“There could certainly be a softening because we’re not looking to hurt people . . . We want people — we have some great people in this country.”
-Trump to Sean Hannity, August 24, 2016
“I don’t think it’s a softening. I’ve had people say it’s a hardening, actually.”
-Trump to Anderson Cooper, a day later
Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, has wavered on policy points in this pivot from the primary process to the general election. His position is always strongly worded and “plainly” delivered, but many are noting how the positions are inconsistent. Inconsistency makes reporting on the policies of a Trump administration exceedingly difficult for reporters. I do not envy journalists on the Trump beat.
Take, for example, a recent New York Times piece on the candidate’s immigration plan.
NYT reporter, Patrick Healy, has the unenviable task to produce a coherent story on the Trump immigration plan, a touchstone of the campaign and a central issue that allowed Trump to rise to the top of the Republican scrum.
Adding to Healy’s troubles, the Trump campaign is fond of disputing the neutrality of reporters when the message does not reflect his position clearly. News media are “scum” and “so dishonest,” he often intones to an audience eager to dismiss mainstream media.
As the revision process suggests (documented by NewsDiffs), reporting on the Trump campaign can get quite messy, reflecting the messiness of the candidate’s political messaging itself.
So, how do we get clarity in reporting when there is so little? It is the job of good election journalism to clarify and summarize the position of the candidates. But what happens when candidates refuse to offer clear policy positions while attacking the press for misinterpreting the message?
New York Times to America: “How Can We Recover From Donald Trump?”
And then we have the NYT lamenting Trumpism with a now familiar hint of shame and foreboding. It captures a tone US politicos and intellectuals feel in every newsroom and artisan bagel-filled faculty meeting. “America is better than this,” we pretend.
We are not. The tone of this new genre of election-cycle journalism, the Trump Lament, bothers me because it misses a key point: Trump did not invent racism. He is just packaging it in a way white, middle-class people can see . . . not unlike cell phones now capture, for white America, the systemic oppression black Americans experience at the hands of our lauded and praised police force. The difference is that white America now has to look at it on their television screens and Facebook posts of distant relatives. Oh, lament white America! Your poor eyes and refined sensibilities must be strained.
Trump marvelers seem to wring hands over the Donald as an enabler or facilitator of American racism. True, but this journalism trope misses a key point. These sentiments preexisted Trump. Trump’s cynical fanning of the isolationist and racial/national purity fire is a problem, but to lament its expression on the national scene smells wrong. It is like wishing the lesser intellects of America would go back underground . . . would return to the hidden recesses of Southern Illinois dinner tables and the sexual harassment in executive boardrooms.
“Often, Trump marvelers seem to wring hands over the Donald as an enabler or facilitator of American racism. True, but this new trope of election journalism misses a key point. These sentiments preexisted Trump.”
I think we’d do better to view Trump as a litmus test. He is showing us something we need to see rather than dismiss or hope dissipates with the election of a Democrat. When educated, liberal thinkers lament Trump’s rise, we are really just regretting having look at a side of America that is real, has been real and has reality beyond Donald Trump. Sure, Trump has given it a “voice,” but the fire was already there, shooting unarmed black men in the back, shooting down voter protection laws in the South and allowing the lumps of bloated flesh that collectively undulate into Roger Ailes to operate as serial sexual predators.
I think we’d do better to view Trump as a unique lens into hidden worlds of America. It is a reality show that most of us would pretend belongs on trashy network primetime for trashy network viewers. It is a show as much as Trump is a showman. But what we are seeing is real. It is a reality lived by millions of Americans everyday. Those of us in cloistered bubbles of “right thinking” believe we need to do deep readings of Disney’s Pocahontas to find American bigotry. We do not. It is right next to us on the bus, if we care to look . . . or take public transportation.
“There is a broader dynamic at work, which is network executives have made a decision to get behind Donald Trump. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes at Fox News have turned Fox News into the Donald Trump network.”
-Ted Cruz, two months after suspending his campaign to be the Republican nominee
I’m not used to agreeing with Ted Cruz.
But I might have to when it comes to his post-nomination view of Fox News. Did Trump (almost literally) steal the spotlight on cable news? If so, how?
The how is important. Cruz is content to paint Ailes, Murdoch and company at Fox News as overly powerful Republican kingmakers, but it is important not to be reductive about so-called media bias. Fox is equal parts commercial organization and deep-throated political beast. We need to properly understand bias to get at the how of Trump’s surprising rise in American politics.
