Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Where's the FREE in Free Press?
The media has been prevalent in American society for almost three hundred years. According to the United States Consulate’s Krakow website, the first newspaper, titled Public Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestic, was published in Boston in 1690. This paper was quickly suppressed by British colonial authorities. No other papers surfaced until 1704, with the appearance of The Boston Newsletter.
Newspapers faced suppression and censorship until a reporter by the name of John Peter Zenger was acquitted of libel, thus legitimizing the concept of free press. Early papers in America were partisan and full of political bashing. In the 1890’s New York City news giants Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst started a fierce competition between their respective news venues, spitting out banner headlines and lurid, scandalous topics.
The news media is still on the forefront today as an agent of sensationalism and has come under fire for bias. For many years, the conservative right voiced concerns that the media was a pawn for the liberal agenda. More recently however, it is the left that is claiming foul, pointing to a media with strong ties to the ultraconservative right .The media at present concerns itself with profit more than information and tends to lean toward whichever political party its current owners subscribe .This profit based programming has eliminated any appearance of free press the media may have once held.
Freedom of the press was of utmost importance to the founding fathers of our country, so much so that it was addressed in the first amendment of the Constitution. Thomas Paine was a powerful journalist and was it not for him writing about the need for American independence who knows where this country would be, perhaps still a British colony. How then did “free press” become such a foreign idea? The words “free press” conjure up an image of the news that is based on freedom of expression and complete liberation from corporate influence. Although it was this ideology that fueled newspaper owners and journalists early on, it seems to be an almost antiquated concept in the present day media.
In the video Mobilizing Media Reform produced by Free Press, it is stated that as of 2003, five major corporations owned more than three-fourths of the major television news outlets. In a democratic nation, diversity of viewpoints and access to information regarding social issues and implementation of laws are critical to public involvement.
In a recent interview Maurice Hinchey, US Representative (D-NY), gives his views: “In a democratic society the most important thing is the free flow and exchange of information and ideas” (Mobilizing Media Reform). One would be hard-pressed to call the present profit motivated media diverse, and even harder still to claim that they represent the voice of the people. General Electric owns the television station and the company that makes the planes that drop the bombs during the war. Is the viewer supposed to believe that such a profit motivated company would air anything that could be construed as anti-war? Journalism is a way of selling ideas, not profits, and it is most evident that journalists are feeling a clash of ideals in the current climate of big company ownership.
Many people make the mistake of assuming that the growing push for media reform is actually a push for a more liberal political agenda. One surely need not be a liberal to want access to a media that is free to report information accurately without undue influence from corporate sponsors. The need for reform is, in actuality, seen as an important issue by diverse groups of people from the National Rifle Association to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s RAINBOW-Push Organization. In her daily life the author has been able to speak to people of diverse backgrounds about the current state of the media. From journalists to computer programmers the message is the same. The American public has voiced its opinion; they want media reform, now.
The desire for profit has turned many serious newscasts into sensationalistic programs. The focus on celebrity and crime diverts attention from more important social issues. News installments focusing on social change and individual successes appear so infrequently in broadcasts that they seem to be almost non-existent. Jeffrey Schueer writes in his book The Sound Bite Society, “Where are the snappy sound bytes for gun control, tolerance of different ideas, collective bargaining...” (167). If we are to believe the information most often put forth in the news media, then this country is all for the war, deeply concerned about Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston’s relationship, and populated by only thieves and rapists.
The lack of complete information and excessive repetition of selected information results in skewed public perception. Examine the current trend to label almost every group that disagrees with “The American Way” as a terrorist group. This is not to say that terrorist activities should be condoned; the destruction of human beings should never be acceptable. To simply disagree with American foreign policy or to say “No, our country does not want to be a democracy” should not be enough to label a group as terrorists. After all, England, one of our closest allies, is not a democracy, but we do not give them the terrorist label. The constant bombardment of the public with such phrases as “terrorism” and “national safety” is resulting in a generalized confusion about the actual definition of these words.
