The Laughing Wolf

The Media: Limits Of Power

The last few weeks have seen a fundamental shift in the power wielded by The Media in America. When I first started working on this post, it was to have been different, but events – culminating in yesterday’s California vote – have taken it to a different conclusion.

I will be crass enough to start with a bit of an “I Told You So.” Earlier this year, as a part of discussions on embedded reporters, I pointed out that The Media as we know it was in a fight for survival and that there would be a sharp negative swing. That swing has been in full force for most of the summer but has hit its current zenith. There will be further swings and bad things are going to happen, but the war is won for now. Change is happening.

To understand some of what is going on today, a look back at history is needed. Since some of this has already been covered in the Saving Pvt. Journalism series, I will not go into extensive detail.

The myth of the objective and unbiased media is a product of the last century. The fact is, the media was never unbiased and much of the myth – and the laudable goals within it – came about from a desperate need to avoid having certain reforms applied from outside.

Most media powerhouses come from newspapers, and newspapers come from broadsheets. This is important because most broadsheets and then newspapers were the house organs for various political parties and movements. As print media grew and expanded, many of these papers retained at least an unofficial alliance with a particular party. This, of course, shook out over the last 200 years to be primarily Democrat or Republican. Over the course of the last 100 years, this has shaken out to the point that the majority of papers that have survived have been those with traditional ties to the Democratic party or that have aligned with that part.

During this time, other things have also helped shape the modern media. First, there was the need for a code of ethics and at least token reform because of some corruption scandals. The alliance between the parties and the papers became a bit of a problem that began to hurt business, as did revelations that reporters and editors had been bought by individual politicians, mobsters, businesses, etc. The obvious partiality hurt consumer confidence, which meant that business dropped and in some cases that vigorous competition was started. To avoid these problems, and to avoid any specter of legislatively imposed reform, the media attempted to impose change from the inside.

To cut down on the potential for conflict of interest, most newspapers keep the advertising and business side separate from the news and editorial side. The idea is that major advertisers can’t control what goes in the news, and it also eliminates the problem of having news subjects feel pressured to buy an ad to get favorable coverage. This is a good and necessary step for a truly independent media, though there are often holes in this curtain. Some news operations even try to have a firewall between the news and editorial departments so that the editorial position does not affect news coverage. This has almost always been a miserable failure and is really no more than a fig leaf over a problem.

Modern media has also been shaped by the muckrakers. This started when various papers and outlets began running stories on problems, most notably in the meat processing and packing industry, resulting in legislation and other reforms. This is where the notion of the crusading journalist truly was born and has led to the modern notion of change or advocacy journalism. Rather than being truly neutral, the idea is that the reporter is to be a crusader to affect change on government and the world.

This also ties in with the swing towards a very liberal bias in higher education and both real and perceived problems with the Republican party. This began to show in the late 50s and early 60s and was reinforced by the civil rights movement. The massive social changes that occurred during this time highly polarized the country on many levels, and did the same thing with The Media.

The problem was, however, that The Media had both economic and political filters that threw it towards a more liberal position. There was the whole idea of advocacy journalism. Then, you added in the fact that no paper or other outlet dependent on mass readership or support wanted to be seen as connected with oppression and such. Those that took extreme or even moderate conservative stands saw readership/viewership and advertising dollars shrink. In small towns or other limited markets, this was not a life-or-death situation, but in larger markets it was. The result was that the more liberal publications thrived while the conservative publications were reduced.

When one factors all of these things into play, it means that an entire profession found itself with views, and an impetus for those views, that was increasingly far removed from that of the “average” person. This cycle, particularly in terms of education, has continued.

The net result is that a power structure emerged within the media that was very far to the left in comparison with most, with strong historical links to the Deomocratic party, and that like all in power came to enjoy its perks and see them as divine rights. Those rights have recently been challenged, and the counter attack has been ugly.

The counter attack has also been a mistake.

The embeds were a huge success. Go back and read the earlier posts on this subject, but the short version is that a large number of reporters have now seen that soldiers are not baby burning psychopaths or mindless drones or any of the other crap espoused by the counter culture. They found that much of what they had been told was not true, and their reporting reflected it.

As I predicted, the embeds became pariahs in many newsrooms and moved to other beats and coverage. Thus began the negative reporting from Iraq and elsewhere. The negative and ignorant reporting, which has been exposed by the new media – including the blogosphere – to the point that even The Media has had to start admitting it and covering it.

