Marvin Kalb presents us with a story-like and engaging analysis of the factors that have contributed to the rise of the “New News”; namely, technology and a disproportionate focus on profit. Kalb’s empirical evidence presents a depiction of the modern world of the fast-paced, corporatized, hollywoodized, money-making news media in a way that is hard to argue with. Kalb ends with a doom and gloom evaluation of our press: the age of a truth-seeking media that serves the American people is over. Woodward and Bernstein, and maybe Isikoff, were the last of the greats.
I disagree with Kalb’s assessment of the American press. It’s true we live in a world where new articles are published every hour; where news is a business just like BP or Coca Cola that must sell, sell, sell. While headlines become shorter, investigative journalists become fewer. The people don’t trust the politicians, nor do they trust the press as its cynicism ceases to temper our idealism, and now overtakes it. But does it have to be this way? I reject the notion that the press has inherent to it any responsibility (to the public or anyone else) outside of that which it defines for itself. However, the press has the great potential (and burden should it choose to bear it) to be a tool for democracy; one of the institutions that holds society and government accountable. I would argue that as a business, realizing its potential and thereby reaching its ultimate market value, should really be the primary goal of the press. “Objectivity” may be an unattainable ideal, and “truth” a difficult concept, but what is America if not unwaveringly idealistic? If the news media would try once more to be the watchdog, it may find that the public will be more than happy to consume its product.
Of course, it’s always nice to wax philosophical, to talk about what journalism should be or could be if it only had the will, but honestly, it means little if it cannot be put into practice. If it indeed cannot be put into practice, then Kalb’s damning assessment is correct. However, the very technological advances that have pushed, if not wholly caused, the press to become what it is today, could actually be used to resurrect the investigative journalism of old; to wake the Woodwards and Bernsteins that lie dormant. I call it: Compartmentalization. The idea that all journalism must be hard-hitting, investigative, and objective is a bit, well, ridiculous. We already acknowledge that there is hard-news and soft-news. There can also be serious journalism and less serious journalism. While the websites promote the latest scandals, the newspapers can do the real reporting. While Twitter and phone applications boast the shortest headlines and the most sensationalism, “The Wallstreet Journal” and “The New York Times” can provide us with the details. Instead of every single news medium trying to be both gossip and investigator, they should pick one and do it well. That is not to say they cannot engagein other types of news, but the idea is for the gap between what media says it is, and what it actually is, to decrease. Isn’t it just common sense, after all, that it is better to be great at one thing, than mediocre at several?
Kalb has provided us with what seems like a description of the cause and an accurate understanding of the diagnosis of the disease that plagues the American press, but he also condemned it to death. Unlike Kalb, I believe there is a cure that we should be working hard to find, and none more so than the press itself.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Storage, the Subway, and A Little Bit of Politics
I take the 3 train every morning, and today I noticed an interesting advertisement:
This is a hilaroius ad that really says alot about the perception of the political environment in New York City. That perception: Liberal.
We have all seen political advertisements in the form of campaign ads, etc., but how do advertisements like this one that do not have a specifically political goal fit into the media and politics landscape? Do they fit in at all?
This is a hilaroius ad that really says alot about the perception of the political environment in New York City. That perception: Liberal.
We have all seen political advertisements in the form of campaign ads, etc., but how do advertisements like this one that do not have a specifically political goal fit into the media and politics landscape? Do they fit in at all?
Monday, February 21, 2011
John Stossel and Ron Paul give a small demonstration on how to interest high school students in politics.
A friend of mine recently traveled to a Fox News Studio to watch a live taping of "Stossel," the politically themed show hosted by libertarian John Stossel. My friend asked a question and therefore was on television, and I, being a good friend, recorded the show and just recently watched it. I noticed two interesting things:
1)The show, although taped at the studio, had a special audience comprised of high school students. Clearly a purposeful move, although I'm not sure aimed at what. Perhaps at trying to engage the youth who will soon be voting in the presidential election? Perhaps just trying to show that they care about the youth, even if they go to a public school in Queens? Either way, it is interesting that the media uses not only the actual content of its shows to make political statements, but also the setting and the audience. Additionally, I was told that before the taping of the show, Mr. Stossel told all the high schoolers in the front row that they had to ask a question, because otherwise it would look like they weren't interested. Let's be honest, they probably weren't.
2) Stossel's guest was Ron Paul, who spoke about his idea for a plan in which citizens would be able to opt out of certain taxes. One high schooler asked how this would plan would effect scholarships for lower income children who wish to go to college. Ron Paul replied by saying that these children need to get jobs and the fact they rely on the government to help them is "just sad." Way to reach out Ron Paul, way to reach out.