Discussions of bias usually stall on the political question. Americans are often content to yell “conservative” or “liberal” bias and leave it at that. And it makes sense. Those of us in the US have been trained to expect balance and objectivity from their news. It is only natural that the public perception of Fox News emphasizes the right-leaning commentary on the channel.
Still, I believe this is short-sighted. Yes, Fox News is politically motivated. Yes, Fox News provides a platform for conservative voices . . . but these are surface observations of bias and fail to appreciate a core insight about media companies. Fox is also former subsidiary and (now) a profitable partner with News Corp. with holdings around the world and across media platforms. It is a company, like all companies, with the sole aim of generating revenue for shareholders. We should not forget this form of bias when we speculate on the rise of the Donald.
The 2013 company break up of News Corp. can tell us something about the role of the profit motive in corporate decision-making. When Murdoch insisted on buying up flagship newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, major investors in the conglomerate balked. Everyone in that corporate boardroom understood newspapers were dying a slow death by a thousand bytes. No profit-minded, voting board member saw the paper as a worthy investment, particularly compared to the revenues generated by non-publishing enterprises. Perhaps it was his father’s beginnings in publishing that made the media tycoon need more newspapers in his portfolio. Whatever the case, investors demanded a business break-up. Print would be financially quarantined under News Corp. while more lucrative holdings in film and television go to the newly created Fox Group. We see a sort of corporate philosophy at play: Murdoch’s “vanity” publishing properties should not undermine returns from TV and film. Other corporations, like the Tribune Company, followed suit.
The point is this. Media literacy demands we be wary of political motivations in our news. They abound. But we cannot let this obscure the business motivations that aim cameras in certain directions and send reporters to events. Commercial needs direct our media and, thus, our national conversation. With this in mind, we might better understand why Fox, MSNBC and CNN all mysteriously ignored other candidate speeches to broadcast, live, an empty Trump podium. What journalistic principles tell us that an empty Trump podium is more newsworthy than an actual Sanders speech after a rough primary? Other programming principles are influencing the decision, of course.
Cruz’s criticism is sound (even if surprising given how out of character it is for Republicans to accuse media of much more than the “liberal agenda”). The target of Cruz’s attacks, however, is Fox News. We assume there is no surplus of liberal agenda there. So how do we understand the preference for one kind of Republican over another? Though Cruz points to TV executives as handmaidens to Trump’s victory, we need to also ask about the larger structure of media. How we think about media power matters. Something bigger than political bias refines the selection process: the commercial bias.
Many Republicans are dismayed by American news in light of Trump’s primary rampage. “Look at what the media did to the Republican party,” they implore. Establishment candidates appeared to sag into lumps of poorly refrigerated meat as they sought to stay above the rhetoric and refused to engage Trump in the very familiar language of 140-characters-or-less. The Cruzes and Jeb!s tried to use the private media as a forum to persuade voters their policies were best; they were bested by a policy-light entertainer with his tiny, tweeting hands on the levers of private media.
So when mainstream Republicans lambaste the role of Fox News in propelling this reality television figure into frontrunner status or acerbically note Trump’s bumper-sticker policies in contrast to other candidates’ plans, every time they paint Trump as the clown at the “media circus,” there is a glimmer of recognition that commercial news is not responsible news.
If we look long enough (a kind of thousand yard stare of the shell-shocked) we can see a logical syllogism about media policy in Ted Cruz’s anger toward Fox News. One I don’t think the Texas senator would speak aloud, but one I wouldn’t mind hearing from campaigns more often: commercial media put Trump where he is today.
Premise 1: Commercial media’s primary function is to draw large audiences with disposable income for advertisers. NBC sells our eyes and ears to them. Ratings, therefore, are the prime metric guiding the behavior of corporate media enterprises.
Premise 2: Donald Trump draws public attention (i.e. eyes and ears as measured by ratings agencies) and “media power,” the social connections to key media figures that provide access to audiences and add to his personal publicity.
Trump’s media advantage goes beyond having a knack for statements that draw media attention like a fly to human waste. He has functional and productive relationships with those that craft both American reality TV and American news. When Buzzfeed reporters went through Trump’s various biographies, they found CNN’s Jeff Zucker lovingly featured several times, once in typical Trump fashion as a “total dynamo”.
