| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Media

Page history last edited by msaint 14 years, 3 months ago

 

 

Media and Democracy in America

 

The battle cry was “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain”.  Concocted by William Randolph Hearst in 1898, it ultimately started the Spanish-American war.  Unfortunately, that war was not based on protection of innocent people, or the defense of idealistic values.  It was merely an abuse of media power grounded in the capitalistic value of profit.  You see, Hearst was the owner of the New York Journal.  Hearst and his competitor, Joseph Pulitzer, owner of the World, were in a heated battle for circulation and mere facts would not interfere with whatever it took to win readers.   In fact, Hearst saw the unexplained explosion of the USS Maine while in Havana harbor as an excellent topic to sensationalize and gain market share.  So, for weeks, his newspaper was dedicated to fantastic stories of the atrocities the Spanish were inflicting on the pure and innocent Cuban rebels, complete with torture and “death camps”.  The copy of the front page of the Journal above tells the story, "Crisis at Hand, Spanish Treachery".  Hearst dispatched dozens of reporters and photographers to chronicle the death and destruction.  Even after receiving telegraphs from his reporters and photographers that there was nothing happening in Cuba and asking to be recalled, Hurst famously replied, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.” True to his word, under tremendous political pressure, the U.S. Congress authorized military action and had them “a splendid little war”.  The Spanish American war is a testament to the power of the media.  Fortunately, in 1898, the state of military weaponry was constrained to small arms and canon fire.  Let us not imagine this happening, for instance, in modern day Iraq! 

If the media is indeed this powerful, what does it mean to the founding principles of America?  Can this amount of power corrupt the ideology of democracy?  The founding fathers went to extremes to ensure that one branch of government would not rule over another.  The executive branch could not run rough shot over the legislative branch or the judicial branch.  The Constitution is a document of negative freedom.  It ensures freedom from tyranny and despotism and exalts the American Creed - values of individualism, liberty, equality, and democracy.  (Huntington 72)  But if a newspaper can start a war based on half-truths that sway public opinion in the name of capitalism, who is protecting us from the media?  Even as far back as 1898, the forces of free market capitalism were creeping into the work of an industry that is supposed to educate the electorate.  Why does it seem that the modern 24 hour news cycle is more couched in the value of entertainment than it is in presenting facts and encouraging public debate?  It is my contention that not only do the modern news media not present the facts, but chooses what to report on the basis of what will sell advertising, create profit, and support whatever political goals the board of directors might have at any given time.  This illustrates the main premise of this paper.  In the 21st century, to what extent has free market capitalism invaded the area of public interest and civic health?  Public interest is vital to an electorate that depends on corporate owned media to inform them so that they can exercise their democratic rights, participate in debate, and create discussion that leads to responsible public policy.  Is it possible that corporate ownership of media outlets in a modern society is deterring the dissemination of relevant, accurate, and balanced information to the public? Without unbiased, balanced, and accurate information, the public is merely a by-stander masquerading as a participant.

Understanding the Models

The interesting part of this very complex issue is that it can be illustrated easily using just two conflicting models, the Public Sphere Model & the Market Model.  David Croteau and Willim Hynes present these models in their book, The Business of Media:  Corporate Media and the Public Interest.  They describe the market model as one existing in the same capitalistic supply and demand structure that all other products exist within.  Couched in bottom line profit, the market model makes no distinction between the value of say, coal, and the value of information presented in the free press.  Just as consumer choice will maximize the utility of coal, this model posits that by virtue of demand, consumers will also identify the type of media information that maximizes its utility.   Therefore, as long as media company profits are high, the public's demand for unbiased, balanced, and accurate information is being met.  No one will argue that free markets have advantages.  Economists admit that in most instances, government regulation only creates inefficiencies in a market.  Free markets are much more responsive to consumer demand, they promote and stimulate innovation, and are much more flexible in terms of responding to market dynamics.  The question that is raised here is not whether free market capitalism is a good system, it is whether it is a good system for an industry that is responsible for serving the public interest by fostering debate and ensuring delivery of diverse views.  And as we will see, the question of regulation is not whether it should exist, but rather on what model the regulation will be in favor of.

In contrast, the Public Sphere model is built on the understanding that American values are sometimes contradictory in nature.  In the case of the media, the public sphere model places free market capitalism in direct conflict with the idea of democracy.  In other words, a capitalistic market only sees the power of currency as an indication of "demand", whereas democracy is blind to currency and sees only "one person, one vote".  If media is built on the market model, then it is only sensitive to a citizenry that has currency to spend and silences those that do not.  The public sphere model recognizes that the role the media plays in American society cannot solely be measured in terms of profit.  Because the media plays such a vital role in democracy, the public sphere model measures media performance by other criteria such as the delivery of unbiased, diverse, and accurate information to the electorate that ensures the civic health of a society.