1)The show, although taped at the studio, had a special audience comprised of high school students. Clearly a purposeful move, although I'm not sure aimed at what. Perhaps at trying to engage the youth who will soon be voting in the presidential election? Perhaps just trying to show that they care about the youth, even if they go to a public school in Queens? Either way, it is interesting that the media uses not only the actual content of its shows to make political statements, but also the setting and the audience. Additionally, I was told that before the taping of the show, Mr. Stossel told all the high schoolers in the front row that they had to ask a question, because otherwise it would look like they weren't interested. Let's be honest, they probably weren't.
2) Stossel's guest was Ron Paul, who spoke about his idea for a plan in which citizens would be able to opt out of certain taxes. One high schooler asked how this would plan would effect scholarships for lower income children who wish to go to college. Ron Paul replied by saying that these children need to get jobs and the fact they rely on the government to help them is "just sad." Way to reach out Ron Paul, way to reach out.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Early this morning another journalist was caught and injured in anti-government protests --this time in Bahrain. The clubbing of ABC Corespondent Miguel Marquez follows a string of attacks on journalists in Egypt, including the sexual assault of Lara Logan. An article in the American Free Press this morning, quoting a "watchdog group" for the safety of journalism, also reads
"...the Bahrain government "has selectively reduced the speed of Internet connections inside the country for the past two days."" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjbkV9uYKA_QJtwvfbx8guFl04Hg?docId=CNG.68e525354daffd868eac000986513f10.151)
The article also explains that
It seems that, like Egypt, where Mubarak shut off the internet,governments are very aware of the significant role media usage has played in these protests and are taking steps to mitigate its effect on growing political unrest. The fact that journalists are being attacked also demonstrates a certain suspicion of the media.
Maybe the media hasn't given up its role of watchdog after all...
"...the Bahrain government "has selectively reduced the speed of Internet connections inside the country for the past two days."" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjbkV9uYKA_QJtwvfbx8guFl04Hg?docId=CNG.68e525354daffd868eac000986513f10.151)
The article also explains that
It seems that, like Egypt, where Mubarak shut off the internet,governments are very aware of the significant role media usage has played in these protests and are taking steps to mitigate its effect on growing political unrest. The fact that journalists are being attacked also demonstrates a certain suspicion of the media.
Maybe the media hasn't given up its role of watchdog after all...
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Status: political change happening now, public square nearest you
While "The Social Network" may have brought the phenomenon of social media (and the semi-socially awkward people who helped create it) to the forefront of our minds, social media has been impacting our society in tangible ways for several years now; and we're not just talking about facebook. A recent article published in Foreign Affairs shares the story of Philippine President Joseph Estrada's downfall by text message (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media).
Similar emphasis has been put on the use of social media by Egyptian protesters in organizing to bring down Mubarak. In his article entitled "Egypt: Social Media as a Life or Death Proposition." Simon Maiwaring argues the use of social media in instigating political change is more than just an interesting phenomenon of the 21st Century. He writes
"The use of social media in Egypt is a dramatic demonstration of a clash of cultures -- of the old and new, of violence and peace, of the past and future" ( http://www.fastcompany.com/1724837/egypt-social-media-as-a-life-or-death-proposition).
I am interested in the implications of this suggestion. While many have argued about the general political advantages (more connectivity, more means of expression for the general public) and disadvantages (social media is a tool used for trivial communication, not meant for news which requires more reflection and fact checking) of social media, Maiwaring has characterized social media as a symbol of the clash of civilizations. This distinguishes between the uses of social media in non-western, authoritarian cultures and the use of social media in western, democratic cultures. Does this mean that the U.S. cannot use social media as a vehicle for political action, since it is in sync with our culture? Would it be ineffective in an environment that already embraces public opinion and accountability for politicians? Should we learn from those in Egypt and the Philippines who used social media to their political advantage....or should we simply sign into Facebook to stalk our frenemies, and leave politics to the politicians and the newspapers?
Similar emphasis has been put on the use of social media by Egyptian protesters in organizing to bring down Mubarak. In his article entitled "Egypt: Social Media as a Life or Death Proposition." Simon Maiwaring argues the use of social media in instigating political change is more than just an interesting phenomenon of the 21st Century. He writes
"The use of social media in Egypt is a dramatic demonstration of a clash of cultures -- of the old and new, of violence and peace, of the past and future" ( http://www.fastcompany.com/1724837/egypt-social-media-as-a-life-or-death-proposition).
I am interested in the implications of this suggestion. While many have argued about the general political advantages (more connectivity, more means of expression for the general public) and disadvantages (social media is a tool used for trivial communication, not meant for news which requires more reflection and fact checking) of social media, Maiwaring has characterized social media as a symbol of the clash of civilizations. This distinguishes between the uses of social media in non-western, authoritarian cultures and the use of social media in western, democratic cultures. Does this mean that the U.S. cannot use social media as a vehicle for political action, since it is in sync with our culture? Would it be ineffective in an environment that already embraces public opinion and accountability for politicians? Should we learn from those in Egypt and the Philippines who used social media to their political advantage....or should we simply sign into Facebook to stalk our frenemies, and leave politics to the politicians and the newspapers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)