Sea Change in the Media?
Perhaps before we get to proposing serious reforms and re-ordering priorities in this space, we should consider the inevitable role of the media in how Americans will judge any such movement. This happens to be something I know a little about - both from my current job and recent books but also from personal history, protesting the Vietnam war and starting my journalism career in the era of Nixon and Watergate.
Naturally I wonder what others in this forum, and readers, think.Has everything, or an awful lot, changed in the web/blogosphere era? Has the liberal dominance online shifted the balance forever, away from the longtime tilt of right-wing talk radio, Fox News and timid mainstream reporting?
Has the organizing power of the "netroots" (starting in 2006) and super-popular opining of new media already emboldened the mainstream, e.g. MSNBC, which at least recognizes that liberals can draw an audience? Other news outlets, sometimes, speak out pretty clearly against unreality-based spin.
Is the path being cleared for a shift to the left - and I don't mean just the possible election of a Democrat for president and a heavily Democratic congress? I wouldn't put too much faith in the mainstream. Few news outlets or individual reporters/columnists, after all, have admitted to, or suffered the consequences, of helping to get us into the Iraq war - not to mention the current financial crisis.
But I do sense a possible sea change sparked by the New Agitators on the web. Holding the mainstream media's feet to the fire in pointing out errors and false spin does have an impact (no one likes to be embarrassed). Bringing issues and crimes out of the shadows does lead to action (often). The weeks of exposing Sarah Palin's background, I feel, will be seen as a key turning point in leading Obama to victory.
Consider this: Over at my magazine, Editor & Publisher, we have been tallying newspaper endorsements for president from around the country. An incredible thing is happening. These endorsements have traditionally favored Republicans, and John Kerry and George Bush split them in 2004. This year Obama is winning by nearly a 3-1 margin, with dozens of papers flipping to him from Bush in 2004--he is even sweeping the Red states! Three of the top five newspapers in Texas, all Bush-backers, have switched to Obama this year.
Again, we shouldn't make too much of this. But I think that at least the groundwork has been established for powerful, even possibly semi-radical, reform to get a fair hearing from the media, and the public, in the years ahead. What happens after that hearing--who knows?
Newspaper endorsements reflect conservative failure and an uneasy sense of McCain as volatile and unsteady. Financial Times is a good example of the reluctant endorsement.
But the huge turnouts for rallies, registering, and early voting reflect enthusiasm among people in general, with some well-grounded fear goading the enthusiasm. And that voter turnout has to reflect both internet and blog activity, but let's not forget liberal radio, brand-new in 2004, but maturing by 2006. Couldn't hurt that the obvious meltdown of all recent conservative initiatives has the major media no longer playing nice with the White House and conservatives in general.
October 27, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many questions posed.
First, Editor and Publisher has been a bright light in the darkness of the current administration. Deep thanks. Deep thanks.
What is the effect of the blogosphere on the MSM MSM? A hotly debated issue. Short answer, in my estimation, is "small but growing". Writers need material, the blogosphere is a fertile ground for idea hunting.
There is a growing realization that the blogosphere represents the world's biggest thinktank--slowly giving the latter a growing credibility despite the mixed quality of information available.
Is the media switching its allegiances? No, probably not. Content is determined by profitability and the regnant wisdom is that there are more conservative viewers than liberal viewers...presumably the latter are out playing soccer or drinking lattes or writing their dissertations on Feminist Hermeneutics. In other words, spending time on things other than Survivor Island and Bill O'Reilly.
October 27, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
'world's biggest think tank.' I sort of like that metaphor. I hope that it's true. Over the years, I see strange attractors at work in our information feedback loops that have an evolutionary effect sort of like the African Pampas. Every morning, the slowest gazelle must be faster than the slowest Lion, or become breakfast--and the fastest Lion must be faster than the slowest gazelle, or stay hungry.
Somehow, we are dividing and redividing like the branches of a tree. The information loops are creating demographics among demographics. Differing feedback loops seem to lure differing demographics with different psychological needs.
If you look at the rise of right wing radio, starting in the 80's the demographic was typically white males whose traditional assumption of alpha status and power they felt to be under siege. When this demographic tuned into Rush et al they had their adrenal glands massaged about the enemies who were storming the castle. This whole demographic became addicted, during drive time, to the adrenalin that flowed from right wing rabble rousing. Eventually this demographic found it way onto the web and blossomed into Little Green Footballs and the Idiotarian Rotweiller.
But the psychological needs of this demographic are much, much different from those inclined to tune into Rachel Maddow.
I see all of this as a kind of Tower of Babel effect. All these different sub-cultures evolve their own language, their own jargon, their own straw men arguments, their own caricatures of their perceived opposition and the boundaries of their little pale shrink around them until true dialogue with other tribes is no longer possible. We are all talking past one another. Far from creating a new Agora, the web has led to the ultimate Balkanization and divergence of the tribes.
October 28, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing must change before any shift is possible, and I don't see this happening. The media houses need to acknowledge their elevation of narrative over fact. I understand the necessity of narrative in written communication - you have to have some kind of structure for the reader to make sense out of things. Unfortunately, the narrative seems to be the only consideration in most reporting. Facts and skepticism tend to get in the way of a good narrative, and so are pushed aside as nuisances.