Purpose of media in a democracy 

 

Perhaps it would be beneficial to examine the purpose of the free press in a democracy.  In other forms of government, the purpose of the press is simple.  For instance, in a totalitarian state, the media is controlled, and its content selected, by the government.  Programming is approved for broadcast based solely on furthering the interest of the state.  There is no opposing view to balance viewpoints or argue the validity of the information presented, and there is no electorate to educate.  However, in a democracy, it becomes somewhat more complicated.  In a democracy, media supports the ideological values contained in the American Creed by placing itself in between government and society while gathering, authenticating, and disseminating relevant information to the electorate so that they may fulfill their role in democracy.  This process is enhanced when there are multiple actors obtaining the information, and serves as a check against abuses found in the Spanish American War.  Presumably, if there had been a multitude of papers in Cuba at the time, they could have increased their circulation by sensationalizing the sensationalized false information that Heast was delivering.  This is the way it is supposed to work.  Media outlets serve as watchdogs over current political and social activities within society and police themselves by fostering differing points of view, discussion, and debate, that will ultimately lead to reasoned public policy and responsible social behavior.  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights states "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 peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Clearly, our Constitution protects the free press from government.  However, it does nothing to force media's compliance with the values contained in the American Creed that Samuel Huntington so eloquently describes in his book, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony, "What are the values of the American Creed? ... liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, and the rule of law under a constitution". The question becomes, who will protect the people from the media? Or even more disturbing, who will protect the people from themselves? 

To further complicate the issue of media in a democracy, media outlets in the U.S. must exist within a capitalistic environment.  In order words, they must turn a profit!  (Croteau 6) In the past, this process was somewhat straightforward in that market share translated into more circulation which translated into increased revenue and profit.  However, as technology such as television, radio, and the internet, became commonplace, those revenue streams were diminished.  Today, newspapers and television are primarily reliant on advertising for their revenue.  (Croteau 16) The complicating factor in this new revenue paradigm is that it places a third party, the advertiser, in a position of power over the media outlets.  The advertiser therefore controls the purse strings that ultimately will decide how much revenue will be generated.  And more importantly for democracy, advertisers in most cases will decide what content will be delivered to the public.  The bottom line in this complex chain comes down to the fact that if media outlets are to be successful in a modern capitalistic democracy, they must first produce programming that attracts as many viewers as possible, then by virtue of a large viewership, they can attract advertising dollars that create profit.  If by chance the electorate is educated on relevant social issues, great, if not, they still make their profit. 

Legislation & History of Media

During William Hearst's time, things were simple.  Print media was protected by the armor of the 1st Amendment.  However, starting in the early 20th century, with the advent of radio, things became much more complicated.  Unlike print media that only used paper and ink, radio used public airwaves.  As radio spread, it became obvious that someone would need to regulate, license, and control the use of these public airwaves.  This issue drove the creation of the Federal Radio Commission which was empowered through the Radio Act of 1927 to grant licenses allowing the use of public airwaves.  It is this legislation that started the debate over the role government should play in the media. 

It was the Communication Act of 1934 however, that answered the question of what model the media would follow.  This act created the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and empowered it with the provisions contained in the Communications Act.  Of major contention concerning the implementation of the FCC was the division of frequencies between commercial (think market model) and non-commercial (think public sphere model) interests.  Because of this, the Wagner-Hatfield amendment was offered as a compromise that would give non-commerical interprise use of 25% of all radio frequencies for educational programs that would promote the public interest and civic health.  In the end, the Wagner-Hatfield amendment died in committee once the FCC had been created, and all radio frequencies were to be used for commercial purposes.  This decision cemented the media's position within the capitalistic environment of supply and demand.  Although the Wagner-Hatfield amendment was defeated, regulations contained within the Communications Act required all commercial enterprise to air public interest programs.  It was up to these commercial interprises to decide what programs would be in the public interest. (wink wink)

Although non-commercial broadcasters were not guaranteed frequencies in the Communications Act, from 1934 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine would require broadcasters to ensure that a portion of their programming was in the "public interest" and that diverse views were communicated in a fair and balanced fashion.  However, this policy would be challenged several times through its fifty year existence culminating in it being revoked under the Reagan administration.  Mark Fowler, the FCC Chairman under President Reagan, felt that the doctrine in fact did not protect the public interest or promote civic health but instead violated broadcasters rights to free speech under the 1st Amendment.  The removal of this doctrine would leave the content of broadcasters accountable solely to the pressures of the market.

The Communications Act would be the guiding principles for all broadcasting for over sixty years.  Ironically, it would be the Clinton administration in 1996 that signed into law the most sweeping change in the telecommunication/broadcast industry sector.  The Telecommunication Act of 1996 was a huge bill covering internet, telephone, broadband, radio, and many other areas.  It's full scope is beyond the reach of this paper.  Let it suffice to say the overarching goal of the bill was to further open this industry sector to pro-market competition for the sake of fostering faster development.  The Senate Conference report put it this way, "An original bill to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and for other purposes.

