There are some stories that will not get attention because they are not in the "sphere of legitimate controversy". If you draw a target, the center circle is all the stories that are ok to write about. In the second circle radiating outwards are the stories that have moved from out in the netherland into the "sphere of controversy" and can be "debated" in the mainstream media. Journalists strive to be "objective" by giving "both sides" and creating "balance" in presenting the debate.
The outer sphere of journalism deviance contains the taboo stories that remain sub-surface and attention to these subjects is treated with ridicule and derision. I would like to examine the role of the blogosphere in moving stories from the outer third into the realm of debate but that would be another study and at the time, in '05, I did a study on how the blogosphere kept the Plamegate issue alive and helped dispel the dichotomy of reality as it was and reality as presented in the media.
How does the truth get framed and issues get named? My political communications professor, Carol Wilder, quoted media critic Michael Parenti, "There's nothing too essential that can not be ignored by the American press and nothing too trivial that can not receive great play." Her lesson on how the news media organizes the political world was worth going back to my 2005 notes from her class and she drew the material from an important media study analysis from the book, The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. Do you remember how hard it was to discern the truth of things about that war? There were lessons that still apply now on how issues become framed and what gets covered and what doesn't.
I researched a bit to write about this but got beyond just the idea of media to the overall idea of corruption and sat up straight when I came across Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's latest blog post.
Stay with me on the jump; I've lots to say today.
Is our media corrupt? Is our society corrupt? Or is the blogosphere and new media going to help counter corruption? I'd like to be hopeful and think that new media can empower our civil and political society and be forces for positive change. Then, again, knowing how easily media and our culture can be manipulated and issues controlled, framed and named -- well, I'm not so sure.
Lessig is someone I respect and follow. He has been instrumental in the fight for copyright changes (and network and IP sanity) but he has become disillusioned because of the way that money corrupts the process. He is now shifting his focus of 10 years to a new area and in his own words, he says, "That the real problem here was (what I will call a "corruption" of) the political process. That our government can't understand basic facts when strong interests have an interest in its misunderstanding." His essay is a good one and worth a read.
"It is a special privilege that I have a job that permits me to say just what I believe, and not what I'm paid to say. That freedom used to be the norm among professionals. It is less and less the norm today," he says.
Lessig's new wiki site on corruption is a good source if you want to think about these things.
Corporate ownership of media contributes to the gatekeeping and coverage of "acceptable" stories. Here is a good (pdf) chapter on corporate ownership of the media and you can use a media tracker by zip code to learn of media ownership in your area. The mediascape continues to show consolidation (Murdoch's purchase of Dow Jones, for example). Another article in Columbia Journalism Review this month discusses how Rupert Murdoch built his empire - more fyi.
What about articles and stories that don't get attention? Infotainment. Distraction. Diversion. Here is a list of the top 25 articles that have been censored. Project Censored is a yearly project of Sonoma State University that tracks stories that have been censored, overlooked or underreported that are of social significance. This year's 30th anniversary book of 2007 overlooked stories was published in October. One of the stories I think gets repeatedly buried is the issue of depleted uranium.
I'm getting a ton of spam in comments on a story I wrote
(about nuclear physicists, their letter to Bush and how it gets ignored
in the mainstream media) so I've closed off comments.
The banner of the Project Censored online site has this quote: "Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspaper and broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism." Walter Cronkite.
New media is allowing these stories to be told outside of the mainline media. My cousin gave me the link to one of his reads: TruthDig, which won a 2007 Webby Award for best political news. Another citizen media site, linked to Wired, that I'm watching: Assignment Zero. The first effort (all about crowdsourcing) is just being published this week and Jay Rosen at Press Think has a good piece on this today.
When things get out of balance, there is always a counter shift. Can new media help us shift back? Can new media allow truth to be outed and democracy to be served? Mark Glaser writes about his positive attitude about the future of journalism because, in part, there are more fact checkers now, more collaborative efforts and more voices. Absolutely.
I follow Poynter for journalism topics and a recent article addressed ethics and deception -- when journalists lie for the story. Poynter had a list of the Edward Murrow awards and The Center for Public Integrity won for best small online media site (The online Washington Post won for the best large site). The former site had a good story on EPA secrecy and environmental sites that are toxic to humans and I think we have a lot to hope for with citizen journalists and the new online media and what they can freely report.
Will new media is changing everything? Parenti's 1990s books -- Make Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment and Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media might be worth a re-read in light of online news options. Most of our citizens get their news information from tv in spite of the proliferation of alternative sources.
Related post: Truth, Media and Taboo Stories: A Oaxacan Tale
I immediately reject the statement: "Journalists strive to be "objective" by giving "both sides" and creating "balance" in presenting the debate."
I have difficulty accepting that on any level. Of course, my personal predjudices shape my reaction to that statement -- perhaps even on the same level that their predjudices shape their coverage in the first place. News coverage is inherently NOT fair and balanced because those that cover it for the most part, are products of an academic system that has lost its way morally and philosophically.
Posted by: Panhandle Poet | July 09, 2007 at 09:54 AM
I find myself wailing after reading this; thank you for all the links. It seems impossible to make sense of anything, if we are all stonewalled at every turning and there are fewer and fewer journalists interested in uncovering and keeping alive the truth, whatever that may be.
I am very interested in the expat bloggers in France, who often bring a very interesting slant on political issues from the press they read there.
Posted by: tut-tut | July 09, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Motherpie, let me start by thanking you for your visit and comment at Politics Plus.
As a blogger, I think we play a powerful role in the dissemination of factual information. Folks could argue for days on the why, but the mainstream media fell flat on their faces in the run-up to Bush's war for oil and conquest in Iraq. For years after 9/11 the MSM was Bush's obedient lap dog, and even today they have a decidedly conservative bent. On Iraq, the online community began to educate the public first, and the MSM followed our lead only when to do otherwise would have put them out of touch with their audiences.
Posted by: TomCat | July 09, 2007 at 03:06 PM
Interesting. And frightening. It will take me some time to follow through on all the links.
Posted by: Antique Mommy | July 09, 2007 at 05:51 PM