It is important that you look at the negative coverage. Look at the organizations and who was involved: reporters, producers, and editors. Then take a look at the reporters, producers, and editors who were part of or involved with the embed program. Exactly how much overlap do you see? Just as I predicted, the embeds were moved out of the way, so the old school that is at war with the government and the military could try to go back to business as usual.

Also business as usual is the political coverage. The rampant bias in the media has never been more clearly shown. From coverage of Bush, WMD, and related issues to the California recall, The Media has shown its true colours, and the limits to its power.

For just one example, take a look at the papers that did the hatchet job in the last days of the campaign. In California, the L.A. Times has had long historic ties to the Democratic party and to all appearances reverted from a “journalistic” outlet to a party organ. Outside the state, others that jumped on it also have similar strong ties and can be considered to be almost house organs of a political party.

And it blew up on them.

The L.A. Times reputation, such as it was, now lies in tatters. With one stroke, they have effectively negated any claim to objectivity, balance, or fairness. The public has seen exactly how biased they are, and how far they were willing to go to promote a specific party and/or the ideals of the party. The result is that they are now seen in about the same light as the old Pravda. The backlash has not been as noticeable against the others, but it is there and it is growing.

The Media has seen most of its major campaigns to retain and expand the power it has, and all the lovely economic and social perks that come with it, fail.

The negative coverage in Iraq has reached a point where the average viewer hears or sees stories pointing out how negative it has become. They hear politicians jump ship from The Media on this and point out how it is costing American lives and harming efforts to restore Iraq and wage the War on Terror. They are thus being linked in the public mind to the terrorists and pro-terrorist supporters.

The exact same thing is starting to happen to its WMD coverage. The extremely biased (or just plain piss poor) coverage of the interim report has been exposed to the point that, again, The Media is having to acknowledge it and begin to cover it. The viewer/reader grows further disenchanted and untrusting.

Pick a few other topics: Bush Lied, detention camps, etc. They have all failed, and rather spectacularly so. The Media faces the fact that it now has competition. News is no longer the province of the rich and powerful. Rather than expensive presses and broadcast equipment, home computers and inexpensive digital cameras can get the news out. Moreover, this can be done by almost any income level.

In earlier posts, I have talked about the theory of media specialization. I think that part of what we are seeing is a variant of that in terms of media technology. We have gone in the last 200 or so years from large and expensive presses that could do limited numbers, to large presses that could do vast numbers, to small inexpensive presses and printers that can do reasonable numbers. Just as this revolution has been underway, we see the broadcast media go through something similar, from huge limited cameras in the early days to broadcast-quality camera that can fit in the palm of a hand and can be afforded by almost anyone. Then you have to factor in the new distribution method of choice: The Internet.

With the Internet, you bypass the need for printing plants and distribution routes. Instead, you post your news and the people who want to share it with others print it out on their own. With the Internet, you no longer need studios, powerful transmitters, and tall towers. Instead, you can put your voice or video files up and instantaneously they are viewable around the world. With the right set-up, you are even interactive without the need for the space of a studio audience.

The result of these technological advances is that everyone can be a journalist. Just as publications mature into areas of specialization, now individuals can and do cover what goes on in their block, their neighborhood, or even their town. Rather than the outlets specializing, we have the reporters focusing on a specialization.

This is true even in the blogosphere. Pundits tend to focus on their areas of expertise. While I write on many things, my main focuses have tended to be the media and journalism, and space and space commercialization. Look at other bloggers and you will see the same thing.

Will this new media completely replace traditional media? Probably in about the same way that magazines did not replace newspapers, and that radio and television did not replace all print media.

What it will do is provide a new and vital check and balance to the process. The Media has shown its bias and blatant disregard for the professed ideals of journalism. It is clear that a better series of checks and balances is needed, and it is also clear from history that such should not come from the government. That is the role that the new media can play, it can force the traditional media to be honest, to do a good job, and to pay at least lip service, if not more, to those journalistic ideals.

This is going to become even more important in the days ahead, as journalism and The Media are forcing open a major can of worms. The Plame affair may well have far reaching consequences that go well beyond simply damaging a President.