Originally, as Bethami Dobkin observes in her book Tales of Terror, “Terror was defined as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine state agencies.” Simple enough, but under this definition even some institutions in the United States could be referred to as terrorists (34). This meant that the definition had to change, so the media started referring to groups with clearly anti-American sentiment as “terrorist.” Yet another example of the power of the media to affect public perception is the understood importance of the role of the President. In News That Matters: Television and Public Perception, Shanto Iyengan and Donald Kinder observed that “stories implying that the President is responsible for a national problem lead viewers to greater certainty about his performance on that problem…and induce viewers to attach greater importance to that problem in evaluating the President’s over-all performance” (88).These issues, such as pollution or social se3curity, might not have been important to the audience, and they may not have even had any information on the subject. Seeing these issues spoken about on the CBS Evening News, however, pushed them into the forefront, and now the public is sure that if the particular issues in question are not dealt with then the President is not doing his job. Of course, until Mr. Smith heard Tom Brokaw say it was important pollution was not an issue at all. This problem of power is not new; as early as 1964 Marshall McLuhan recognized the power of television in politics. In his book Understanding Media, he noticed that television was “cooling down” America. Even then television was having a numbing effect on the once fervently involved American public.
Armed with the knowledge that television news media is biased, corporate controlled, and calculated to have specific results on viewers, the public can now move forward toward change. Insisting on diversity of viewpoints and stricter ownership standards can bring about fairness and accuracy in the media. Broadening the sources the consumer uses to get their news is vital. Information from television, radio, print, and the internet should be checked against each other. If an article of interest appears in the News & Observer ,then it should be researched, not taken at face value. If the media has a responsibility to report the news fairly and accurately then the public is just as responsible for how they use that information. When listening to a discussion on any particular news show, viewers should pay attention to the panel. Panelists discussing social issues relevant to African-American females should at least include an African-American female; otherwise, information disseminated on the show would hardly be accurate or relevant.
It is time now for the viewing public to demand that airwaves contain diverse views, accurate reporting and less profit motivated programming when it comes to the news. Letters must be written to Senators, the FCC, and CEO’s. It is no longer acceptable to sit by and absorb information from a single source. News and newspapers are participatory in nature, and “free press” is our right as Americans. A democracy is about choices, and the ability to make informed decisions is vital to the fabric of that democracy. Finally, stricter ownership laws must be put in place to make “free press” free again.
Newspapers faced suppression and censorship until a reporter by the name of John Peter Zenger was acquitted of libel, thus legitimizing the concept of free press. Early papers in America were partisan and full of political bashing. In the 1890’s New York City news giants Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst started a fierce competition between their respective news venues, spitting out banner headlines and lurid, scandalous topics.
The news media is still on the forefront today as an agent of sensationalism and has come under fire for bias. For many years, the conservative right voiced concerns that the media was a pawn for the liberal agenda. More recently however, it is the left that is claiming foul, pointing to a media with strong ties to the ultraconservative right .The media at present concerns itself with profit more than information and tends to lean toward whichever political party its current owners subscribe .This profit based programming has eliminated any appearance of free press the media may have once held.
Freedom of the press was of utmost importance to the founding fathers of our country, so much so that it was addressed in the first amendment of the Constitution. Thomas Paine was a powerful journalist and was it not for him writing about the need for American independence who knows where this country would be, perhaps still a British colony. How then did “free press” become such a foreign idea? The words “free press” conjure up an image of the news that is based on freedom of expression and complete liberation from corporate influence. Although it was this ideology that fueled newspaper owners and journalists early on, it seems to be an almost antiquated concept in the present day media.
In the video Mobilizing Media Reform produced by Free Press, it is stated that as of 2003, five major corporations owned more than three-fourths of the major television news outlets. In a democratic nation, diversity of viewpoints and access to information regarding social issues and implementation of laws are critical to public involvement.