Trump’s relationships with people like CNN president Jeff Zucker matter. A lot. It translates into what Politico has liken to “an experiment in free media.” Normally, candidates pay to communicate with audiences . . . like advertisers. Not Trump. The NYT estimated Trump had attracted $2 billion in free media coverage as his campaign and corporate media managers feed off of one another. In short, help weak cable ratings and get airtime for publicity.
We saw the commercial bias in action with the debates. Fox News’ debate in Detroit on March 3 drew an amazing 17 million viewers. Compare that to 5.5 million drawn by the Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan. Or compare 2016 to the 2012 Republican primary debates’ largest audience that year at 7.1 million. Trump has a magnetism that ratings-minded programmers cannot deny.
The Zucker-Trump alliance is long-standing . . . but more unnerving is what these two worked on: the creation of audience-attracting spectacles and catch phrases. As the success of Trump’s reality show carried NBC through a financially perilous time, Zucker learned how Trump was valuable to him as an NBC chief. Now that Zucker is leading CNN, what kind of value does Zucker see in brand Trump? CNN’s ratings jump with Trump on tap is telling if a bit disconcerting for those that favor deeper political conversations.
Trump’s unorthodox public relations style, honed in the ratings-focused cauldron of NBC’s sitcom lineup, pushes media manager to shift the editorial focus to Trump’s slightest move. The coverage? Trump unwittingly makes racist comment. Trump wittingly makes racist comments. Trump defends additional racist remarks. The most telling moment came with the “feud” instigated when Trump attacked Fox host Megyn Kelly. Not only did Fox News carry the Trump-Kelly drama to a ratings crescendo with Kelly’s awkwardly personal follow-up interview but other media outlets covered the tense public exchange as if an offended news personality were actual news the public needed. It had begun as a question about Trump’s regard for women and ended as a mildly flirtatious break-up/make-up worthy of any episode of The Bachelor.
So, we come to a testable hypothesis:
Conclusion 1: Figures who create public events which score better audience measurements will be preferred by commercial news’ editorial policies. Therefore, Trump will receive more coverage given the overlapping interests of the Trump campaign and commercial news producers.
Evidence? Sure thing. The left-leaning media criticism group, Media Matters, crunched the numbers. Trump received nearly double the coverage of the candidate with the second-most airtime (Cruz). Said another way: Trump was considered two times more “newsworthy” than Sen. Cruz (see graphic).
Cruz’s assertion that Fox News had “taken sides” in the primary process may make media critics out of some Republicans, but it also points up the need to weigh the virtues and vices of a public culture driven by private companies. The “side” the news networks took was the one that grew viewership by any means possible. Donald was a means to that end. Trump seeks publicity. Commercial news is a means to that end.
Much of this will play out again during the Republican National Convention. What is a convention other than a publicity event? Both Trump and media executives, dynamos or otherwise, will use the event to achieve their goals.
But what effect will the hypercommercial nature of the American press have on the democratic process? Will disenfranchised Republicans pull the curtain back on Zucker, Ailes and the long list of media execs whose livelihood depends on courting the outrageous? Not likely. Republicans are loath to restrict the prerogatives of private corporations. But Cruz’s demise and the rise of Trump politics might awaken those on the right that a free market does not necessarily produce the best journalism for democracy. The irony of Cruz’s comment is that the Republican pro-business orthodoxy shaped the media system that helped defeat his White House bid. It also means the corporate media status quo will continue, despite having bitten one Republican hand that fed them.
Excellent background on the strike among telecommunications workers asking for a better deal from Verizon from Information Observatory.
After nine months of frustrated bargaining, 39,000 workers from Virginia to Massachusetts called a strike against Verizon on 13 April. Represented by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), these telecom workers are pushing back. Their goal is to preserve job quality and security. They want to prevent further off-shoring and out-sourcing of jobs and additional call-center closures; and they want to make Verizon stop transferring technicians to work sites far from home, for up to two months at a stretch. The walkout is about preserving the kinds of high-pay, high-skill jobs that used to be held by millions of working-class Americans.
Read more @ http://informationobservatory.info/2016/04/22/strike/
Small cable companies competing with the likes of Comcast and other massive, consolidated media companies are struggling. Because of the scale of large cable companies, rural and small town distributors find themselves in an arms race . . . but not between, say, two major world powers. More like the US vs. Moldova.
