OPINION & EDITORIAL
Corporate media needs restrictions
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rob Rossmeissl:
- Trolley proposal deserves thought (May 1, 2007)
- U.S. should re-evaluate free trade agreements to improve economy (April 24, 2007)
- High quality city inspires progress (April 17, 2007)
- Comic relief important in movies (April 9, 2007)
- Shout outs harbor hatred (March 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Herald wrong to print 'Jihad' ad (January 30, 2007)
- Media actually lean right (September 10, 2001)
- Modern media slave to entertainment, outrage (November 13, 2007)
- U.S. media places higher value on Americans' lives than foreigners' (February 22, 2006)
- Readers combat printed word (April 27, 2007)
by Rob Rossmeissl
Sunday, January 15, 2006
I've got a copy of the Jan. 4 USA Today. The title reads: "'Alive!' Miners beat odds: As hope dwindled, 12 survivors found after 41 hours; one dead."
It appears that in a mad rush to capitalize on human misery, USA Today, the flagship newspaper of media super-corporation Gannett, decided ethics were optional. Sadly, this shameful display is only the latest example of a news media increasingly hell-bent on exploitation and sensationalism in the name of the almighty dollar.
For the past 20 years, media in the United States has experienced a massive increase in profitability and shown a marked decline in quality. Gone are the days when coverage of a federal government spying on its citizens would trump coverage of Howard Stern's move to Sirius. Today, the media spits hype at an incredible rate, profiting off a nation suffering from attention deficit disorder.
Even more disturbing, the few remaining dependable sources of quality news coverage are being threatened. National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) are suffering as their finances are repeatedly slashed by an openly hostile Republican government. Traditional newspapers, such as The New York Times and Washington Post, are forced to trim their workforces as subscription numbers dwindle to remain competitive with media companies focused solely on profit. Local papers, having been bought out by mega-conglomerates, are hardly representative of the title anymore, their staffs halved and their pages dominated by wire services.
The news-media situation has so deteriorated that many Americans have become reliant on amateur sources, namely blogs, for information.
Amazingly, it is the American fear of a government-run media that has created the current mess in the United States. There is doubtfully anyone who would advocate complete government control of the news. However, on the other end of the spectrum, because it has been relegated to the free market, news has simply become a tool of the corporate world. No longer is the media filled with "Woodward and Bernstein-esque" reporting teams, stopping at nothing to get to the bottom of an issue. Rather, while scandals in the political and corporate realms are often left untouched, coverage of celebrity gossip, car chases and "the war on Christmas" has never been more abundant.
In taking over journalism, media corporations have simply created a new branch of Hollywood entertainment. Why would anyone want to watch David Brooks and Mark Shields conduct a civil public policy debate on "Newshour" when they could switch the channel to "Fox News" and see Bill O'Reilly ruthlessly lambast the liberal of the day via a video connection he controls?
When the news is solely in the hands of profiteers, it quickly becomes an irresponsible and melodramatic production of graphics, noise, entertainment and fear. It is for this reason that a corporate counterforce must be implemented in the news industry.
The U.S government must act to establish severe and far-reaching restrictions regarding media ownership. In the American culture of commercial consolidation, the fear of a news media entirely controlled by two or three companies is justified. Stricter limitations must be established as to how much of American media a single corporation can own.
Further, public news institutions such as PBS and NPR must be maintained in order to ensure the existence of a non-partisan, not-for-profit news source.
By seizing control of the news media, entrepreneurial tycoons have threatened the availability of crucial information to the U.S. citizenry.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. The founding fathers were likely considering government interference when they included this clause in the Bill of Rights. However, as big business increasingly controls the information dispensed to Americans, certainly this constitutional protection must be reconsidered.
The recent news gaffe in reporting the coal-mine disaster should be a wake-up call to Americans. It is time to reform a media willing to entirely disregard responsibility in the name of profit.
Rob Rossmeissl (rjrossmeissl@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in journalism and political science.
Anonymous (January 16, 2006 @ 1:22pm):
Well at least the mine disaster disaster was only motvated by greed.
OTOH, the New York Times seems motivated by hate America first at every turn. I.E.
The New York Times Wrong Again
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/01/the_new_york_ti.shtml#012266
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 1:54pm):
Hey Rob,
I really liked your article; it had some excellent thought provoking points, but I disagree with you on one issue. Sensationalism has been a part of the news media for a long time. "Headless Body in Topless Bar" went down as the most famous headline in the history of the New York Post in 1983, all the while reaganomics are in place and our embassy in Lebanon is blown up.
Granted, it was the New York Post. But at the same time, what you read was USA Today, which is just as crappy (good pictures, but crappy). It is unethical and sleazy to exploit the miners' story, but at the same time, papers that do that can peacefully coexist with legit papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal. The public can read both if it wants to, as long as it has the wisdom to see the difference between tabloid fodder and real journalism. And while I hate to admit it, it's not Bill O'Reily's fault that the public seemingly can't, or the "profiteers" fault that David Brooks and Mark Sheilds's debate is boring or that their graphic design team isn't as flashy as Fox's. Fox is an outrage for calling themselves "fair and balanced," but they're not an outrage for seducing the American public. If anything, they're very clever. It's an outrage that the democrats haven't figured out how to do the same by now.
--Nora