In a recent interview Maurice Hinchey, US Representative (D-NY), gives his views: “In a democratic society the most important thing is the free flow and exchange of information and ideas” (Mobilizing Media Reform). One would be hard-pressed to call the present profit motivated media diverse, and even harder still to claim that they represent the voice of the people. General Electric owns the television station and the company that makes the planes that drop the bombs during the war. Is the viewer supposed to believe that such a profit motivated company would air anything that could be construed as anti-war? Journalism is a way of selling ideas, not profits, and it is most evident that journalists are feeling a clash of ideals in the current climate of big company ownership.
Many people make the mistake of assuming that the growing push for media reform is actually a push for a more liberal political agenda. One surely need not be a liberal to want access to a media that is free to report information accurately without undue influence from corporate sponsors. The need for reform is, in actuality, seen as an important issue by diverse groups of people from the National Rifle Association to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s RAINBOW-Push Organization. In her daily life the author has been able to speak to people of diverse backgrounds about the current state of the media. From journalists to computer programmers the message is the same. The American public has voiced its opinion; they want media reform, now.
The desire for profit has turned many serious newscasts into sensationalistic programs. The focus on celebrity and crime diverts attention from more important social issues. News installments focusing on social change and individual successes appear so infrequently in broadcasts that they seem to be almost non-existent. Jeffrey Schueer writes in his book The Sound Bite Society, “Where are the snappy sound bytes for gun control, tolerance of different ideas, collective bargaining...” (167). If we are to believe the information most often put forth in the news media, then this country is all for the war, deeply concerned about Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston’s relationship, and populated by only thieves and rapists.
The lack of complete information and excessive repetition of selected information results in skewed public perception. Examine the current trend to label almost every group that disagrees with “The American Way” as a terrorist group. This is not to say that terrorist activities should be condoned; the destruction of human beings should never be acceptable. To simply disagree with American foreign policy or to say “No, our country does not want to be a democracy” should not be enough to label a group as terrorists. After all, England, one of our closest allies, is not a democracy, but we do not give them the terrorist label. The constant bombardment of the public with such phrases as “terrorism” and “national safety” is resulting in a generalized confusion about the actual definition of these words.
Originally, as Bethami Dobkin observes in her book Tales of Terror, “Terror was defined as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine state agencies.” Simple enough, but under this definition even some institutions in the United States could be referred to as terrorists (34). This meant that the definition had to change, so the media started referring to groups with clearly anti-American sentiment as “terrorist.” Yet another example of the power of the media to affect public perception is the understood importance of the role of the President. In News That Matters: Television and Public Perception, Shanto Iyengan and Donald Kinder observed that “stories implying that the President is responsible for a national problem lead viewers to greater certainty about his performance on that problem…and induce viewers to attach greater importance to that problem in evaluating the President’s over-all performance” (88).These issues, such as pollution or social se3curity, might not have been important to the audience, and they may not have even had any information on the subject. Seeing these issues spoken about on the CBS Evening News, however, pushed them into the forefront, and now the public is sure that if the particular issues in question are not dealt with then the President is not doing his job. Of course, until Mr. Smith heard Tom Brokaw say it was important pollution was not an issue at all. This problem of power is not new; as early as 1964 Marshall McLuhan recognized the power of television in politics. In his book Understanding Media, he noticed that television was “cooling down” America. Even then television was having a numbing effect on the once fervently involved American public.
Armed with the knowledge that television news media is biased, corporate controlled, and calculated to have specific results on viewers, the public can now move forward toward change. Insisting on diversity of viewpoints and stricter ownership standards can bring about fairness and accuracy in the media. Broadening the sources the consumer uses to get their news is vital. Information from television, radio, print, and the internet should be checked against each other. If an article of interest appears in the News & Observer ,then it should be researched, not taken at face value. If the media has a responsibility to report the news fairly and accurately then the public is just as responsible for how they use that information. When listening to a discussion on any particular news show, viewers should pay attention to the panel. Panelists discussing social issues relevant to African-American females should at least include an African-American female; otherwise, information disseminated on the show would hardly be accurate or relevant.
