Final Exam

The media as a linkage institution needs to function as an intermediate between government and people and ensure the operation of a democratic society. There are six standards for the role of the media, five of which are layed out extensively in Leighly’s Mass Media & Politics, and the last one described in de Tocqueville’s article.

Objective Fact Seeking-The presenting of facts in a neutral, objective tone without the assuming of any stance or position on a given issue. In addition, the media must mention both sides of an issue and allot equivalent time and space to ensure overall fairness.
Public Advocacy-The media operates to serve the interests and good of the general public. It does this by keeping citizens informed of government, and advocating the specific societal needs.
Neutral Adversary- Media plays a critical role in democracy functioning to keep government power n check and ensuring it does not exploit its power, neglect the people in pursuit of self- interest.
Profit Seeking-The media, as a commercial industry, functions to maximize profit and generate revenues for its shareholders.
Propagandist-The press is seen as a means for government to help influence public support for its policies through the use of persuasive techniques, such as emotion evoking images, rhetoric and myths.
De Tocqueville's Democratic Participation-Media functions to maintain civilization, and bring people together to allow the existence of a democracy.

From the six different standards mentioned, the public advocate model would be most beneficial to society, as it encompasses the greatest and most necessary elements of all the other models, without overemphasizing any one particular aspect. The Objective Fact Seeking Model tends to be favored, but I do not see it as a realistic expectation. It is exceedingly difficult to determine what the standards for objectivity is without actually being subjective (see my argument for this here). The Propagandist relegates the media into nothing more than a pawn of the government, the Profit Seeking spawns tabloid journalism, fluff news, and horse race coverage, and the Neutral Adversary places too much emphasis on criticism of government potentially resulting in the neglecting of other key issues. De Tocqueville’s standard need to delineate a more definitive task for the media.
Therefore, rather than reporting the cheap, sensational and entertaining, Media should provide coverage that benefits society. While maintaining financial self sufficiency, and allowing special interests to thrive, it must also ensure that citizens are capable of self government by fostering an environment of discussion and debate on public affairs, serving as a watch dog against government failures, and overall involving citizens in the political process. Therefore, Media should not only select issues that are pertinent to society, but report news in a way that would be conducive to public affairs. However, this model relies heavily on the reporter’s assessment of societal needs, and media staff members assuming the role of political activists, therefore requiring much competence and expertise to implement this task into the actual news covering process.

However, modern day Mainstream Media does not even come close to meeting this standard.
As Dan Gilmore laments, in Grassroots of Journalism, the moments where Big Media served as a public advocate reached its peak in the 60’s and 70’s, when anchorman like Walter Cronkite brought legitimate areas of public concern to people's attention.
From narrowcasting, where mass media no longer delivers to a broad representative public, to tabloid journalism, where emphasis is played on sex, scandal and sensationalism, to priming that is used to influence our perception of crucial issues, our modern day media is plagued with issues that thwart its potential as a public advocate.

Media has a tendency to paint the world in black and white descriptions, through stereotyping and storytelling of villains, victims and superheroes. (Read my previous post on the embedded comic strip) Leighly and McChesney point out, there is an overemphasis on crime and violence. The hyped up coverage of the DC sniper incident, for instance, caused irrational fears and misconceptions. There is also a shift from hard news to soft news; society tends to suffer particuarly from the fluff news in election coverage, that emphasizes horse race, strategy and scandal. In addition, the quality of foreign affairs coverage has plummeted, a particularly critical failure, as citizens have little direct experience in this area and strongly rely on media coverage. Episodic framing is another negative characteristic of the media, where it compromises the integrity of a story by not providing sufficient background or framing it in a particular misleading conext. For instance, is job loss individual failure, or is it indicative of the negative state of the economy?
Overall these series of characteristics of our modern media has resulted in a failure to serve the public. Rather than aiding citizens to participate in self- government, and providing them with the tools necessary to make educated decisions, the media has spawned widespread political ignorance, apathy and cynicism.

For instance, the Mark Foley incident certainly needed to be covered, but rather than the sleazy details of his sexual innuendos, (see below) and an in depth analysis of the political ramification for the Republican Party, emphasis should have been placed on why his actions survived as one of the best kept secrets in Washington . If the incident had been presented in the context of exposing the dire need of reform for US Senate and House, and how stricter laws need to be implemented to improve the overall moral integrity of our government, the media may have actually served a higher purpose.




Society overall has been deprived of proper news coverage. Long standing issues such as social issues like poverty, healthcare and racism are often neglected even when they are very pertinent. The quality of foreign politics coverage has plummeted as well, and this failure is particularly critical as citizens have little direct experience with international affairs, and strongly rely upon media coverage to make informed decisions.
The local media fails as well; many people would be more involved in their community government if they knew about the series of issues in deliberation and who is behind them.