A recent case in point was a Ruth Marcus piece in the Washington Post. Her narrative was that neither candidate was perfect, and that both had their problems. Fair enough. However she needed a convenient problem narrative for Obama, and so asserted that Democrats are the party of large government and deficits.
Consider the size of government and deficits over the last 16 years. Consider which parties were in power and what effect their policies had on the size of government and deficits. Then explain to me why I should take the narrative seriously given the current size of government and deficits?
Until broadcasters and publishers decide that skepticism and fact checking should come before narrative, the 'news' will remain entertainment rather than journalism.
October 27, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The success of media outlets is driven by ratings. Mainstream outlets tend to cater to the prevailing mood in the country. Currently people are tired of the failed Republican era of late and tired of the politics of personal destruction. This has a lot to do with the failures of Bush and the sucesses of Obama. As a result more people are turning to msnbc for relief from the hard right angles on fox news. Keith Olberman has beaten O'Reilly in ratings several times in the last few weeks. O'Reilly has had the top ratings in his timeslot on cable for years so this is a BIG shift.
Popular media personalities can help get a specific message out too. From what I hear Rush Limbaugh is a pretty funny guy (I don't listen to him myself), he offers some entertainment in addition to his (toxic) views. The left has a new weapon however and her name is Rachel Maddow. Rachel is such an enjoyable person to watch and listen to with her wit and humor and well thought out arguments. As her audience continues to grow so will her message.
I do think the blogosphere has a lot of influence as a media outlet in it's own right. Sites like TPM and the Huffington post provide a lot of great information in an interesting and varied format. The Huffington Post collects readers from various political leanings attracted to it's media stories and such. It draws in many more than the straight political sites. It's all about hearts and minds. Whoever lays out the best, most attractive argument will win the audience.
October 28, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...to get a fair hearing from the media, and the public, in the years ahead. What happens after that hearing--who knows?"
Oh, god. Even more whining about the left-leaning (Fortune 500 owned) media and how they can't get a fair hearing for their demagoguey, lies, distortions and downright unpleasant propaganda.
October 28, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Media owners are as scared of economic collapse as anybody else. The left lean is temporary. The Republicans have accidentally infected themselves with their own talking points. They're committed to crowning for life anybody who makes it across their game board- (meaning, Blackwater, Bank CEOs, Big Pharm, Exxon are above the law). They're just too warped to manage the real world. Anyway, the left lean is probably more like straight up compared to twenty years ago, or to Europe.
Despite the rational media, a solid right core still gets most of its news from Fox and talk radio. They truly believe that Obama is a Muslim who is secretly allied with radical Islam and a network of domestic terrorists. If Obama wins, these guys will keep on throwing monkey wrenches into whatever he tries to accomplish. So much for unity.
We can't have a real democracy with people shouting unchallenged lies all day. Your attention is your life. The attention of the American people is the life of America. As long as some part of our attention is for sale, people like Rupert Murdoch will keep on throwing monkey wrenches and purple people eaters into it.
October 28, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Characterizing the entire "right" side of the spectrum as being educated and informed only by Rush et. al. to exclusion of other sources of information is an uneducated and uninformed view in itself.
This entire country is in flux. Your "solid core" of crazy Raging Right assholes getting all their news from Fox has been a shrinking minority of republicans for many years. This year, the crazies lost everyone who is more toward the center-right. Remember, politics isn't a zero sum game, but a spectrum of belief extending through a large center toward both extremes, left and right. The moderates are voting for Obama this year. Just like they voted for FDR in 1932.
I realize that kicking someone when they are down is a natural instinct for the party that has been wandering in the wilderness for so long, but that instinct will mean failure of all Barack's initiatives by continuing to widen the divisions of the last 40 years. What is needed in 2009 is a recognition by democrats that they must live up to their marketing message by being compassionate and forgiving of republicans who allowed their party to be taken over by a neoconservative coup.
The republican party gave us Abe and Teddie and Ike, so a little historical perspective goes a long way toward achieving "unity" with more conservative-minded Americans. Rebuilding a political party takes a number of elections (perhaps most of Barack's two terms) and democrats continuing to push for more republican heads won't help GOP moderates regain control.
Open up your mind a little.
October 28, 2008 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen much hay made of Reporters Without Borders again ranking the U.S. in the 30s in terms of free press. Surprise!
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031
RSF (reporters sans frontieres) is mostly print reporters -- the people out there doing it every day for a paycheck and they're still saying U.S. media totally sucks. Their stories just don't get airtime here.
It's been up to the left blogosphere to pick up on their stories insomuch as they apply to us outside of the election that is consuming our attention.
October 28, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as the number of Newspaper endorsements as a barometer of any change in the political center, I think that this case cannot provide much guidance since Hon. Sen. McCain is a particularly weak candidate, running an historically ineffective campaign, and chose an exceptionally poor running mate. The left might hope for a repeat of these in coming cycles, but we would be foolish to assume them.