It is time now for the viewing public to demand that airwaves contain diverse views, accurate reporting and less profit motivated programming when it comes to the news. Letters must be written to Senators, the FCC, and CEO’s. It is no longer acceptable to sit by and absorb information from a single source. News and newspapers are participatory in nature, and “free press” is our right as Americans. A democracy is about choices, and the ability to make informed decisions is vital to the fabric of that democracy. Finally, stricter ownership laws must be put in place to make “free press” free again.
What's in the news?
21 September 2004
Choosing a Media Source
A democracy is about choices, and the ability to make informed decisions is important to the fabric of that democracy. Unfortunately, when the information a society receives is governed by a select few, this information can become slanted. Cross ownership, relaxation of standards, and an uninvolved public have allowed the media to forget the importance of providing fair and accurate reporting..
The recent ability for cross ownership has resulted in the withering and dilution of competition and diversity of view points. This has resulted in reducing the publics’ richness in news consumption. Part of this dilution may be a result of the speed in which information is gathered and delivered. In one hour of programming on MSNBC, for example, only twenty-two minutes of the program were actually used for dispensing information. The remaining thirty-eight were for advertising and sensational lead-in graphics. Newspapers, although owned by the same companies, at least give the consumer access to a larger cross section of stories and information in greater detail..
Another adverse component in the issue of cross ownership and speed of information is the relaxing of standards. The recent development at CBS, formerly the “gold standard” for the news media, is a most glaring example of this relaxation. Checking and re-checking sources should never be considered less important than sensational reporting no matter what the subject. The media have allowed sensational graphics, obviously biased anchormen, and the desire to get a story out to the public as fast as possible overshadow the importance of thorough and accurate news gathering.
Because of these existing failures it is the consumer’s responsibility to research where their information originates. Questions must now be asked; the consumer must now become more involved in news gathering than ever before. The audience must now become the reporter, asking the important questions. Does the source make opposing view points available? In order to make informed decisions and carry on intelligent debates, both sides of any issue should be known. Absent now, since the days of big company ownership, are the opposing views that our parents and grandparents were privy to. Due to this lack of information the publics’ view on any one issue can become slanted.
In whose point of view is the story being told? Knowing only how a large corporation is affected by an event is only half the story. Unless the views of the laborers and the surrounding community are known, it is virtually impossible to understand the full effect of the event. The ability for cross ownership is partially to blame for this all too common occurrence of stories being told in the view of the large corporations. It is imperative to know the possible links between the company that owns the media source and the corporate interests in the story being reported.
Is there diversity among the available panel of experts? A story focusing on the issues pertaining to Hispanics and their community should not be discussed by an all white, all female panel. If an expert panel is discussing politics, an attempt should be made to include as many different party representatives as possible. It is also important to note whether the expert is actually an authority in the field that is being discussed.
Another question to be asked is whether the news outlet uses stereotypes when discussing an issue, or uses pictures and graphics that misrepresent the story. For example, when discussing welfare the focus should not be on African-American women since the welfare system serves people of all races. Care must be made that these stereotypes don’t become accepted facts. It is fairly common to see pictures that do not match articles or graphics that tell half the story
Yes, questions must be asked. No longer is it acceptable for the public to sit idly by and absorb information from one source. Consumers must learn to be informed participants in the dissemination of news. News and newspapers were intended to be participatory from the outset, and this fact makes it inseparable from the democratic process. The public must get involved, make informed choices, and research as much information as possible. As consumers the demand for diversity, lack of stereotypes, and availability of opposing views must be insisted upon.
Choosing a Media Source
A democracy is about choices, and the ability to make informed decisions is important to the fabric of that democracy. Unfortunately, when the information a society receives is governed by a select few, this information can become slanted. Cross ownership, relaxation of standards, and an uninvolved public have allowed the media to forget the importance of providing fair and accurate reporting..
