http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20090430.php
[My reply to Cecile.]
No offense taken — thanks Cecile.
Without responding directly to your essay, I’m going to elaborate on my first entry. (And I’m somewhat repeating and expanding my reply to Ed, on the 8th of April.)
We’re coming from somewhat different perspectives, naturally.
Where I’m coming from. I’m something of an “ideator” — I see what I think are problematic aspects in the world, and I wonder if and how they might be changed for the better; and I try to propose some (tentative) solutions. I try not to put overmuch stock in my own ideas, but I guess I can’t really help but be somewhat “taken” with them. My interest is to more or less merely “put the ideas out there”, and hope that someone’s interest will be piqued enough to do a little follow-through. (I also identify as a political “progressive”, with growing appreciation of socialism — I appreciate the “Bolshevik” jibe.)
Ever since the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, I’ve become more and more aware of (or even “awakened to”) problematic aspects to what is called the “main-stream-media” (or MSM), without having any prior direct experience or education related to the subject. Based on my intuition (not on specific data — I read things and then tend to forget the details — I’m left with impressions), I see problems with the lack of diversity of opinion; substantial incompleteness and rather poor distribution of pertinent information; a paucity of serious investigation. There seems to be too much blatant toadying to power, a desire for conformity to a perceived norm, competitive seeking of individual status and glitz, provincialism, and a protective instinct for the status quo. The decision-making processes of the government are largely faulty (tend to serve narrow interests, for short-range goals, based on a foolish and mean-spirited ideology and little or no good information), and the information/news channels are not providing any counter-dynamic to this scheme.
The for-profit media seems to be more and more driven to maximize its profits, at the expense of any civic responsibility. The “better part” of it is overwhelmed with entertainment, trivia, distraction, and repetition, and the “not-so-good” aspects are openly promoting antisocial attitudes and behavior (sort of expressing the moral development and aesthetic sense of poorly-raised and mostly uneducated young males).
The not-for-profit (government/subscriber/“sponsor” funded) media tend to be cowardly, in order to protect their revenue-stream, and individual positions.
Overall, there is little sense of “good judgment”. When the institution and its professionals are called names (such as “liberal”), it/they over-react to try and show that the name-calling is misdirected. It/they try to show that they are “fair”, by giving equal voice to the ludicrous and malicious, as to the sane and caring. It/they try to show that they are “balanced” by giving equal weight to the person-on-the-street as to the well-informed. It/they ask the “interested parties” what their opinions are, when they should know that the answers are both predictable and twisted to serve interest at hand; there is a lack of disclosure of conflicts-of-interest. It/they do not seem to realize that when they get cozy to their sources, and merely repeat what they are told, they are acting as mere propaganda tools. It/they cannot seem to appreciate that in their attempt to be “neutral”, they are in fact giving support to the existing power-structure, even if that power-structure is obviously driven by madness.
This situation seems far from an optimum. It is counter to the needs for the maintenance and health of a democracy, and for the general welfare of its citizenry. I’m just wondering if some changes for the better might not be approached.
The overall form of the media-as-a-whole, types and availability of the specific media, individual organizational structures, principles/motivations and general quality of individual contributors, funding sources — these are all significant factors (are they not?).
Are capitalism (and its “invisible hand”) and corporatism (unregulated, or regulated) the best grounding for sources of information in a republic? Can information really be trusted if its funded substantially from government sources (and the government is famously fractious, changing, and unwise)? Does not “advertising” inherently have the potential to be “corrupting”/manipulative of the information provided?
Could not journalists, using the internet as their media-outlet, form cooperative and chartered pools of effort, to provide trustworthy content over a long period of time? Could they not state their principles and biases over each figurative masthead, so that there is little question or masquerading about these matters? Could not each cooperative work in a niche, more or less, and join with other cooperatives to form one of many “collectives” (whose function is to raise the money, mostly from subscriptions and donations)?
How else might we try to ensure that we have the availability of the greater substance of information that is needed? How else might we attain a wide diversity of analysis and opinion, the perspective of which is more or less clear? How else might we have the necessary corps of experienced and dedicated (full-time) people to do the hard, (and here we have a little trouble fitting into Cecile’s vision) investigative work into conflicts-of-interest, illegality, and corruption? How else could we do this on the national and international level, as well as the local? How else might we approach the provision of content that is mature and challenging to the intellect (and somewhat challenging to our values)?
Of course we could never attain a system of news and information that was all of those things, perfectly, but maybe among all of the myriad unsatisfying shells on the floor we can find a few nutritious (if not titanic) nuggets, if the structure and funding (and surrounding culture, to some extent) could be shifted. Those nuggets, such as The Straight Dope, would be easily found because, as you say, “… content would be … best advertisement”.
Thanks for allowing moi to dream.
(And I am of pretty good cheer, despite my always looking at the dark side of things — thanks again.)
Sincerely, sincerely,
~Ishmael