October 28, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
These dishonest polls and the lib.media from NY Times to CNN to CNBC have sold out big time! They've been trying for 2 years now to put Obama in office! If the polls and the MSM are right, why are the Dems. so worried - so worried that they've to use the MSM attack dogs to launch such frenzied attacks against Sarah Palin and even Joe the Plumber from the get go! Here are 12 compelling reasons why the Big O will lose come Nov. 4th: 1 - He is outside the mainstream group think. a. Americans, as a rule, do not subscribe to the gospel of the extreme left OR the extreme right. b. Most Americans remain centrists and are jealously protective of their guaranteed inalienable rights!
October 28, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was 1 reason. Frankly, Frank, Americans lean a lot more to the "left" then the "right" has led us to believe. That truth has shown itself in the declining media watching and newspaper reading in the last 8 years or so. There's only so much nonsense that folks will listen to before tuning it out .
E&P has been a pillar of moderation in these troubled times, they have the respect of both those that lean right or left in their fair and accurate reporting. The big bad truth about the Mainstream Media is that they aren't in the game to inform, they are in it to make a buck, and they will not be held to a higher standard until it is in their economic interest to do so, or until they are broken down into more responsible and accountable small outfits like they used to be. Media consolidation has been an out and out disaster.
So far, all I see is a few left wing pundits added to the mix to try to balance the right wing pundits. That is not balance, that is a food fight.
Maybe they'll catch on eventually. Or maybe they'll go bankrupt. We'll see, won't we.
October 28, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow, I don't think this is sarcasm. So tell me Frank, just how does a vote for McCain translate into protection of humans' inalienable rights. McCain back-tracked on inhumane treatment of prisoners, has supported the theft of The Natural Right to Habeas Corpus, and didn't even bother to show up in the Senate during the FISA debate and vote.
Inalienable Rights ARE NOT guaranteed by the Constitution, they are preeminent and preexistent to it. This means that they are not bounded by citizenry, but are instead a right of all humankind, even our enemies.
Contemporary Conservatism in America has sold out its soul, and continues downward in its long descent into the black well of moral relativism. In the process, it has cheapened our birthright and now threatens the very Dreamtime America.
October 28, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frank,
Explain how CNN is the "liberal media".
CNN, unlike FOX, gave right wing talk radio babbler Glenn Beck his own one hour show. As soon as Beck left for FOX, Bill Bennett, one of CNN's political analysts, was given a slot. Even while Beck had his show, he was interviewed quite often by Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room.
Every day on CNN you have the equal of Hannity and Colmes when Blitzer questions a liberal and a conservative guest/analyst.
For the longest time Rush Limbaugh's girlfriend, Daryn Kagan, was an anchor on CNN.
CNBC is the business channel, how you lump them in with the "liberal media" is anyone's guess.
One last point; one rarely ever hears of "the conservative media" let alone how formidable it is.
October 28, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Has the liberal dominance online shifted the balance forever, away from the longtime tilt of right-wing talk radio, Fox News and timid mainstream reporting?"
Let's not start breaking our arms patting ourselves on the back quite yet!! Until car radios are replaced by heads-up displays with realtime natural-speaking audio blog readers, and TVs are pushed aside by the internet: MSM coverage, right-wing talk radio and other outlets will have a majority impact (although it would helps if they are telling the truth).
No doubt that a politician ignores the blogosphere at their powerful risk, but McPalin's errors are instructive. The absurd, stubborn and petulant mishandling of his relationship with the MSM have been far more damaging to his campaign than anything going on out here has.
But I agree that there's no turning back now and the impact of political blogs will only grow. There are two developments which bode very well for the continuing cultural shift from the alternate nature of "blogospherism" to mainstream acceptance of this new political medium: the movement of aging gamer/onliner generations into working/voting sectors and, the maturation of many blogs into bona fide news sources which have infiltrated the MSM to high degree in this election cycle. Seeing
Nate Silver, Andrew Sullivan, and others on MSM shows with increasing regularity is bestowing increasing credibility.
"Is the path being cleared for a shift to the left?
"forever" is a long time and the Status quo is nearly non-existent in this world. Serious right-wing blogs like
TheNextRight are already looking at the online successes of the Obama campaign and its supporting blog sites with more than envy in mind.
____________
"The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades"
-- Timbuk3
October 28, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The corporate media do not particularly "favor" liberals or conservatives so much as they favor the status quo. Things have shifted a little bit of late, but no lasting, signicant change has occured. The problem begins in the journalism schools and in the idiotic presumption of those schools that fake "nuetrality" and false equivalency are good and that telling the truth in plain terms is somehow bad.
October 28, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I should add that corporate ownership and consolidation in the media is a pernicious and antidemocratic thing that has made "mainstream" reporting worse and less meaningful or trustworhthy than at any point in the past 60 years.
October 28, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The corporate media do not particularly "favor" liberals or conservatives so much as they favor the status quo."
Agreed. Especially the "status quo" on key issues. They offer a few more facts and less spin when the issue is not something that involves (though almost everything does) large amounts of taxpayer dollars and corporate profits. (e.g. the basket weaving headline)
October 28, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink