was in Rome at the time but only found out about this revelation afterwards. It seemed to have been buried with him or went over the heads of most of those “covering” a spectacle that went on for a week. His image was praised; his ideas were not.

That Pope expressed several wishes calling for a greater sense of social responsibility in the media, and for the media, too, saying:

“Promote justice and solidarity according to an organic and correct vision of human development by reporting events accurately and truthfully, analyzing situations and problems completely, and providing a forum for different opinions. An authentically ethical approach to using the powerful communication media must be situated within the context of a mature exercise of freedom and responsibility, founded upon the supreme criteria of truth and justice.”

He also spoke about media ownership:

“I would like to recall our attention to the subject of media access, and of co-responsible participation in their administration. If the communications media are a good destined for all humanity, then ever-new means must be found – including recourse to opportune legislative measures – to make possible a true participation in their management by all. The culture of co-responsibility must be nurtured.”

Unlike other papal passions, however, implementing this wish cannot rely on faith alone–it will take practical steps.

Changing our media demands action and ideas on many fronts, including the legislative, regulatory, institutional, and educational. It’s about changing structures of power and ways of looking at the world. It demands thought about what we want from ourselves, not just others. It requires a new consciousness among those that make media and those that consume it.

Some years back in discussing my media manifesto, The Death of Media, (Melville House Books) the editors of Buzzflash noted:

“The conventional media is such a huge part of the crisis we face as a democracy that it is hard to even talk about issues. The corporate media goes wherever the White House or the latest missing bride leads them. The real news isn’t profitable enough for the corporate-owned press, so they don’t really DO much news anymore. They do public relations and entertainment.

And they aren’t going to go out on a limb to report much of the truth about the Bush Administration lies, deception and imperial presidency, because they are afraid that the vengeance-driven Busheviks will sabotage their corporate bottom line.”

Let’s admit that the problem goes deeper than just what THEY do wrong—because they have been following the same ideological approach for decades. Yes, it is also about the failure of what WE are not doing right, of the refusal of political movements and activists to take up this problem, not just as occasional reaction to some outrage such as the George and Charlie Show but as an ongoing issue, a problem of democracy as deep as lobbyists, money in politics and various policy questions.

You cannot have a real democracy without a really free media. Period. If the public is not being informed, and, in fact, is continually misinformed, people will not vote in their best interest. Period.

Most candidates and political parties raise hundreds of millions to influence the media, to buy airtime, and get on TV. They know that all politics is media politics in America. There’s even a word for it: “The air war.” They know the media sets the agenda, spins the news, and decides what will and will not be discussed. The war in Iraq grinds on partly because the media promoted it and now mostly ignores it.

Let’s put it simply. More coverage like ABC’s impartial bla bla bla and Fox’s GOP trench warfare and John McCain will be our next president. Period. The media knows how to make Sh*t smell sweet. That’s their business.

It’s good that MoveOn has launched a petition asking the networks not to do what they will continue to do. At least it’s a start. But so much more is needed—a serious activist campaign to challenge the “Views” business, lobbying not just at the FCC but of all organizations on the ground to put media change on their agenda, and also significant, to support independent media to challenge and where possible compete with the corporate media agenda.

Let’s think about the kind of “Media And Democracy Act” that will include funding for media makers and media literacy educators that we can all agree on.

While obscene amounts of money are being raised to fund political campaigns, the Indy Media sector is actually being defunded as foundations pull back and donors give everywhere but into a dynamic counter media.

We need to get anti-war activists to start campaigning for honest coverage from media companies that are complicit in the war. We need to challenge the media failure to tell us that the economic crisis was coming too. And investigate its causes, the people responsible for the plunder.

We need to get so-called media reform “movements” like Free Press to stop putting their main focus on Washington lobbying and internet petitions or holding rallies they call conferences with little follow-up to mount an activist campaign for media accountability. Let’s put some organizers in the streets, not more lawyers and experts in the suites.

The sad truth is that many of the organizations engaged in media advocacy won’t work together or cross-promote each other’s work and, instead, compete for funding and bragging rights. That’s been our experience at MediaChannel which was set up as a network to promote the whole movement. We are hanging on when we should be flourishing as media concentration and media crimes persist —yes, the word crime is not too strong, a crime against democracy is what many media outlets have become.

These are some of the ABC’s of media change. Anyone listening? Anyone willing to act?

– News Dissector Danny Schechter edits MediaChannel.org. His latest film is In Debt We Trust (InDebtWeTrust.org) and is writing a book about the economic crisis. Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

Popularity: 2% [?]

David (and Danny),
I wish it were a Disney Fantasy. Seems to me that the more violent films get, the more local violence is aired and printed by the news media–as opposed to real new analysis. And since the White House does not allow stories showing multiple coffins and what’s really going on in Iraq….
Vida

It’s interesting what the last respondent said about the amount of money that George Soros has. I wrote a letter to Mr. Soros during the John Kerry campaign about that very issue. But I am not a media darling nor am I connected to anyone powerful so my letter was placed in the round file. The point is - even progressive liberals with money don’t take the time to look around at options for change. Instead, the MSM is largely owned by rich conservatives. The voice is unimportant to these people because like Charles Gibson, they live in a world where the majority of their daily contacts earn more than $200,000.00 a year.
There were journalist in the past who had their noses down on the cement to track down a good story. Today, almost all journalist attended college and are paid decent salaries. And if they rise and become TV anchors their annual salaries begin at seven figures. Now think about it, would you cross the desires of your managing editor and jeopardize your life style? And therein lies the problem with modern American journalism - journalist and media reporters are no longer hungry enough to sacrifice for truth and their craft.
So many ordinary Americans live with drama in their lives everyday, the would really like to come home after work and just be given the “facts” and not the “spin” that characterizes every story that gets the nod.
There are a lot of people that would love to see the real news. There are a lot of people that would put their security on the line to report the truth, but the MSM will never keep that kind of person on staff because one person dedicated to ferreting out the truth could topple their empire.
So…the challenge should go to the George Soros, all the well heeled stars and porgressive liberal business people to pool their funds to finance a source for real news. It could be done but will the people with the money take the challenge?

Just because ABC had the nerve to ask Mr. Obama questions …. you get upset?

It is about time they treated Obama like they do most on the right …

The media news does tend to lean left … most journalists tend to have political leanings on the left and vote Democrat.

Fox seems wierd to you since they present both sides of a news story.

When you folks of the far left talk and write about these things you just show of wacky you are.