Gilmore applauds Modern Talk Radio in We The Media and describes how “Howard Kurtzhow exclaimed that talk radio predated, and in many ways precipitated the web log phenomena.” To some degree, this industry constitutes an exception to the failures of Big Media. Modern Talk Radio surpasses as a means of unleashing political anger helping to bring society together in a series of other areas, such as social issues, where expert health, financial or legal advice is offered, and listeners can ask questions or comment.

However, overall Big Media-television news networks, newspapers and other main non internet sources of news- have failed as public advocates. In fact, according to McChesney, "the Modern Mass media is an antidemocratic force failing to serve public good." Pertinent issues suffer from a lack of sufficient coverage, often simply because the Media doesn’t consider them to be conducive to maximizing profit. Sometimes the issues are controversial and can ostracize readers, shareholders or advertisers, or may even cause a conflict of interest. Thus, what is reported tends to be as Professor Pimpare describes “fast, cheap and sensational.”

However, when events are recorded by people with direct or personal experience rather than dispassionate bystanders, and when profit incentive doesn’t play a ubiquitous role in the ways news is presented, new doors open for the quality of news. New Media has emerged as viable alternative to Mainstream Media. It is no surprise that Time has selected as person of the year “Yes, you. You control the information age. Welcome to the world” with over twenty pages giving acclaiming interactive communities on the world wide web, such as YouTube, My Space, Facebook, Wikipedia the Bloggosphere. Time goes into deep analysis of worthy outcomes for each of these sites. Such as Lane Hudson’s “Stop Sexual Predators” blog that ultimately led to the publicizing of the Mark Foley Page scandal, the overall good effects of the flickr website where anyone can upload and view images and photos, Captain Lee Kelley’s Wordssmith at War military video blogger of the Iraq War, at with over 200, 000 hits, Sidarth’s YouTube recording of Senator George Allen’s macacagate scandal (watch clip below), as well as an attribute to Simon Pulsifer, coined the Duke of Data, who has edited and authored nearly a 100, 000 articles.

"Amateurs are filling the vacuum created by everything the old media chose to ignore” Steven Johnson from Time magazine.



Democratic participation has surged as new opportunities have arisen for like-minded people to organize and communicate in an easy convenient fashion. Emails and petitions have made contact between citizens, and government officials feasible. Blogs and chatgroups have allowed people to voice concern over policymaking or developments in the news.
Education and research has never been easier, as new pools of valuable information can be accessed instanteously previously available only in paper version at substantial cost.

The internet becomes a particularly viable alternative, when mass media misrespresents, downplays, or completely neglects an issue; New Media is replete with potential to bring public awareness to legitimate areas of concern that are otherwise receiving little or no attention by the MSM. Occasionally, Big Media will cover a story or event that is circulating New Media. Consider the Irish Trojan Blog who was named # 1 blogger and achieved fame in the NY Times, and Washington Post, for his exceptional coverage of the Katrina landfall aftermath.
Dan Gilmor talks about particular groups, such as Kuro5hin which is written and edited by its users, and OhMyNews a Korean news site created entirely by citizen journalists.
Thus emails, mailing list, chat groups, and blogs have help form this new standard for news gathering

However, there is no question, that there is a downside to news disseminating so rapidly, and the loosening of conventional standards of reporting. Dan Gilmore’s We the Media is criticized by many as utopian. One particular area of concern, is the new opportunities for slander and privacy violations that have emerged. Video clips, sound-bites, or text versions can report instantaneously the faux pauses, racial slurs, or criminal activities of any individual. Government officials, however, have been most directly affected by this. Senator George Allen defeat and Howard Dean’s failing presidential campaign could largely be attributed to the effectiveness of these web communication. An additional concern, is that nonprofessional news sources tend to provide very one-sided or even inaccurate analysis of a particular incident or issue. Extensive research is often required to find websites that provide adequate alternating viewpoints. Thus, reliance on citizen journalists such as bloggers or new sources does has shortcomings and leaves room for misinformation. For instance, Time magazine actually talks about a Chinese blogger, Wang Xiaofeng, who is famous despite the fact that he makes up many polls and surveys. Furthermore, the internet only enhances democratic participation for people who already have an interest or are informed about politics.

Therefore, the effects of the internet as a public advocate relies strongly on the individual's ability to utilize its facilities effectively, and sift through information to find what is germane, and authentic. Overall though, the internet is replete with potential to advocate for the bettering of society in a manner that is unfound and unprecedented in other industry.

However, as McChesney writes in the Problem of the Media, “the future of the internet is anything but certain.” In some ways, the future looks good for the internet. Better technology people will aid people in sifting through information more efficiently, and programs like Microsoft’s New Junkie and MyYahoo! will contine to emerge to help rate, organize, and search through news stories and sources more effectively.

