Be critical of him always. But to shoot the messenger is only to distract from the message — and speaks more of the character of the shooter than it does the messenger.
In this case, following the leak of 40,000 classified Iraq War documents Friday by WikiLeaks, the shooter(s) are the establishment media, specifically the New York Times. The messenger, naturally, is Julian Assange, WikiLeak's founder.
It is human nature to attack when viable, logical means of approach have been exhausted or simply do not exist — fight or flight. If a viable, logical critique of the man behind the release of thousands of Iraq war logs existed, I'd like to think the Times would have found it. After all, it is the role of media to be critical, as they are of Assange. But because that viable, logical critique does not exist — the authenticity of the documents is not in question — the critique is nothing more than sensationalized, tabloid "news" regarding irrelevant matters of Assange's private life.
Corporate media have been increasingly flailing in their role as government watchdogs since Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers, and arguably even before (though comparison with the current situation paints a rather rosy, nostalgic picture of 1971). The Times was the first to publish the Pentagon Papers, on its front page. Today, rather than publishing excerpts from the Iraq war logs and further exposing government corruption, it is in the midst of waging its own war against Assange, the man.
The outlet that ate the Pentagon Papers right up in 1971 has moved to the other side, taking down the very breed of whistleblower it once celebrated. Fittingly, the comment by Dan Ellsberg in his talk Wednesday at Ithaca College which keeps repeating itself in my mind is that the Patriot Act has made legal each one of Nixon's security breaches in his campaign to discredit Ellsberg, which were illegal in the '70s.
Also in that case, the unquestioning yet powerful establishment media are to blame.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Who watches the watchmen?
If one of the roles if an independent media outlet is to keep a critical eye on the mainstream, corporate media, who watches the indies?
Apparently, Slate.com columnist Jack Shafer does, as evidenced by his raising of this question in the Sept. 2009 article, "Nonprofit Journalism Comes at a Cost." In it, Shafer asserts that both commercial news and nonprofits "often find themselves constrained by the hidden agendas of their masters" — the "masters" being advertisers in the commercial media sector and foundations in the independent.
Shafer also writes that indies' reliance on foundations is simply substituting one flawed business model for another. Since no studies have been published on these "new" business model, there is no content analysis by which to judge its success.
Still, comparing the two means of reaping revenue is like comparing apples to oranges. I won't say its unfathomable for an independent outlet to tailor content to appease its financial supporters, but the process doesn't seem to run as rampant and obvious as it does in the mainstream.
Commercial news organizations by and large pretend to have no bias, no ideological position on the stories they report; as such, they also pretend to not align with advertisers' interests, though they cave to them.
The difference in independent media is the exposition of bias. The outlets make clear the perspective from which they report news, and the foundations that fund them do so because they have similar ideologies.
However, the independent media business model, while it is the lesser of two evils, is far from perfect. Something is wrong if ProPublica's editor makes half a million dollars annually. But this seems to be the exception, not the rule.
Apparently, Slate.com columnist Jack Shafer does, as evidenced by his raising of this question in the Sept. 2009 article, "Nonprofit Journalism Comes at a Cost." In it, Shafer asserts that both commercial news and nonprofits "often find themselves constrained by the hidden agendas of their masters" — the "masters" being advertisers in the commercial media sector and foundations in the independent.
Shafer also writes that indies' reliance on foundations is simply substituting one flawed business model for another. Since no studies have been published on these "new" business model, there is no content analysis by which to judge its success.
Still, comparing the two means of reaping revenue is like comparing apples to oranges. I won't say its unfathomable for an independent outlet to tailor content to appease its financial supporters, but the process doesn't seem to run as rampant and obvious as it does in the mainstream.
Commercial news organizations by and large pretend to have no bias, no ideological position on the stories they report; as such, they also pretend to not align with advertisers' interests, though they cave to them.
The difference in independent media is the exposition of bias. The outlets make clear the perspective from which they report news, and the foundations that fund them do so because they have similar ideologies.
However, the independent media business model, while it is the lesser of two evils, is far from perfect. Something is wrong if ProPublica's editor makes half a million dollars annually. But this seems to be the exception, not the rule.
One MSM landscape, multiple interpretations
On Oct. 19, local conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein — of Newsbusters.org, the Ithaca public access talk show RightAngle, and his own Finkelblog — brought a perspective the independent media class that we had not yet heard.
