Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Journalism on corporate social responsibility--an idea
I just had an idea. Let's see what you think.
So news media, as you know, are consolidating more and more. That is, independent news outlets are being increasingly purchased by large media conglomerates like Viacom, Knight-Ridder, MSN, and so on. (See this page for some sobering knowledge on that topic.)
Some people, myself among them, are concerned that this ownership structure can affect the quality of journalism. For instance, some of us suggest that news outlets owned by corporations can become beholden to the interests of that corporation. For example, a TV news station might avoid an OBVIOUS local story about the negative effects of smoking, simply because its ownership is allied with tobacco execs.
I read this study last Fall finding that news media outlets covered the 1996 Telecom Act (which deregulated media ownership--made it easier to own more media companies) favorably or negatively almost consistently with their ownership's stakes in the Act. That is, news media outlets that had nothing to gain from the Act...criticized it. And vice versa.
So, here's my big idea (now upstaged by my long-winded preface):
If it's a foregone conclusion that news outlets won't criticize their parent companies, why don't they criticize OTHER parent companies?
Or do they?
Respond!
So news media, as you know, are consolidating more and more. That is, independent news outlets are being increasingly purchased by large media conglomerates like Viacom, Knight-Ridder, MSN, and so on. (See this page for some sobering knowledge on that topic.)
Some people, myself among them, are concerned that this ownership structure can affect the quality of journalism. For instance, some of us suggest that news outlets owned by corporations can become beholden to the interests of that corporation. For example, a TV news station might avoid an OBVIOUS local story about the negative effects of smoking, simply because its ownership is allied with tobacco execs.
I read this study last Fall finding that news media outlets covered the 1996 Telecom Act (which deregulated media ownership--made it easier to own more media companies) favorably or negatively almost consistently with their ownership's stakes in the Act. That is, news media outlets that had nothing to gain from the Act...criticized it. And vice versa.
So, here's my big idea (now upstaged by my long-winded preface):
If it's a foregone conclusion that news outlets won't criticize their parent companies, why don't they criticize OTHER parent companies?
Or do they?
Respond!
Comments:
<< Home
Great idea about the 'unwritten rule' between media corporations. I can definitely see how critically-investigative journalism about rivals can expose one to similar criticisms. And you're probably right that everybody's got something to hide.
About your mythical news outlet: an analogue, or prototype, already exists. It is called public broadcasting. In America, we have PBS and NPR. In Japan is NHK. In Australia is ABC. The most famous one is BBC.
The mission is always the same: state-funded but theoretically state-independent, "impartial", news content.
It should be known that not every nation has a public broadcaster. The public broadcasters listed above are all based in westernized, industrialized nations. Although many third world nations have a state-OWNED broadcaster, the politics are considerably different for a partially state-FUNDED broadcaster.
Does NPR fit, or begin to fit, the model Bobby proposed above? As a seasoned NPR listener (though a young one--I have only been listening during Bush's presidency), I say the answer is a resounding YES, and NO.
NPR's news covers better subject matter, and in more intelligent/useful ways, than does commercial news by and large. Look at NPR's 3-minute news summary on any given day: top story will almost always relate to domestic public affairs or major international events. Contrast this with Laci Peterson-crazed cable news. (So NPR is focused on what Bobby calls "real news".)
NPR's daily programming also features reporters who need'nt be pretty to cover a story; and guests who can convey their knowledge without screaming and other verbal violence.
Here's the NO side, a generalization of Bobby's question: how does public broadcasting fit in the larger media sphere?
-It can't really "compete". NPR, by definition, is not a competitive outlet: it isn't trying to attract consumers to its advertisements. So I assume that ABC, CBS, CNN etc. aren't too worried about being scooped by them.
-Will the media giants 'crush' public broadcasting? I argue that they don't need to. Commercial media attracts enough people with oft-sensational and simplistic content that NPR seems comparatively, well, nerdy. Elitist. Complicated. Boring. So NPR can be as informative as it wants, but it never reaches enough people to pose a threat to the media establishment.
Wow, I think I might have actually bored MYSELF to tears with that post.
Post a Comment
About your mythical news outlet: an analogue, or prototype, already exists. It is called public broadcasting. In America, we have PBS and NPR. In Japan is NHK. In Australia is ABC. The most famous one is BBC.
The mission is always the same: state-funded but theoretically state-independent, "impartial", news content.
It should be known that not every nation has a public broadcaster. The public broadcasters listed above are all based in westernized, industrialized nations. Although many third world nations have a state-OWNED broadcaster, the politics are considerably different for a partially state-FUNDED broadcaster.
Does NPR fit, or begin to fit, the model Bobby proposed above? As a seasoned NPR listener (though a young one--I have only been listening during Bush's presidency), I say the answer is a resounding YES, and NO.
NPR's news covers better subject matter, and in more intelligent/useful ways, than does commercial news by and large. Look at NPR's 3-minute news summary on any given day: top story will almost always relate to domestic public affairs or major international events. Contrast this with Laci Peterson-crazed cable news. (So NPR is focused on what Bobby calls "real news".)
NPR's daily programming also features reporters who need'nt be pretty to cover a story; and guests who can convey their knowledge without screaming and other verbal violence.
Here's the NO side, a generalization of Bobby's question: how does public broadcasting fit in the larger media sphere?
-It can't really "compete". NPR, by definition, is not a competitive outlet: it isn't trying to attract consumers to its advertisements. So I assume that ABC, CBS, CNN etc. aren't too worried about being scooped by them.
-Will the media giants 'crush' public broadcasting? I argue that they don't need to. Commercial media attracts enough people with oft-sensational and simplistic content that NPR seems comparatively, well, nerdy. Elitist. Complicated. Boring. So NPR can be as informative as it wants, but it never reaches enough people to pose a threat to the media establishment.
Wow, I think I might have actually bored MYSELF to tears with that post.
<< Home