Unfortunately, however, there also are a series of bleak predictions with regard to the future of the industry. Among the chief of concerns, is what Jeff Chester describes as The End of the Internet, warning how “The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.”

If indeed economic interests continue to play a bigger role in New Media, until all forms of the news and information generating processes evolve into a commercial industry, problems of Big Media will likely penetrate the web as well. Financial considerations will govern the publishing of content on the internet and only those who are economically viable, such as corporations, special interest groups, and advertising companies would be able to survive in the industury. Everyone else would be relegated to the slow lane or completely shut out, and this would mark a decline in nonprofit organizations, and peer to peer communications that have so postively distinguished the news content on the internet. Greater regulation and control of the online experience could result in a limit in the number of Media streams, downloads, or even email messages that could be sent or received. As McChesney laments, “From spam emails, to advertising revenue driven search engines, the internet is going hypercommercial.”

As, Lawrence Lessig has long noted, it is government regulation of the phone lines that helped to make the Internet into the vibrant, diverse and democratic medium it is today.Telephone and cable lobbyists of companies like Verizon, Bell South, and Comcast are currently engaged in a political campaign, but unfortunately, these crucial policy deliberations are not reported in the Mainstream Media, and general public is misinformed. However, there are many organizations that have emerged to help perserve freedom of the web, that has become known as "net neutrality." Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media Access Project Consumers Union, and Save The Internet are a few of the key players.



Inevitably, the Web is on the brink of a major transformation; the two industries, Big Media and New Media will merging into one. Ultimately, current web experiences will be recalled with nostalgia, and the overall success of the public advocate model, as a standard for news reporting will disintegrate into nothing more than a utopian dream.

The Embedded Comic Strips

Rather then serving to provide pertinent high quality information to help inform citizens about their government and its policies, the Media is notorious for covering events in the juiciest, most eye catching fashion even if it means relegating public figures to villain, victims, and superheroes.

In light of recent events, such as the mounting death toll in Iraq, and the escalating clashes between tyrannical regimes in the Middle East and the US, changes in the foreign policy such as military proposals calling for a staged withdrawal from Iraq, and the administration’s willingness to implement more diplomatic tactics in the Middle East are crucial developments. Negotiating with neighboring countries to alleviate the political turmoil in Iraq, the push to rekindle peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, and pursuing an international conference that would lead to direct talks between Tehran, Damascus and Washington are a few possible outcomes of the new diplomatic approach. However, the political officials who are the potential executers of these changes in foreign policy, and are leading these critical events have received coverage akin to the narration of characters in a comic strip. New potential superheroes with names like “James Baker” and “Lee Hamilton” with rescue squads dubbed the “Iraq Study Group” have seemed to emerge. Bush is portrayed as a stubborn animated figure, with his hands around his hips and a sad pouted comical look.


Take a glimpse at the recent headlines such as “Can Bush Find an Exit?”… “Will Bush listen?”…and “So Now What Mr. President”? Time magazine’s tone in describing the situation almost begs to be used as an example. “Of course some people [Bush] don’t like being rescued”. And the visit of the “Baker Hamilton emergency squad” and the “although there will be no lights flashing and sirens wailing” statement. Newsweek has assumed a more “professional” stance, with describing the establishing the recent foreign affairs commission comments, “The President seems to be getting a lot of reality therapy”, and the portraying the event as “the counsel coming” and Bush as “the decider”.

The Media has painted a picture with Bush and the geographical land called Iraq smack in the middle, with all other aspects being secondary. This week’s issue of Newsweek carefully lays out the context of these events, providing extensive detailed analysis of the political repercussions, intertwined schemes and webs of strategies in Washington. It savors upon the unmet expectations: Bush Operation Iraqi Freedom, as a fantasy for a democratic oasis in a parched dessert replaced by a more realistic expectation of some measure of stability in the region. The gossip scoop may be entertaining and even intriguing, but hardly pertinent in discussing the future of such an immensely grave situation as Iraq where people’s lives and jobs are at stake. Many people’s families have been torn asunder through the conflict and the way the media is portraying the imminent departure from Iraq may even be a personal affront to them. Analysis of what Bush is thinking is hardly relevant, but yet much of the situation is being discussed in terms of political strategy.