From discussions in class, and my own reading and growing knowledge of independent media and their necessity, I had come to think that the majority of indy outlets is politically left-leaning to counter mainstream outlets, the majority of which is politically right-leaning. Naturally, there are several conservative indies (ie, the National Review) but there are many more progressive ones.
But the motivation behind Finkelstein's blogging, and the purpose of Newsbusters.org, is to counter what he called the liberal mainstream media. What an idea!
Yes, Finkelstein centers much of his MSM critique on MSNBC programming, which is (arguably) the cable news network that sits farther to the left on the political spectrum than its major competitors, Fox and CNN.
His point of view made me think; How is it that people can watch the same news channels and interpret them so differently that one person describes the MSM as liberal, while another discusses its takeover by conservatives?
I asked Finkelstein this question after class. He didn't have much of an answer for me. One week later, I don't know that I am any closer to one myself.
From discussions in class, and my own reading and growing knowledge of independent media and their necessity, I had come to think that the majority of indy outlets is politically left-leaning to counter mainstream outlets, the majority of which is politically right-leaning. Naturally, there are several conservative indies (ie, the National Review) but there are many more progressive ones.
But the motivation behind Finkelstein's blogging, and the purpose of Newsbusters.org, is to counter what he called the liberal mainstream media. What an idea!
Yes, Finkelstein centers much of his MSM critique on MSNBC programming, which is (arguably) the cable news network that sits farther to the left on the political spectrum than its major competitors, Fox and CNN.
His point of view made me think; How is it that people can watch the same news channels and interpret them so differently that one person describes the MSM as liberal, while another discusses its takeover by conservatives?
I asked Finkelstein this question after class. He didn't have much of an answer for me. One week later, I don't know that I am any closer to one myself.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Hyperlocal but corporate-owned news with independent principles — could it be?
A former Ithacan editor, colleague and friend of mine, Erica Hendry '09 launched her Patch.com site in Vienna, Virginia today. I am not the first to say this, but I will say it here — Patch is the new big thing in online media. At a time when all newspapers are suffering, at least the big ones (with national readership) have made the shift to online. But it is the small, local dailies that have been slow to move content to the Web and they undoubtedly suffer for it. The scarcity of online local news creates a vicious cycle that simultaneously fails both readers and the newspaper — because there isn't much of it there, people do not turn to the Internet for their local news.
The Patch.com model offers a solution to end this cycle. Each bureau is run by an editor (like Hendry) who assigns stories to freelancers. Deputized reporting, check. There are 100-plus Patch sites across the country, and the corporation plans to hit 500 before the year is up. It recently launched PatchU, through which its sites are teaming up with journalism schools to train the journalists of tomorrow.
The thing is, Patch is an AOL subsidiary. So it's not independent, but corporate-owned. The concept sounds like an independent one to me... citizen reporters, incorporating the pro-am idea (an example of this is the Vienna bureau's being run by an editor who, though a qualified and relatively experienced one in Hendry's case, is still a recent college grad).
Though it is not truly independent, could Patch mark a convergence of two once-opposite types of news outlets, the corporate and the independent? Could the Vienna bureau and others like it serve their communities by remaining independent of power, politics and advertisers — while under AOL ownership? Or is this just the media giant's attempt to own your neighborhood?
The Patch.com model offers a solution to end this cycle. Each bureau is run by an editor (like Hendry) who assigns stories to freelancers. Deputized reporting, check. There are 100-plus Patch sites across the country, and the corporation plans to hit 500 before the year is up. It recently launched PatchU, through which its sites are teaming up with journalism schools to train the journalists of tomorrow.
The thing is, Patch is an AOL subsidiary. So it's not independent, but corporate-owned. The concept sounds like an independent one to me... citizen reporters, incorporating the pro-am idea (an example of this is the Vienna bureau's being run by an editor who, though a qualified and relatively experienced one in Hendry's case, is still a recent college grad).
Though it is not truly independent, could Patch mark a convergence of two once-opposite types of news outlets, the corporate and the independent? Could the Vienna bureau and others like it serve their communities by remaining independent of power, politics and advertisers — while under AOL ownership? Or is this just the media giant's attempt to own your neighborhood?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)