For years, practitioners of The Media have enjoyed specific legal rights, and those rights have been expanded over time. From the original intent to provide as many groups as possible access to the limited number of big, expensive presses, the idea of media rights has grown such that members of the media are a special class granted rights and privileges not granted to ordinary citizens. This includes special access to events, from crime scenes to high ceremonies; special access to leaders; and special immunity in the form of protection of sources.

There is many a bad movies that shows the heroic reporter going to jail rather than reveal a source or turn over materials to the government. There are many true heroic cases where this is true, and a most recent one of note is a writer in Texas who was jailed because the court decided she was not a real reporter. Her case, and the Plame case, may well tumble the house of cards upon which this concept is based.

The original concept of Freedom of the Press was based on access to literal presses. This then began to expand in the early days of the Articles of Confederation and The Republic because “the press” acted as an important if unofficial check and balance on the system. They could and did expose corruption, treason, and more. With the advent of muckraking, this expanded dramatically, as it was clear that whistleblowers needed protection for the greater public good. Advocacy journalism has built upon and expanded this concept, such that protection of sources is a very serious subject for reporters and outlets.

Now, there are supposed to be rules for this, but the real practice has been to protect all sources regardless. The theory is that if you don’t protect all, even the real dirtbags, no one will trust you and use you. A reporter without sources isn’t much of a reporter.

I use the word rules above because there really are no true laws on the subject. For some excellent discussions of this, go check out the Volokh Conspiracy and much of the discussion around the Plame Case. Media outlets have treaded very carefully in this area, precisely because there are no laws. What you have instead are rulings and precedent, which carry the force of law.

Precedent may well be the more important of the two. What this means is that “it has always been done this way” and as such it means that if it has not been prosecuted or other legal action taken, then it is okay. There is a long precedent of honoring the protection of sources by journalists with the courts. By and large, the courts have found that in general the practice is a benefit to the public good while ruling specifically in some cases that the greater good lay the other way.

Most media outlets have been very picky about where they fought as a result. Reporters are taught to protect all sources at all costs, because that action sets precedent. The cases that really do end up going to court are usually much more selectively made. The specific circumstances, the court in question, and even the individual judge can make a difference. If the case will strengthen the concept of press immunity, then it will be advanced. If the case has other factors that will establish precedent and/or create a favorable environment even if lost, then it will be advanced. If it is simply the right thing to do, it often will be advanced.

This ties in with another concept: licensing. In all the work by the founding fathers, both with the Articles and with the Bill of Rights, a conscious decision was made to not license the press. This meant that the actual physical presses did not have to obtain permission to print anything, and was designed to ensure the free flow of information and diverse viewpoints. It then began to expand to cover “The Press” in terms of journalists, and later what would become “The Media.” It also presents a slippery slope.

When one segment of the public is given more rights than any other, it presents problems, especially if all are supposed to be equal. Yes, some are more equal than others. Journalists and members of The Media are more equal than others and that is in large measure a result of the special protections granted the media in practice. The case of the writer in Texas has opened this up for debate, and the Plame Case is going to blow it wide open.

The real problem with the Texas case is that a judge has ruled that the writer is not a real journalist and therefore enjoys none of the de facto protections of same. Not a big deal you say? Well, it is because it represents government licensing of The Press. A judge has taken it upon themselves and the government to decide who is and who is not a real reporter. This flies in the face of Constitutional and general law and practice, and I consider it one of the most reprehensible acts of moral and professional cowardice that more media outlets and media organizations have not jumped on this for that very reason.

Yet, there is a logic of sorts behind it. This may well be one of those cases that will not expand the case precedent in a way that benefits The Media. It also would expand coverage outside a very narrow definition of media and journalism, and to be honest I think that most outlets and members are very well aware of it. They are also aware that the single biggest threat to their power and position come from writers like this one in Texas. For a combination of reasons, they are not aggressively pursing this case, and in the process are allowing a very dangerous precedent to be set.

The ball is already rolling on that slippery slope, and the Plame Case may well send it crashing on down. There is no law in regards the protection of sources, only precedent. The “rules” or guidelines for the protection of sources do not appear to apply in a case such as this, but the old J-school guide of protect all no matter what may be coming into play. If this does go to court, and it should, the results will be very interesting in that it may well decide who is a journalist, are there limits on freedom of the press and in particular the ability to keep sources confidential, and if the government has the right to impose guidelines on the press/The Media.