And not with weapons but with cable packages increasingly bloated with unwatched (and sometimes reviled) channels. You want ESPN because your subscribers demand it? Well, you also have to take our new 24-hour channel featuring only spin-offs involving bi-polar chefs-over-40 with 20-something hairstyles yelling at actual 20-somethings. Yes, no one will watch it. Yes, you have to carry it.
Small cable companies gripe about the imbalance in this industry whenever someone will listen. Of course, the only one listening is the FCC. When the FCC recently made a “notice of inquiry” regarding the lack of diversity on tv, small cable companies lept on the chance with surprising rhetorical skill.
If SmallTown Cable wants to carry the Awesome Channel because its subscribers want to see The Awesome Monster Show, for example, it must also take the Slightly Less Awesome Channel, the Not Really Awesome Channel, and the Downright Unpopular Channel,” ACA added. “No questions, no exceptions. When SmallTown Cable (or its buying group) tells AwesomeCorp. that its subscribers only really care about The AwesomeMonster Show, AwesomeCorp. says, in effect, ‘too bad.’
Nothing is surprising about the position the American Cable Association takes here. But the way ACA discusses the issue shows that they are thinking about a broader audience than FCC wonks. Terms like “AwesomeCorp” (code for Disney, a powerhouse programmer) show how ACA is recognizing that language matters. Will the FCC change policies to favor smaller and less lobby-rich companies? Not too likely. Will less policy-aware consumers respond to this language. More likely. Especially when ACA proposals mean a slimmer bundle and smaller cable bill.
Combatting the bloated cable packages that keep conglomerates afloat and on top of smaller companies means gathering a coalition. A strong coalition will include public-interest groups and the public itself. Perhaps we are seeing a change in small cable’s communication tactics. After all, technical papers rarely reform the system. Accessible language and even some cable policy humor, as oxymoronic as that sounds, may be the answer to distortions in this market.
Macklemore’s hiphop career has a reputation for artistic independence. So his lyrical commentary on the politics of American racism is no surprise. White Privilege II (yes, part of a series on the subject) is the artist’s internal struggle to fit himself into the Black Lives Matter movement. He is a white artist in an industry rooted in black musical culture, and the songs reflect on this tension.
Not surprisingly, the white rapper’s commentary on race has drawn some criticism. One particularly energetic youtube contributor had some rather sharp remarks. They are worth a listen:
One of a number of critical perspectives swelling with participatory media, Gazi has a personality for Youtube. Vibrant. Passionate. He brings a sharp and direct message about racial belonging and what it means to be a part of a community. In the process, he makes some strong claims about the abusive cultural power that is whiteness, material exploitation and reparations.
The youtube critic makes the cleverish point that Macklemore’s song turns BLM protests into a stage for Macklemore to talk about his personal struggle. Gazi uses “whiteface” to explain the point, always bordering on an offensive treatment of his white colleague. The contrast of BLM’s purpose and the artists inward struggle is awkward, to say the least. Macklemore struggles with how to relate to the movement when black men are under a virtual siege by state power to incarcerate and kill. Routine shootings of unarmed men with little legal consequences make Macklemore’s song about fitting in seem tone deaf.
The song is about the artist’s struggle to understand what role he can play as a white sympathizer. He is self-aware of the music’s cultural roots and expresses obvious sympathy for the movement. But, for popular critics like Gazi, it is tough to overlook how Macklemore’s message comes in a genre forged by black American culture. And the white rapper’s popular success puts him on a Forbes list of best paid. Forbes put Macklemore at 32m, calling the Seattle musician a Hip Hop king. Familiar black figures also dominate Forbes’s wealth rankings. Jay Z pulls in a cool $60m; Dr. Dre is the moneymaker at $620m.
So, a white performer is among the most well paid musicians in a genre culturally rooted in black and Hispanic American culture. He writes a song discussing his feelings toward the movement for racial justice rather than problems of racial justice. At both the level of lyrics and genre level, the song seems ripe for accusations of appropriation.
Macklemore is profiting from white privilege. He knows it. He acknowledges it. But that is not enough. With a mixture of outrage and contempt, Gazi underlines how Macklemore has taken another people’s movement and profited from it. Reparations is as simple as giving back a phone, he says.
This kind of criticism is valuable but needs careful qualification. It challenges common sense [read: white], though I’m still not convinced by this line of reasoning. I say this as a supporter of both socialist and racial justice values. I appreciate the radical stand, but such commentary here seems more heat than light. These critics make me wonder how, as a white person, I would “give back the phone.” Maybe that analogy is just too shallow to get at the true importance of this issue.