 

Effect of Corporate Ownership

 

One of the actions contained in the Telecommunications Act reduced the restrictions on ownership of media companies. In the past, numerous court cases, citing anti-trust law had ruled that one entity could not own enterprise's that would create a monoply within a media segment.  For example, one corporation could not create a horizontally integrated entity in which it owned and controlled all segments of the movie industry to include filming, production, editing, marketing, distribution, and retail.  This type of horizontal integration in fact represents a monoply that inhibits competition.  This act also removed regulatory restrictions in the name of enhancing competition by increasing the number of television and radio stations a corporation could own both nationally and in any given market area.  The overall affect of these actions, however well conceived, has had an undesirable effect in that they have worked not to diversify ownership within the broadcast industry, but in fact has concentrated ownership through mergers to a very few, very large, media conglomerates.  The most famous of these, the merger of AOL & Time Warner in 2000 was worth $164 Billion.  In the news recently, Comcast (a cable distribution company) has offered to by NBC from GE.  A deal reported to be worth 14 billion will marry a cable distribution giant, (holding 25% of the nations cable subscribers) with the nations largest content provider and would leave one corporation in control of one out of every 7 television stations.  By the way, NBC owns 4 news networks, NBC news, CNBC, MSNBC, and CNBC Business.  The Columbia Journalism Review has an intersting web tool that lists the assets of all major communications companies within the United states that is useful in illustrating industry concentration.  These types of mergers closely resemble the type of horizontal and vertical integration that the courts have seen as monoply like in the past, but have seemed reluctant to rule against them in the current political climate.  Whatever your view, it is clear that since the Telecommunication Act of 1996, two things are indisputable. 

 

One is that the communication industry continues to grow, and two is that the companies controlling the total amount of revenue generated from this industry has shrunk drastically.  One measure of concentration that economists use is the CR4 and CR8 measures that calculate ownership concentration.  These measure the concentrate of revenue within the top 4 and top 8 largest firms within an industry respectively.  Any level of concentration above 50% in the top the CR4, and 75% in the CR8, are considered highly concentrated.  A study published in The Journal of Media Economics in 1996 found, "An examination of concentration ratios indicates that high levels of concentration exist within most of the communication industry segments examined in this article.  Virtually every segment examined in this article has undergone significant changes as a result of merger activity". 

 

What it means to democracy

 

What is democracy?  Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  But what are the responsibilities of the people?  If democracy is of the people, it stands to reason that the people must be educated on the past, present, and future threats to their form of government.  One view of citizens responsibility toward maintaining democracy is to examine the civic health of a population.  In his book, The Good Citizen, Micheal Schudson measures civic health by measuring voting turnout, social membership, social trust, and the quality of public discourse.  (Schudson 304) Given the media's vital role in educating the citizen, one could assume that changes in the rules and regulations pertaining to the media would have a solid impact on all of Schudson's measures.  Voting turnout can easily be analyzed and shown to have declined over the past 40 years, social trust can be manifested in the increased number of frivolous lawsuits that clog the courts, and one only needs to turn on Judge Judy or Jerry Springer to measure public discourse.  If we go way back to landmark legislation (Communication Act of 1934) in the area of media and change some of the decisions made would we have a substantially different picture?  This is a question that no one can answer with absolute certainty.  But if the overwhelming market pressure of sustaining profit were replaced with the ideology that civic health is a commodity that does not function within a capitalistic, profit driven environment, would we still have Jerry Springer? Probably, but in addition, it is very possible that we would have content providers thriving in a public-sphere model of media ownership that takes seriously its responsibility to promote the civic health of the people supporting democracy in this country.  Something, it seems, we dont have today.

 

 

 


Works Cited

Alterman, Eric. What Liberal Media?. New York: Basic Books Inc., 2003

Cooper, Mark. News Incorporated. Ed. Elliot D. PhD Cohen., 2005.

Croteau, David, and William Hoynes. The Business of Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2001.

Frank, Thomas. "The Rise of Market Populism." The Nation October (2000) . Oct 29, 2009.

Goldberg, Bernard. Arrogance. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc., 2003.

Huntington, Samuel P. American Politics. Cambridge, MA.: The Belknap Press, 1981

Lieberman, Trudy. "In the Beginning." Columbia Journalism Review Vol 47.Issue 3 (2008).

Schudson, Michael. Discovering the News. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1978.

---. The Good Citizen. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1998.

Tremayne, Mark. Blogging, Citizenship, and the Future of Media. Trans. Mark Tremayne. Ed. Mark Tremayne. New York: Routledge, 2007.

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.