July/August 2003

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Pondering the Media

Betty H. Zisk is a long time Quaker, peace activist, and member of the Green-Rainbow Party. She teaches courses on the mass media, among other topics, at Boston University. She had considerable help and advice on this article, from her son, Stephen Zisk (in a dialogue extending over several years), and from an old colleague and veteran newsman, Kenneth Kurtz.

I take it for granted—as a media critic and teacher, and as a consumer—that it is not possible to attain genuine objectivity from the media. The question then becomes—once we have admitted to our limitations (as reporters and as readers)—what do we expect? What is a reasonable standard for fairness, balance, or thorough coverage? And do recent changes in federal regulations—or recent practices in the relationship between media and their objects of scrutiny (for example the military)—dictate a change in the standards for judgment, or are they a cause for alarm?

Functions served by the media
The media have increasingly assumed two major functions, usually referred to as “framing” and either “gatekeeping” or “agenda setting,” to which my students and some of the public object. (I would argue that these are not new functions; they simply have been named and fallen under the critical eye.) Framing implies the need for a context—the reader or viewer can’t grasp all sides of a story simultaneously—so the reporters attempt to provide some (selective) background. Similarly, agenda-setting implies the need for some selectivity: despite its motto, even the New York Times (or CNN ) cannot possibly provide all the news. And if they did, readers and viewers would rebel at the indigestible mess that resulted.

But one result of this selective coverage is massive over-simplification of the issues in the news. Several questions arise. First, what if there are three or six sides to an issue instead of only two (for example on the question of the war in Iraq, or the question of bilingual education that was recently voted on in Massachusetts)? Second, is it fair or even-handed to give equal time (as is the case with the rapid-paced news coverage on TV) to a demonstration where thousands appear in opposition to war while only hundreds appear in support? The press often gives “equal time” to two sides when in fact they are unequal—and when there may be more than two sides.

Selectivity
When does the press become manipulative in its selectivity? Was the exclusion of Nader from the 2000 Boston debates justified? Is the selective press focus on Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and a few others justified—given, for just one example, the interesting though probably hopeless campaign of Kucinich? (I can cite one personal example as well. In 1996, when Nader ran as a write-in candidate for the Massachusetts Green Party, Jon Leavitt and I—as co-chairs of that effort—wrote a Letter to the Editors of the Boston Globe, complaining about lack of coverage. Jon later reached the Globe ombudsman, only to be told that “The Globe doesn’t cover candidates who have no chance of winning.” Is this a self fulfilling prophecy?)

This news blackout extends as well to the coverage of the antiwar movement—not only by most TV outlets but by the print media as well. We might excuse the TV news for selective reporting on the grounds of lack of time (I do not! Ratings seem to supersede good reporting—and this was not the case even as recently as 30-40 years ago). But surely the print media have no such excuse. If they don’t like it (or don’t understand it) they seem not to cover it, or worse yet, they relegate it to obscurity in small print on page 51 among the obituaries.

What about the routine use of “embedded reporters” in the war against Iraq? Can they cover an invasion when they are a part of it? This issue of distance is not a new one. We have faced it in domestic politics as well when reporters and pundits became too close to their sources to present a balanced view. My question about unbiased news reporting also extends to the unnamed background sources that many reporters routinely use.

These are urgent issues for current consideration. I was appalled by Dan Rather’s admission in a BBC interview (one year ago) that his patriotic fervor prevented him from criticizing our President. I ask seriously : where are the critics and analysts? A key question: Who is responsible for the ignorance of the American public on crucial issues of foreign policy? I ask whether the US media should share the blame—for lack of questioning, for lack of framing the issue, or for lack of daring to dissent lest they be denied access the news sources and perhaps to the favorable ratings and advertisers they seek?

The price of the news
What to do? In the past we relied on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to keep a reasonably level playing field. The FCC regulations grew out of a different era: the number of available radio frequencies was limited and competition among these sources was thought to be desirable. This old approach to competition among networks is important to the present argument over regulation as well. Michael Powell, the current FCC chair (Colin Powell’s son) argues that the old rules are irrelevant: that with the advent of cable TV with its multiple channels, competition is guaranteed and we need not worry.

So why worry? First, because of media consolidation—and thus a lack of diversity in the news. By consolidation I mean not just of news sources but of book publishers and entertainment empires (Disney for example). I cannot readily order a book except by going on line—because I depend on Barnes and Noble, which has a monopoly in my area (it owns most of the bookstores populated by students at several major universities). I cannot get access to independent news except through NPR—and in fact, NPR broadcasts (with some notable exceptions) seem to accept the foreign policy assumptions of the Bush administration quite readily. Where are all of those healthy and independent news channels?

Two other stated purposes on the original FCC agenda were to serve the public interest by nurturing public debate, and to foster local or community news. That too has gone by the board. The Fairness Doctrine was dead in the water in the 1980s with the appointment of new FCC regulators by President Reagan. No longer could a group like Mass-PIRG or the proponents of the nuclear freeze initiative call their local station and demand equal time to respond.

The news is not free—it comes with a price—whether it is bought and sold in the marketplace or guarded fiercely by the defenders of our civil liberties. The news is always a hostage to the regulators. And the regulators of late have gone for a free market style. But I wonder—very seriously—whether the American people even notice what is happening.

Boston subway © David Avison

Previous Article    Next Article