And I may have to disagree with Seems like Macklemore’s internal struggle is fair game for lyrics. I suppose I would focus less on how the artist is profiting from talking about black oppression and more on him reflecting on white discomfort in seeking to remedy injustice. Potentially, he is giving white fans a language to overcome reluctance to stand up for others . . . even while risking your own social wealth (that is white privilege).
It is nice to see a radical critique that goes further than I would. Still, I’d find it more convincing if
1. the analogies were less mindlessly reductive (“let’s just give the phone back”)
2. the presenters here would recognize that they are complaining about some of the same things M is thinking through
Why is such a reductionist demonstration of white privilege bad? Poor analogies hurt understanding. Reducing white privilege to the exchange of material object allows white culture to reject remedies out of hand.
This poster’s core point is still valid, though: Macklemore’s lyrics are about his response to racial tension rather than the racial issues themselves. What this duo do not seem to recognize in their critical fervor is the potential value having this white-minded (and sympathetic, in my reading) reflection on the struggle for justice.
A part of me would love to talk to those with this radical perspective to see if they care for complexity (the larger question of how well youtube conduct public discussion begged). For instance, the question of reparations for exploitation of material resources (including the history of black labor). But how do we quantify how much money goes to Indigenous Americans? Can we suggest that any success (derivation of wealth from use of these lands) in America should be seen as on the backs of dead and eradicated native populations? If so, should a portion of black wealth be considered owed to the native population who died to give the land and resources that provided for both black and white wealth?
My more radical friends would (and should) object. Not only did whites clearly benefit more from the forcible removal of natives, but Africans were forcibly imported. They did not choose to oppress natives. Therefore, black Americans cannot be held responsible. Makes sense. But here is the problem: this is the same logic a white person uses to absolve themselves of guilt for the history of slavery and current oppression of black communities: “I was not born and had no choice in President Jackson’s homicidal Westward expansion/midcentury Japanese internment/shooting of Michael Brown. Why should I pay? It is not my debt.”
A modern white person might say they cannot be held responsible for native oppression two centuries past but they might also say that, just as black folks should not have to pay reparation to natives despite profiting to some degree from “their” land, “as a white person, I didn’t even exist when today’s black oppression began.”
This is a tired logic I hear too often in racial discussions with my white peers.
But the question remains: Should highly energetic youtube commentators be paying some Indigenous trust fund every time she plugs in her phone? Will it not use coal from the ground? How should we compensate for the use of land stolen from indigenous peoples?
I think anyone wrestling with these questions of but I have trouble disentangling
Should we, rather, assume that the original white sin of slavery somehow absolves black Americans from responsibility for participating in a system that is founded on the backs of a genocide?
My point is that it’s both complicated and risky to assign historical debts to races. But beating up Macklemore for being a white artist thinking about his role in racial injustice is the left eating itself. Claiming M is racist in his personal reflection on his white role in the modern civil rights era is a bit of a luxury when I think about having to deal with types like my southern relatives at Thanksgiving:
“We needed to move out of that neighborhood,” says the older white man chewing his turkey enthusiastically.
“It got too dark.”
“City not fixing the lights?”
He just looks at me and grins as if I’m in on the joke.
Racism. These are the experiences many whites get to have. Undiluted pleas for racial solidarity in a wink over a beer. The best of us push back at these moments of division, but this perspective on racism in America, the kind of safe access white people have to racial animosity, makes people like Macklemore appear saintly. Flawed, but a happy relief from an often ignorant if not racist white culture.
Cloistered away in the academy or in any like-minded thinking group allows us to see enemies in potential partners. That means coalitions fall apart in a competition to be more attuned and more right in such struggles. Do racists attack one another for not being racist enough or are they too busy being unified by a common fear?
Change only comes with a political critical mass. Critical mass does not come when factionalism trumps goal-minded unity. But a real change does not come from the mainstream. Radical voices keep us honest. I just hope they keep us honest with better analogies. Otherwise, they just become fodder for more reactionary hot air.
Al Jazeera America (AJAM) has stepped away from its bid to develop a presence on American cable systems. The network’s retraction may be a good sign for the award-winning news channel. The story of AJAM’s withdrawal is more than another anecdote about Americans’ waning interest in news or the troubles for news in a new media environment. It is a sign that points to the future of media in a networked and global environment that mixes government and commercial aspirations.