Bush may be commander and chief, but after he renders his decisions and selects the people for office, the results of his selections should be covered in respect to Iraq, not the political effects on his administration. He should not be the only one on magazine covers. The nine pages or so, out of Newsweek’s December 11th issue that it labels “Iraq” do not do justice to its content. It would only be fair to its readers to clearly distinguish between the juicy scoop behind Bush and the politicians (6 pages) and the actual Iraq and foreign policy coverage (3 pages).
If the Media opts to describe and analyze the differing perspectives, and provide psychological profiles with the people involved, why not describe the people who are actually there and will first hand experience the changes in the course of the war, the ones who will truly benefit or lose. The media can speak from other points of view, such as by offering reflections from Generals, the Pentagon military personnel, Iraqi civilians, the Iraqi police force, because believe it or not, there are people will be more affected by these development more then the President.
However, the media presents these events in a context that makes it difficult for its audience, unless they have a close friend or relative in the actual war, not to remain apathetic. In fact, when the Media takes critical events such as these, and casts an overall comical teasing-like coverage on the whole thing, it exacerbates the widespread political ignorance, cynicism and indifference that Americans have toward their government. The Media presents us with a play by play akin to what you’d expect in a baseball, or perhaps more appropriately one of a poker game as scheming and strategy seem to be a key point in the coverage. But is expecting such a high standard of reporting, where the media actually educates people with pertinent information and doesn’t dress it up with villains and heroes be naïve?

Although the juicy, gossip like headlines, and the hyping up of reality, the emphasizing of irrelevant and interesting facts over the pertinent others and the overall tabloid journalism has marked media coverage for centuries, one must be careful not to render this the immutable reality of news coverage. Rather than being passive consumers of news, and embracing whatever provided with the media situation can be if people rally against its practices. The first step in this is raising people’s awareness, which is why I have benefited not only in the academic realm from Media & Politics 2170, but it has helped me to become a more educated news consumer and a better citizen.

Clashes between New Media and Big Media?

The booming television industry threatened the once predominantly popular radio industry. Because TV provided a better and enhanced version of the one-to-many and many-to-many form of communication, its surging popularity that emerged in the 50’s and 60’s drew many avid listeners away from radio. In our modern times, it is difficult not to acknowledge the presence of a revolutionizing shift in the Media world, and not wonder if the new digital age will threaten and even cause the ultimate decline of newspapers, television networks, and magazines that serve as the Mainstream Media.

New Media has potential to reshape the conventional standards and methods of Media communication institution and has already begun to do so in a series of areas, such as through blogging and You Tube (discussed in greater detail in previous posts.) On some level, MSM has yielded many benefits from the web world. Many opportunities exist for News networks to use the web world to amplify their popularity and provide better news coverage. Internet technology makes it all the more easier for allowing audience participation in the editorial process. News networks often encourage feedback and evaluations forms and survey responses could easily be completed on the web.

In fact now, as a series of newer and better opportunities for news production exist, such as the greater number and variety of news sources and the abundant media watcher organizations, the delivering of the highest quality news possible, and the thorough educating of the public should be easier than ever. But recall that rather than functioning to inform citizens of pertinent objective truths the media primary objective is to maximize profits. Initially there were reasons for New Media to be regarded as a serious threat by Mainstream Media. These concerns would not necessarily be reflective of legitimate worries such as the loss of professional journalism standards, but rather simply because as abundant new sources proliferate on the internet, the alternatives being better and more comprehensive, meaning dwindling popularity and great financial losses.
And as Gilmor rightfully argues, Mainstream Media ceasing to exist would not be in our best interests. New Media is characterized with a certain degree of professionalism and has to abide by a standard of integrity and authenticity. It is difficult to maintain such a level of ethics on the internet.
If the way Gilmore depicted the distrust and skepticism of the blogosphere that dominates the professional news companies was entirely accurate it would be a profound illustration of where there would be concern and a serious of clash of interest. Gilmor lists a series of stories of journalists who chose to blog during their spare time, while still deliver professional articles and faced immense pressures and difficulties to abstain from doing so. On some level, it is understandable how there would be this exist a serous conflict of interest and why it be in the best interest of the paper to suppress these kinds of cyber interactions. The journalistic expression in newspaper or magazine is not necessarily reflective of his personal stance, and hardly his unbridled expression. Rather a journalist faces a series of pressures to do things in a particular way, such as to do one story as opposed to another, and what the appropriate tone the writer should assume, and very often his writings are edited beyond recognition. Aside from drawing away regular readers, serious major discrepancies exist between a journalist’s blog and the actual articles he produces for the company could exist and could threaten to undermine the authenticity or integrity of the institution.
However, the situation is a lot better than the way Gilmor depicts it “blogs have been slow to take off in the MSM…I attribute this more to the innate conservatism of the Big Media business than to anything else…,distrust among traditional editors of a genre that threatens its…core values.”
The two industries, at least lately, have reached a sort of compromise. The original distance that was created, is now gone and the two industries have converged in many aspects. Hence, the formation with blogburst. Recently it has struck a recent partnership with USA today. ] . The Houston Chronicle, a democrat-leaning newspaper asked blogburst to provide them with more conservative blog feeds, in order to counteract the bias and create a balance of political orientation in their content.
This is just one area where the interface of the two Medias.

Changing trends is apparent factor that even the most “conservative”, is Gilmor describe them, are evolving and learn to adapt to the societal trends. New Media isn’t dieing out its just going digital.

