MEDIA ALERT
How the Media Promotes Obedience to Authority
4 September, 2001
In a departure from the usual format of
media alerts, we are providing Media Lens subscribers with a preview of the
following article. A slightly edited version will be published (under a
different title) in the opinion section of the Times Higher Education
Supplement this Friday (7 September, 2001). There will also be an
accompanying short article by a THES reporter about 'alternative'
internet news sites.
HOW THE MEDIA PROMOTES OBEDIENCE TO
AUTHORITY
by David Cromwell
'What is being reported blandly on the
front pages', wrote the US linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky, 'would
elicit ridicule and horror in a society with a genuinely free and democratic
intellectual culture.'
And yet press freedom is considered one of the
defining features of libertarian western democracy. According to historian
David Chaney, 'the British press is generally agreed to have attained its
freedom around the middle of the nineteenth century'. Presumably it has never
been lost since. Many would concur with Andrew Marr, the BBC's political
editor, that journalism is a 'crusading craft', full of 'disputatious,
stroppy, difficult people' keen to get to the heart of matters, even to the
extent ofrbringing down a president, as in the Watergate affair.
But
this benign view of the media as guarantor of democracy is not shared by all.
U.S. journalist Danny Schechter observes: 'I became a journalist to help
spotlight the problems of the world. It is now clear that global media is one
of them.' No wonder. The media is big business, tied into stock markets and
the globalised economy. Media owners are wealthy people with many fingers in
many business pies, and are dependent on the support of advertisers. How
likely is it that anyone challenging the status quo - whether
environmentalists, human rights activists or opponents of the arms trade -
will be granted a level playing field by corporate news organisations? How
much more likely is it that the corporate media will reflect establishment
priorities?
A standard reaction on meeting this argument for the first
time is a mixture of incredulity and scorn. Author Tom Wolfe once scoffed,
'[this is] the old cabal theory that somewhere there's a room with a
baize-covered desk and there are a bunch of capitalists sitting around and
they're pulling strings ... I think this is the most absolute rubbish I've
ever heard.' But Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky, who introduced the 'propaganda
model of the media' in Manufacturing Consent, rejected the notion that big
business controls news outlets through conspiratorial means: 'We do not use
any kind of "conspiracy" hypothesis to explain mass media performance. our
treatment is much closer to a "free market" analysis, with the results
largely an outcome of the workings of market forces.'
Two of these
market forces derive from the media's concentrated ownership as well as the
imperative to attract business advertising to survive in a fiercely
competitive market. There are other powerful constraints too. Robert
McChesney, a professor of communications at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, notes that: 'Professional journalism relies heavily on
official sources. Reporters have to talk to the PM's official spokesperson,
the White House press secretary, the business association, the army general.
What those people say is news. Their perspectives are automatically
legitimate.' Whereas, 'if you talk to prisoners, strikers, the homeless, or
protesters, you have to paint their perspectives as unreliable, or else
you've become an advocate and are no longer a "neutral"
professional journalist'. Such reliance on official sources gives the news an
innate conservative cast and gives those in power tremendous influence
over defining what is or isn't 'news'.
In-depth media analysis of the
environment or human rights is increasingly hard to find, especially in the
broadcast media. Journalist Andrew Rowell, formerly of The Guardian, notes
that: 'All too often environmental issues are ignored as editors fight for a
quick popular head-line.' Under increasing pressure to boost ratings and
readerships, editors, producers and station managers counter with 'the public
gets what the public wants'. This is a view refuted as 'patronizing and
arrogant' as long ago by the 1962 Pilkington Report on British broadcasting:
'to give the public what it wants is a misleading phrase... it claims to know
what the public is but defines it as no more than the mass audience, and it
claims to know what it wants, but limits its choice to the average of
experience.'
Recently, I canvassed the opinion of a number of prominent
journalists about the state of the British media. I received some surprising
responses. Was the mainstream media complicit in abuses of Western power, I
asked, citing the Nato bombing in the Balkans and US/UK support for
devastating sanctions against Iraq? The Guardian's Polly Toynbee was
unequivocal: 'Yes, the media is responsible for a huge amount of evil and we
have the worst in the western world'. Toynbee, a former BBC correspondent,
concluded: 'The trouble is, what's to be done?' Her resigned dejection at the
parlous state of even the liberal media is shared by other high-profile
commentators. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of The Independent admitted, 'So much of
what you say [about media complicity in human rights abuses] is depressingly
true and believe me there are days when I want to have two baths to wash away
my sense of disgust that I am part of the media industry'.
But
elsewhere there is a commitment to changing the nature of reporting.
In response to my question: 'To what extent can we learn the truth about
the world from the mainstream media?' The Observer's Greg Palast shot back,
'You can't ... that's why I'm on the Board of www.MediaChannel.org which
is attempting to bust open the media monopolies.' MediaChannel is one of
many internet resources - IndyMedia, ZNet and SchNEWS are other major sites
- that provide 'alternative' perspectives on world affairs. People
are increasingly turning to such sources, not just for honest accounts
of 'anti-globalisation' protests in Genoa and elsewhere, but for coherent
and rational analysis of the underlying issues: Third World debt,
business obstructionism on climate change and the unaccountable tyranny
of state-corporate power.
Let's face it. Wouldn't a truly 'free' media
examine itself rigorously - its own assumptions, prejudices and omissions?
Instead, there is virtual silence. Market forces coupled with obedience to
authority is a powerful mix. As George Orwell once remarked: 'The sinister
fact about literary censorship ... is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular
ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for
any official ban'. The result? Media debate is restricted within
narrow parameters that serve capital, but not democracy.
David
Cromwell is an Associate Director of MediaLens.org and the author of Private
Planet (Jon Carpenter, £12.99).
SUGGESTED ACTION
CONTACT: You can email letters to
the Times Higher Education Supplement at:
letters@t...
Please
do NOT send any emails to the Times Higher Education Supplement BEFORE the
article's publication on Friday, 7 September. Also, you'll need to provide a
daytime telephone number before they will consider publishing any
correspondence.
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Copy your letters to editor@medialens.org
Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts (alerts@medialens.org).
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.MediaLens.org