AJAM sprang from a sense on the part of Qatari officials that AJ needed a presence on American cable (legacy broadcasting) to accomplish its goals. The goals, however, were not entirely clear. AJAM’s objectives appeared to be split between a public diplomacy mission and quasi-commercial aspirations. If nothing else, the public diplomacy mission was forced to funnel its efforts through the commercial jungle of US distribution industries and, thus, behaved as a commercial operation despite funding from Qatar.
Operating under such split motivations created an incoherent mission, further compounded by the logistics of channel operation in the United States. Imagine, for a moment, a government agency with national-interest motivations employing hundreds of professionals culled from commercial operations like CNN and MSNBC. Journalists, chief editors, media industry lobbyists, all more familiar with commercially motivated media operations, redirected the AJ media network toward profit-minded methods and operations.
Fast-forward to 2015, two years into the venture. AJAM’s directors, despite advice from Washington DC tech/law consultants (one of which I interviewed) had pushed cable carriage at great expense (cue purchase of Gore’s Current TV). Around 2011, AJ’s executives plotting their American entry strategy ignored future-minded advice that went something like this.
“Forget cable. It is a dying industry watched by an aging population. Invest in the best app technology and get that app on a variety of 21st century platforms: mobile tech like phones and tablets, the Xboxes, Playstations, etc. Buttress your website to cater to a new generation of opinion makers. In essence, position yourself for tomorrow rather than 1990.”
It was a gamble. Just like the investment in cable, the network could expect considerable losses in its first several years of operations. But, the thinking goes, being 20th in a younger new media world presented better prospects (both diplomatic and commercial) than 4th in broadcasting/cablecasting where total subscribers was shrinking almost every quarterly report.
Longterm survival as a media company wasn’t guaranteed by a new media strategy. Online news is a diffused and less centralized world than the diplomacy-minded faction of AJ’s network developers would like, but it was a forward-thinking strategy. We can see this strategy in James Murdoch’s push for News Corp to invest in Vice News. A younger, male demographic courted by Vice’s hardboiled and aggressive image was appealing to any company interested in attracting future advertising revenue.
I might add another risk attached to this “good” advice. Circumventing US cable companies is also a risk. Corporate distributors like Comcast and Time-Warner Cable are notorious for stifling new means of distribution. Going the cable route locked AJ into legacy business relationships, relationships that would limit online business strategies. It is not coincidence that cable carriage deals forced AJ to cease offering Al Jazeera English’s content to American Youtube users.
Still, AJ’s directors split their efforts, creating online presences as well as going for the cable gambit. AJ+ and fairly robust news offerings online showed a dual strategy, however limited by the restriction imposed on AJ’s content distribution foisted by major US cable players.
AJ’s retraction from cable is also likely a reinvestment in the new media environment. AJ may have understood the cost of pushing for traditional distribution, but this move signals how the channel is reassessing its initial strategy and the near irrational sense of legacy media’s power in the modern American media mediascape. Add to the total cost a couple of lawsuits filed by Gore, aggrieved employees and the American affluent they cover . . . certainly the cost of doing business in America began to outstrip Qatar’s subsidy to the channel, all while Qatar’s natural gas prices plummet.
We are left to wonder how many millions may have been saved by heeding the advice of new media advocates in the 2010s. $500 million for a tanking cable channel could have made one slick app and positioned Al Jazeera at the top of app offerings across platforms.
McNair’s points about the attacks on British and Australian public media make me wonder if we shouldn’t look at Murdoch’s holdings in the United States as a sort of financial base for his assault on the BBC and ABC. After all, the laissez-faire philosophy that has made PBS a public broadcasting dwarf by international standards has allowed his media empire to accrue financial power since at least 1994. Financial success in the US may be the rock upon which Murdoch could build his church of media commercialism. Brian?
Like most people with even a passing interest in the part played by News Corporation in British politics, I remember exactly what I was doing when scandal broke in 2011 and the sense of a seemingly indestructible media behemoth crumbling into chaos and ruin before our eyes. Now, Rebekah Brooks is to return as chief executive of News UK, publisher of the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times. In 2014 she was cleared of all charges relating to the phone-hacking scandal.
Western responses to RT, Russia’s English-language news channel, have rekindled debates surrounding media globalization. Some relate to perspective diversity in a democratic media system. Should Western media regulators limit the ability of foreign news to reach audiences in Britain or the United States? Some relate to the contrasting definitions of what news is in a global media environment. If RT (formerly Russia Today) frames world events according to the Kremlin’s political or economic agenda, is it news or propaganda?