Quintessential Journalism
In We the Media, Gilmore redefines journalism as a realm of thought that necessitates response and feedback and embraces a unique revolutionized idea of how ideal journalism should be conducted. As a journalist himself, his thoughts are particularly noteworthy as he recognizes that his audience as more than just passive consumers indiscreetly embracing all that they are provided with. In fact, Gilmore views feedback as an integral part of journalism, and thus recognizes citizens as playing a critical role in the journalism process. For instance, after every article he feels the email address of the journalist should be consistently provided with and this would be a strong indication that public participation is desired and the neglecting to do such would illustrate the contrary. As web technology that allows for feedback instantaneously, and transcends geographic barriers, the power of the web to enhance interactive journalism is immense, and the two parties, the writer and the public, engaged in meaningful intelligent discussion will ultimately improve journalistic.

Although it is impossible to please everyone, as there are endless perspectives and discords existing in public opinion, a journalist’s role as an informative writer could shift, after filtering out pure nonsense, potentially libelous, or flagrantly inaccurate information, to the seeking of a sort of balance and the synthesizing into a medium the polarized ideas and values and perceptions of those members of society who have chosen to involve themselves in the news process. In fact the merging of this wide assortment of ideas could theoretically result in the closest thing existing to objectivity and accuracy in the entire field of journalism. Something strictly informative, comprehensive and objective transcending partisan lines, absent of the prejudices and individual perspectives of one writer could result. And if Wikipedia is any indication this idea, of what could result from unrestricted public access, this may have viability to it, rather than a strictly a nice utopian concept, overly optimistic akin to Marxist communism, but rather present an ultimate and real solution to the series of failures plaguing the journalism industry, (lamented in great details in previous posts of this blog)

Of course, this process of collaborative journalism, where it becomes more of a conversation, heavily relies on the willful active participation of the public in the news process, not to mention the integrity of their ideas. In fact, much of this rests on the belief of the public knowing more than the journalist. Collectively this is certainly true, but this is also certainly a possibly when you take into account the that such a news process would tend to stimulate responses primarily from individuals who take a serious interest in ameliorating journalism, rather than any random menace. For example, citizens who are concerned with factual reporting or media accuracy and find contrary evidence to a claim made, as well as people who have an avid interest in the particular field being discussed and may have additional knowledge or valuable information, and often people feeling personally affected by a topic will get involved as well. It also is usually relatively easy for bloggers to distinguish between the works of professionals or pros and threat of those just uttering nonsense, besides for the fact that latter usually consists of the minority. And thus very often, the final draft of information that is produced by the journalist can result in a smarter, more moving piece of writing. Wikipedia works this could work too. You take what would otherwise be an indiscernible hodgepodge of information and consolidate into one factual, objective accurate article/conglomeration, and you have an authentic, informative piece of writing.

However, this is not to say that this solution would be perfect. Dan Gilmor maintains a very enthusiastic stance through emphasizing New Media with such optimism it is understandable why many consider his work to be bordering on naiveté. Indeed, he only casually brushes on some of the risks involved and dismisses some valid concerns as overblown without outlining any viable solution or rebuttal to the series of potential obstacles, remaining firm in his original stance in his stating and restating that the advantages will always outweigh the risks. Inevitably, certain problems will exist within the field and certain aspects of journalism will always remain in the arbitrary control of the editor, as for instance, the objective standard will be difficult to be consistently maintained and implemented such as with selection of priority for a reporting an event, and the formatting and space allotting for a given story. Practical problems could arise from this system as well, such as a serious difficulty in regulating and controlling all the web mail traffic which could potentially amass to tens of thousands of responses. But overall Gilmore draws attention to a very real potential of New Media to reshape the journalism industry, and considering the sordid situation of our media any remotely viable solution is one to be seriously considered.

The "you" in You Tube
In its short existence of twelve months this virtual video land called You Tube has already revolutionized internet communication in a series of ways. It is a method of web multimedia communication that is becoming increasingly popular as the months roll by, with a diversity of uses that extend from people pitching auction items on eBay to kids attempting to perform their own standup comedy routines from their basement. This breakthrough in technology accommodates all video formats, and allow for You Tube clips to be posted and viewed on any web browser. In fact, the way blogs can transform ordinary citizens into journalists, You Tube can help people achieve near celebrity status. And although predominantly among users with high speed internet access, if a certain video clip is significantly appealing, it can easily achieve widespread circulation within the internet community and even wind up getting coverage in the Mainstream Media.
The You Tube technology has indeed affected the cultural and social aspects of society, but other areas in society are undergoing changes as well. In the midterms elections, You Tube played a prominent role for many Congressmen seeking a more friendly, personal method of communication with the public and, thus, many adopted video streaming as an effective way of relaying important campaign messages. But You Tube can also be accredited for the skyrocketing negative publicity for some candidates, such as the notoriety of the Macacagate incident of Senator George Allen. The video of the Senator's referall to an Indian supporter of his oponent as a "macaca"was captured on web camera, and the clip circulated quickly around the internet and soon “macaca” became a common cyber term. This also helped to launch extensive media coverage on the alleged racism tendancies of George Allen and his sordid political situation was only exacerbated by the additional racial speech implications he was accused of.
As far as these technological improvements go for the Big Media media industries,well they've definitely given them what to compete with. People are becoming increasingly self sufficient in terms of the methods they use to keep abreast of developments in the news, and less reliant on the big media. YouTube has helped to supplement a whole new dimension in news content on the internet. In the blogging community a large number of blogs are embedded with appropriate or relevant video clips. The growing availibility of news clips online helps to enhance the news gathering process overall and make internet news more palpable, as it free and instantaneous for anyone with a decent internet connection.
YouTube also helps to creates a new standard for the mainstream media. Video clips on the internet often provide access to the complete recorded versions without the editing and filtering processes done by news networks were making things more “family friendly” often downplays some of the violence like in Darfur, Lebanon or Iraq for instance. A solider can film the insurgency in Bagdad, and unlike the news networks, not have to be concerned with showing too much blood or gore. YouTube can help to improve overall truth and accuracy in the Mainstream media find it increasingly difficult to conceal bias and distortion as people will have such an extensive array of other sources at immediate access. A new standard of news will thus be likely emerge as a result.

But like any other innovation in technology, with the great liberties of You Tube comes new responsibility. Some serious ethical and legal problems are going to need to be addressed and inevitably, certain sacrifices such as privacy rights, are going to have to have to be made. The question may even arise if the benefits yielded by YouTube will be worth their stake.

Proud to Be a Blogger

Our media system serves to maximize profit for its owners and investors, and since tabloid journalism is perhaps one of the most effective ways of ensuring public interest, sex, scandal, disaster, and crime permeate newspaper headlines and masquerades as news on TV. When news making is a commercial industry and the primary focus is on profit, there is no telling to what degree the caliber of the news will suffer. The previous posts, in this bog refer to a multitude of evidence of flaws in this system. Election coverage is just one aspect of where poor news coverage manifests itself. Candidates are relegated to racehorses in a game with polls and strategies being reported with the care of a loudspeaker discussing the proximity of a horse from the finishing line. Rather than focusing on providing valuable information to voters, such as the policies and agendas of a candidate, the media seems to treat the whole thing as nothing more than a game, and provides coverage of only the details that would be most intriguing and eye catching to its audience-- in other words most profitable. Survey after survey reveals the degree of public ignorance and apathy regarding our political system. Citizens are more cynical of our government than ever, and voter turnout plummets yearly.
It is in a series of areas that lack competent and sufficient press coverage, but as fluff news continues to be easy and cheap to print, and people continue to be obsessed with celebrity gossip, such as Britney Spears latest divorce, there isn’t going to be much of a demand for change. The flaws in the system are ingrained to such an extent that most people aren’t even aware a problem exits. People’s preferences for news are dictated largely by what they’ve been exposed to in the media in the past, and thus the status quo has been replaced with a very warped definition of news.
As the saying goes, the media does not necessarily tell you what to think, but they tell you what to think about and how to think about it. Watching the news, or picking up a newspaper becomes almost a disheartening task for me. In a way, I feel as though I am furthering the cycle by playing the role of the naïve victim, allowing my interest to be piqued the sensational news story headlines.
But perhaps writing this piece is really part of the solution. To many people, the blogosphere has emerged as a safe haven for the series of flaws plaguing our MSM. Certainly, it is no longer solely in the hands of the Mainstream Media to dictate what it is or isn’t news. Unlike, journalists who are constantly subject to meeting the demands and pressures from above the ladder, and there work is hardly their unbridled expressions, bloggers can deliver their passions and opinions, instantaneously, unfiltered and uncensored. When news publishing is no longer orchestrated by the profit incentive, an environment of sharing and providing quality news and debates becomes feasible. People are writing from interest or passion, or genuine concern. They lack the ulterior motivations that typically govern news production in the MSM; those very same motivations that often hinder quality. When the mainstream media keeps silent about a certain event or issue, but bloggers are outraged the discord between the two mediums lays compelling evidence of flaws and corruption existing in the Big Media. As a result a new standard emerges. Journalists know their work is under tough scrutiny by the internet world.
People nation wide can comment and analyze any event, and if done adequately they can achieve significant internet fame, like the Irish Trojan blog, who acquired fame in revealing the insufficient coverage of Hurricane Katrina on his blog and helped ignite the mainstream media spurring greater coverage over the event. Now has tens of thousands of viewers visiting his blog daily. Skipping right through journalism school, and the intimidating interviews with all the hot shots of the press corps, a person can acquire fame from his own bedroom.