The recent ability for cross ownership has resulted in the withering and dilution of competition and diversity of view points. This has resulted in reducing the publics’ richness in news consumption. Part of this dilution may be a result of the speed in which information is gathered and delivered. In one hour of programming on MSNBC, for example, only twenty-two minutes of the program were actually used for dispensing information. The remaining thirty-eight were for advertising and sensational lead-in graphics. Newspapers, although owned by the same companies, at least give the consumer access to a larger cross section of stories and information in greater detail..
Another adverse component in the issue of cross ownership and speed of information is the relaxing of standards. The recent development at CBS, formerly the “gold standard” for the news media, is a most glaring example of this relaxation. Checking and re-checking sources should never be considered less important than sensational reporting no matter what the subject. The media have allowed sensational graphics, obviously biased anchormen, and the desire to get a story out to the public as fast as possible overshadow the importance of thorough and accurate news gathering.
Because of these existing failures it is the consumer’s responsibility to research where their information originates. Questions must now be asked; the consumer must now become more involved in news gathering than ever before. The audience must now become the reporter, asking the important questions. Does the source make opposing view points available? In order to make informed decisions and carry on intelligent debates, both sides of any issue should be known. Absent now, since the days of big company ownership, are the opposing views that our parents and grandparents were privy to. Due to this lack of information the publics’ view on any one issue can become slanted.
In whose point of view is the story being told? Knowing only how a large corporation is affected by an event is only half the story. Unless the views of the laborers and the surrounding community are known, it is virtually impossible to understand the full effect of the event. The ability for cross ownership is partially to blame for this all too common occurrence of stories being told in the view of the large corporations. It is imperative to know the possible links between the company that owns the media source and the corporate interests in the story being reported.
Is there diversity among the available panel of experts? A story focusing on the issues pertaining to Hispanics and their community should not be discussed by an all white, all female panel. If an expert panel is discussing politics, an attempt should be made to include as many different party representatives as possible. It is also important to note whether the expert is actually an authority in the field that is being discussed.
Another question to be asked is whether the news outlet uses stereotypes when discussing an issue, or uses pictures and graphics that misrepresent the story. For example, when discussing welfare the focus should not be on African-American women since the welfare system serves people of all races. Care must be made that these stereotypes don’t become accepted facts. It is fairly common to see pictures that do not match articles or graphics that tell half the story
Yes, questions must be asked. No longer is it acceptable for the public to sit idly by and absorb information from one source. Consumers must learn to be informed participants in the dissemination of news. News and newspapers were intended to be participatory from the outset, and this fact makes it inseparable from the democratic process. The public must get involved, make informed choices, and research as much information as possible. As consumers the demand for diversity, lack of stereotypes, and availability of opposing views must be insisted upon.
TV Violence
Written 30 November 2004
The effect of violence on television is not a new discussion however, despite evidence of its harmful effects it seems only to have increased. Television is a business, and businesses exist to serve their customers. Viewers expect to be entertained and at times even enlightened. They want an escape from their everyday lives, and sex and violence would appear to fit this need for most of the viewing public.
Businesses are also responsible for the safety of their products. If a product is shown to physically injure or harm a consumer in any way it is expected and required that this product be recalled. Likewise, if a product is unsuitable for consumers who are under a given age there is most often a warning that appears on said products packaging. It should be noted here that, for reasons beyond the authors understanding, the general public’s demand for quality programming and appropriate labeling are not nearly as strongly voiced as they are for manufactured products such as toys or automobiles.
Recent labeling of television programs has addressed some of these problems by citing age-appropriateness of the programming and potentially harmful content such as sex, language, violence or adult –themed dialogue. On examining children’s programming howeve, even though age labels appear on screen during a show there are seldom labels warning of the violence contained therein. This is unacceptable, whether actual death or blood is present in a program seems to be the only criterion for labeling a program as violent. Many children’s programs regretfully feature hand-to-hand combat, weapons, explosions and various other forms of violence. Often these programs are labeled “Y7” for age appropriateness yet there is no mention of the fact that 20 minutes of the 30 minute program feature swordfights and other violent actions. Many times these programs are actually introduced as “educational” due mainly to a cursory mention of some moral stand hardly adhered to in most of the program such as “be nice to each other” after a burglary and some gun fire.