RT is state-sponsored and, by Western standards, departs from traditional assertions that news production should be independent of government. However, placing limits on viewpoint diversity violates basic principles: democratic publics deserve a media environment in which all views appear. The people will sort truth from falsehood. If government regulators were to limit RT, would it not be dictating what the public can or cannot see? Would that not commit the same sin that underpins criticism of RT as propaganda?
My colleagues and I sort through these questions in the following discussion of international news. We assert that even the modern hybrid of propaganda and news can make for a healthy public debate.
Who’s afraid of non-western propaganda channels?
The revelations early this year regarding editors at the British Telegraph newspaper pandering to the interests of megabank HSBC once again demonstrate the commercial limits to freedom of the press in the west. The good news is that the rise of non-western news channels has the potential to alleviate the western media’s weakness.
Western journalists, media critics and officials frequently lambast non-western, state-sponsored news channels like the Russian RT for distorting the truth in the interests of their financial backers. Fair enough. Yet such channels also serve a valuable, often-overlooked function. They provide reporting and perspectives on the west that its commercial media do not.
American Secretary of State John Kerry has denounced RT as a “propaganda bullhorn” that “has been deployed to promote President Putin’s fantasy about what is playing out on the ground in Ukraine.” There is indeed strong evidence that RT’s editorial line bends toward the Kremlin. RT anchor Liz Wahl resigned in protest against her channel’s pro-Russian coverage of the unrest in the former soviet republic. Another RT anchor, Abby Martin, also protested on air but did not quit her job.
Propaganda: deception or perspective?
But occasionally RT reports truths that are absent in mainstream western journalism. For example, western outlets have consistently heralded the Maidan Square protesters, who ousted Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych in 2014, as opponents of corruption and supporters of freedom. By contrast, RT has emphasized the role that pro-fascist groups have played in the Ukrainian revolution and how they have been tolerated, if not supported, by western governments. RT’s coverage was also more likely to highlight the grievances of Ukrainians in the east.
Neither the western nor non-western journalistic story is complete, but RT’s existence provides western news consumers with a fuller picture of the events in Ukraine.
Such fears have grown especially acute after foreign news networks set up English-language channels, thereby directly challenging elite control of western public opinion. RT is perhaps the most prominent example, but the list includes Al Jazeera English, TeleSur English, Iran’s PressTV, and China’s CCTV America.
These outlets have not just been derided. Some have met concerted resistance from pressure groups who oppose their entry into western markets. For example, Honest Reporting Canada has filed complaints with Canada’s media regulator, expressing the fear that Al Jazeera would undermine political support for Israel.
Limits on foreign news
In the US, the greatest barrier to entry has been the disinterest of major commercial distributors. Al Jazeera America had such a hard time entering the US market that the network ultimately decided to buy Al Gore’s Current TV, solely for its distribution agreements with companies like Time Warner Cable.
Western audiences are warming to the different perspectives now available. While major US cable news networks have hemorrhaged viewers, foreign channels have grown their audiences and gained entry to more US markets. They also attract significant attention online.
The appeal stems in part from a crisis of confidence in commercial news. Many western viewers have become disaffected with their own media. They realize that channels backed by non-western governments offer value by creating space for critical journalism and providing a platform for activist and dissident voices.
Rather than demonizing or blocking outlets like RT, Al Jazeera, and Telesur, we should engage their perspectives. If their facts are wrong, we should counter with better information. If their arguments are illogical, we should counter with higher sense. Of course, adopting more speech as a solution for wrong speech ultimately requires that we trust the public to be able to come to sound conclusions about important matters.
Foreign news channels are here to stay. We can respond with derision and suppression, or we can renew our democratic commitment to sound journalism and widespread media literacy. By choosing the latter, such channels might end up enriching our democracy — even if that is far from the intention of their owners.
Ian Kivelin Davis teaches communication studies at Augustana College-Illinois, Rich Potter at the American Jewish University, and Tabe Bergman at Renmin University.
A marketer’s perspective on China’s recent push to restrict socially harmful advertising . . . Bell’s summary is rather insightful.
“Much of the tightening up of the advertising laws was overdue and needed. But the feeling you’re left with is that this is not only an attempt to change advertising, it is also an attempt to change society.”