Blog need to be intelligent, sufficiently interesting or compelling but hardly the sensational and juicy what the mainstream media uses to attract people. People just aren’t searching for these kinds of blogs, and besides they can easily get that in Mainstream Media. As a result a new standard emerges in the news world news one with a demand and opportunity for real talent.

The Media’s Accountability

Boehlert’s Lapdogs raises some very interesting even disturbing questions regarding the way the media conducted itself during the days preceding the war on Iraq, and earlier part of the actual conflict. The media seemed too eager to repeat information strategically spoon fed by the White House, too timid and naïve to express any real cynicism or concern over the legitimacy of the war, and intentionally left out information that would indicate that significant opposition existed. Thus, they became coconspirators with the Bush administration inadvertently adopting the propagandistic and even deceptive way of relaying information to the public that lead them into supporting an unnecessary war.

The real question is not what caused the media to behave so uncharacteristically, and abandon its generally more cynical critical approach to our government, because really the media was doing what it does best-- telling people they wanted to hear.
Media scholars, analysts and researchers tend to agree that the role the media assumes in our society is not that of public advocating, and neither is it that of objective truth seeking; rather it functions to raise profits just like any other business or industry does. Eric Boehlert laments the media for being negligent in its role “… to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest”( see more here), but such noble incentives do not exist in the first place. The de facto state of the media is most evident when the quest for truth comes in conflict with its need to maximize profit; the media’s chief concern quickly becomes that of the latter.

Thus, it is important to note the audience the media was catering during the days preceding the War on Iraq, or better phrased for our purposes- the aftermath of 9/11. Since Pearl Harbor, over a half a century ago, Americans had not experienced an attack of such magnitude on its own soil. The disheartened but angry, terror stricken but vengeance –wanting emotions and sentiments had not fully faded. Patriotism continued to soar, and people still looked to rally behind a strong leader who’d do more than provide the public with morale building rhetoric; one who promised action. Public trust and support of the government was at its heyday. Thus people allowed themselves to accept the war on Iraq. Not to say there weren’t ambivalent feelings, and people didn’t prefer a more diplomatic means of handling the conflict, but people allowed their patriotism to govern their final say. Certain details, such as there being no real evidence of ties between the 9/11 attacks to Saddam’s regime just didn’t seem to be that significant. The mood, the psychological plight of the public, was not one of cynicism and of questioning its commander and chief.

However, there then comes the unavoidable question of whether or not the media continued to build on this cycle by continuing to provide news coverage that furthered this attitude of the public, of Iraq being an unavoidable consequence of 9/11 and its support a manifestation of our patriotism. Had the media ventured and raised some real doubts in the press, perhaps the public would have shifted to embrace a more questioning, skeptical type of mindset. The media seemed to allow the propaganda put forth by the administration to reverberate and flourish. Perhaps at a certain point it was no longer reinforcing the people with what they already felt and had reached the point where it was governing and dictating people’s attitudes and opinions about the war. Rather than relay information that could’ve allowed people to doubt the war earlier on, the media didn’t want to abandon its already established take, and found it easier to continue down the path it already had established, or more sinisterly perhaps, the trap it had set for itself.

However, the media wasn’t just reporting directly to the mood of the public. It also reflected upon the opinions in our government. Democrats in Congress supported to the war, and only a minority within the government overtly voiced opposition. In the fall of 2002, 78 rcent of U.S. Senate voted in favor of the war. Thus, rather than risk offending its audience by emphasizing or hyping up anti-war opinions that at the time represented only the minority, the media actually downplayed some of the news and resorted to reporting what was popular opinion. At the brink of the war there was also a lack of a significant clash of opinions between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and building a story or providing extensive or in depth analysis of the handful of strong anti-war opinions would perhaps cause them to be depicted with the notorious “liberal media bias” or even worse as unpatriotic. The media had no way of knowing that what then constituted the minority anti-war sentiment, would later emerge as popular mainstream opinion.

Thus, the few early voices who vocalized concern that the administration’s claims lacked substantial evidence, such as there being no Weapons of Mass Destruction, were downplayed because at the time the claims themselves were no more than speculations. News industries lacked the 0riginal intelligence report that served as the basis for Bush’s claim of nuclear weaponry. Since it was difficult to refute anything Bush said, legitimizing and giving credence to the early speculations and theories could entangle themselves in a political mess. Any such articles at the brink of the war would seem unpatriotic and overly cynical. It wasn’t until later in the war that the media began taking a different approach, but by then it was too late.