These are profound questions that need careful consideration and answers. In an era when technology can and does literally make anyone a reporter in the traditional sense (not the elite sense of working for a major daily, magazine, or broadcast outlet), are press protections absolute? If they are not, what is the dividing line? Does the press enjoy special freedoms denied to others? If not, what does that do for freedom of the press? Does the government have the right to require or impose honest, fair, and balanced reporting on all or a select few?

Fundamentally, it boils down to asking if we truly want to keep Freedom of The Press. Practically, The Media is making the case that we don’t. It has by its actions shown clearly that the concepts of honest, fair, and balanced don’t exist and therefore can’t come from voluntary adherence to a code of conduct.

Counterbalancing this in practical terms is the New Media. The idea that anyone and everyone can be and is a reporter. It is from the New Media that information has come out that has exposed the lies and hypocrisy of the Old Media. It is from the New Media that the new wave of advocacy journalism has come, in things such as Chief Wiggles toy and school supply drive or Frank’s Front Line Voices. It is from the New Media that a new set of checks and balances is emerging, both on government and on the Old Media.

This is not necessarily a good thing. Governments are notoriously sensitive to anything that restricts power and the growth of power. So to are those in unofficial positions of power who do not want to see that power go away. While our Government was founded on both official and unofficial checks and balances, a number of those safeguards have been removed and the powers of government greatly expanded. That we have unlocked them ourselves means nothing beside the fact that they have been unlocked. Just as the embeds have seen a backlash, so too will the New Media see attacks from Old Media.

Care must be taken to see that government and Old Media do not collude, or that decisions made or precedents set that would limit New Media or Freedom of the Press. For far from being the narrow special interest that those in power in the Old Media would make it, it is a right that goes to us all. We must have Freedom of the Press to prevent harm, to prevent tyranny, and to preserve the freedoms and liberty guaranteed us in this Great Experiment.

Is there cause to be worried? I would say watching the complete and utter prostitution of major media outlets to partisan political ends would indicate the answer is yes. Desperate people do desperate and stupid things, and those in power in the Old Media are desperate to preserve their way of life in the face of change. That effort may be as futile as King Canute’s command, but it does not mean that damage can’t be inflicted along the way in much the same way that kings, dictators, and others out of touch with the world did damage on their way out.

One answer to this problem lies in precedent. Precedent is being set by the actions we take in and with the New Media. Precedent can be set by effective representation and presentation with Government and the Courts, and we are indeed fortunate to have legal bloggers, with connections, such as the members of the Volokh Conspiracy and the Instapundit. This is not a call for them to represent in court, though that could end up being needed, but to continue to provide a responsible and thoughtful face to this part of the New Media to the world.

The care and responsibility we take is important. That is not to say that we need to embrace the old ways, old rules, and old shibboleths, but that we establish our own ways and rules and live by them. I rather suspect that Jefferson, Paine, and others would be confounded and upset by the rough nature of the New Media, but delighted with what it represents. New things are almost always rough, and it is with time that maturity – and stagnation – set in. There is time for that. What matters now is to establish this New Media as a responsible and effective counter to the Old in a way that expand protection for real Freedom of the Press and carry it forward into this new technological era.

There will be challenges, and they will come on many levels. The very technological nature of the New Media will bring out those who will say that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen this and that regulation is therefore necessary, just as regulation of radio and television was necessary. That same tired argument has been used to promote gun control and a host of other issues, and it will be raised here as well. Just as print media called for the regulation of broadcast to protect itself, expect to see the Old Media call for regulation of this new medium as well. That such needs to be fought goes without saying.

It really is unfair to say that the media is biased. For we are the media, both as consumers and as providers in the New Media. Let’s be precise in what we say. The Old Media has shown themselves to be biased hacks less interested in the ideals of journalism than in raw exercises in power and control. We condone that by watching them, by supporting their advertisers, and by paying them heed. We fight that by blogging, by participating in online publications and forums, and by establishing sites to counter the worst excesses by those who profane the very concept of journalism.

Be precise. Leave the broad brush for those in the Old who paint with mud and manure. Point out individual outlets, editors, reporters, and others who have abandoned any pretense at objective journalism. Shun them.

Best yet, raise a new standard high and in so doing set the precedents needed to take freedom and liberty to new levels. What happens now is literally up to each and every one of us.

-30-