Although ideally parents should be responsible for the monitoring and restriction of television viewing in the home, the television industry does have some responsibility for its product. It is extremely difficult for a parent to judge appropriateness based solely on age, the children’s programs should require the same content warnings as are required for more “adult” programs. It is unlikely that many parents know how these children’s programs deal with their subject matter, and like any product on the market, there should be a requirement for content labeling.
Children are not capable of processing the difference of truth from fiction until late childhood, and the understanding of right from wrong is not fully developed until even later, almost mid-teens. With the knowledge of these facts in hand, it is the television networks responsibility to ensure the safety of their consumers. They should be required to be more diligent in labeling practices and held to standards as high as those imposed upon product manufacturers. Protecting their consumers from harm and injury should be higher on the networks list of priorities than is their desire for profit and mindless entertainment.
The effect of violence on television is not a new discussion however, despite evidence of its harmful effects it seems only to have increased. Television is a business, and businesses exist to serve their customers. Viewers expect to be entertained and at times even enlightened. They want an escape from their everyday lives, and sex and violence would appear to fit this need for most of the viewing public.
Businesses are also responsible for the safety of their products. If a product is shown to physically injure or harm a consumer in any way it is expected and required that this product be recalled. Likewise, if a product is unsuitable for consumers who are under a given age there is most often a warning that appears on said products packaging. It should be noted here that, for reasons beyond the authors understanding, the general public’s demand for quality programming and appropriate labeling are not nearly as strongly voiced as they are for manufactured products such as toys or automobiles.
Recent labeling of television programs has addressed some of these problems by citing age-appropriateness of the programming and potentially harmful content such as sex, language, violence or adult –themed dialogue. On examining children’s programming howeve, even though age labels appear on screen during a show there are seldom labels warning of the violence contained therein. This is unacceptable, whether actual death or blood is present in a program seems to be the only criterion for labeling a program as violent. Many children’s programs regretfully feature hand-to-hand combat, weapons, explosions and various other forms of violence. Often these programs are labeled “Y7” for age appropriateness yet there is no mention of the fact that 20 minutes of the 30 minute program feature swordfights and other violent actions. Many times these programs are actually introduced as “educational” due mainly to a cursory mention of some moral stand hardly adhered to in most of the program such as “be nice to each other” after a burglary and some gun fire.
Although ideally parents should be responsible for the monitoring and restriction of television viewing in the home, the television industry does have some responsibility for its product. It is extremely difficult for a parent to judge appropriateness based solely on age, the children’s programs should require the same content warnings as are required for more “adult” programs. It is unlikely that many parents know how these children’s programs deal with their subject matter, and like any product on the market, there should be a requirement for content labeling.
Children are not capable of processing the difference of truth from fiction until late childhood, and the understanding of right from wrong is not fully developed until even later, almost mid-teens. With the knowledge of these facts in hand, it is the television networks responsibility to ensure the safety of their consumers. They should be required to be more diligent in labeling practices and held to standards as high as those imposed upon product manufacturers. Protecting their consumers from harm and injury should be higher on the networks list of priorities than is their desire for profit and mindless entertainment.
me!
Well....Let me start off by explaining what you can expect to see here.
I am a student at a local community college...I'm in my late 30's and I'm retraining myself due to a disability. I will be using this site to post papers that I write so I can get feedback from you ..the reader....and to watch how my style grows and changes. Feel free to post comments and I will respond.I must warn you, however, I am not all about the punctuation...so if it's mucked up I apologize...I mostly write for content and find someone bored who's willing to proof! And on that note....
I am a student at a local community college...I'm in my late 30's and I'm retraining myself due to a disability. I will be using this site to post papers that I write so I can get feedback from you ..the reader....and to watch how my style grows and changes. Feel free to post comments and I will respond.I must warn you, however, I am not all about the punctuation...so if it's mucked up I apologize...I mostly write for content and find someone bored who's willing to proof! And on that note....