The media didn’t necessarily prefer Bush to any other administration. Unlike his predecessor, Bush emerged as a president in times of crises. The nature of the public to rally behind its leader in times of threats and wars is surely not a novelty, and neither is the tendency of the media to appeal to the public’s mainstream sentiment by providing news coverage with a tone deemed appropriate by the majority.
Thus, the media can only be held accountable to a certain extent. Fault lies in Washington-- in Congress-- within our own government for not investigating better the war being advertised by the Bush administration. Moderates with widespread appeal and competent leaders in prominent positions should have more proficiently examined the legitimacy of the war. They should have spoken up, assuming a braver stance and reported their initial ambivalence before the war even started; but only 22 percent voted against the war.
Nobody with realistic expectations could have expected the media to venture down a path that might prove unprofitable. But once significant discord existed, and legitimate authorities had begun stirring up questions, the media’s theoretical role as a public advocate could have become a possibility.

Sacrificing For Democracy or Sacrificing Democracy?

Our very first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” Being able to freely criticize our government is the very function of freedom of speech that constitutes our democracy. Citizens in a self-governing society depend on freedom of speech to determine whether or not to elect a government candidate or support a particular policy. Freedom of speech fosters an environment of contrasting opinions and individuality but at the same time of tolerance and acceptance. The only way people can make educated decisions is through being able to freely discuss, debate, and listen to the differing perspectives. Being able to voice criticism or concern against the government also helps to prevent government officials from keeping secret illegitimate or unethical practices. The government does not have the option of strengthening its authority through the suppressing of contrasting ideas or opinions.
Thus, the allowing of differing ideas and opinions about our government to circulate freely and uncensored is an essential aspect of our democracy.

In fact, from the literal interpretation of the text of the First Amendment it would seem evident that the speech of any individual or group of people should never be silenced. Restricting expression at any point should be precisely the “abridging” of these freedoms that is declared unconstitutional. Yet, many have made the case for the restricting of freedom of expression during war, and as Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated, at times of war the balance between freedom and order must shift “in favor of order.” However, it is difficult to understand how this essential aspect of our democracy could be restrained, even if temporarily. What could possibly constitute a legitimate reason for the abrogating of this freedom?

The restricting of all speech or press that could theoretically be defended as the most effective means of ensuring victory, and thus any information that could be counterproductive to the war effort should be censored. This, however, would leave room for exploitation, as the government could easily use the pretense of war and outlaw any form of opposition that could harbor its own interests, and not necessarily that which pertains to the overall success of the war. Even what might appear as a legitimate public concern, such as boisterous opposition having the potential to inflict damage on the war effort through its negative effects, like causing a dearth in army enrollment, or strengthening the enemy resolve, could just be a means for the government to prevent voters from being not be swayed to replace the incumbent officers with more competent ones. Furthermore, the war interests that are being so carefully protected, who says they are legitimate in the first place, or that the original reasons for being engulfed in the particular conflict still hold true?

The government could even go as far as to make a case for all basic information such as a growing death toll, lack of progress, and growing hostility among other countries to be banned on the grounds that these bits of information harbor the war effort. And even if a legitimate war existed, and the restricting of information was essential to bolster support and expedite its victory, the cons of sacrificing freedom of speech would outweigh the pros. Restricting freedom of speech would not only be manipulating public opinion but it would constitute a major threat to the existence of our democracy. It would also be very hypocritical of a government that does not hesitate to characterize its wars as a “mission to spread democracy”.

“Operation Iraqi Freedom” is what has been used by the administration to refer to the “war on Iraq.” In this war, especially, debate needs to be encouraged and people should be exposed to the clashing of opinions and uncensored news not only because it is our tax dollars being spent, and our fellow country men being sacrificed, but because of the hypocritical aspect in it. Even the images, specifically designed to incite people against the war, such as clips with grotesque images of civilian casualties in Iraq (click here to see) should not be censored. And as expanded upon above, once the government begins regulating the expression of opinion it is treading on dangerous ground, as it now has tremendous opportunities for exploitation.
Yahoo news recently wrote “How is it that more than a year has passed without seeing one casket, one dead soldier or one maimed civilian? When Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman asked CNN’s Aaron Brown why they weren’t showing footage of casualties, Brown responded that it might be in poor taste. It’s poor taste when the electorate is informed of the realities of war, but not when TV reels off the hundreds of violent acts that are considered routine on an evenings programming." This is an excellent and at the same time frightening question. Is the banning of the displaying of the flag-draped coffins really because the ad politicizes war casualties and is an insult to the families of the troops killed in Iraq. or is it because the administration recognizes its tremendous potential to exacerbate the already widespread opposition and further alienate the public against the war? If it is the latter, it is a powerful illustration of how the government can circumnavigate in order not to outright abrogate free speech, and strengthens the case for freedom of expression never to be compromised: the potential for exploitation. The only exception is when free speech directly compromising national security, which would include the relaying of war plans, instructions of how to build nuclear weapons etc. Limiting the right of the public to criticize the government or its policies will never have a constitutional basis. The Alien and Sedition Acts, although a scar on our history, will hopefully serve as a historical lesson to prevent the abrogation of our First Amendment rights from every being repeated.