The Final; A State of the Media Address

This post will attempt to evaluate both old and new forms of media; their successes, their shortcomings, and their struggles in the fight to gain the upper hand in terms of absolute media consumption. To do so requires us to first define an ideal normative standard against which both Old and New media can be considered. That being the case, we must first step back and take a moment to consider our options regarding the contruction of that model.

For purposes of easy reference we will adopt the list of possible models and definitions laid out by Jan E. Leighley in Mass Media and Politics; A Social Science Perspective. (Although Leighley provides a tremendous amount of detail throughout that work, for our purposes a brief summary of each will suffice.) As a preface, it is important to note that Leighley views the media as a linkage institution, providing citizens in a representative democracy with basic information about their government and its policies, and also providing the government with basic information about its constituents and their interests. A sort of triangle is formed between the media, the government, and the people.

Leighley's first model has the media playing the part of 'reporters of objective fact.' In her own words, in that function the media;

"...play a limited role in political communication between government and citizens. That is, the mass media are merely a conduit for information, tools used by citizens and government officials to expand their scope of vision or communication, not active participants in the communication process. Beyond providing an accurate and true portrayal of the factual world of politics amd society, according t this model, the media have no particular role or function to perform."

The next model Leighley presents is the neutral adversary model, which is based on the idea that the mass media act as a sort of check on government; without being overly antaganostic, the media's job is to see to it that the government carry out all of its functions in an open, fully disclosed manner. This means that the press, and by simple extension the public, should have the ability to not only see what exactly is going on, but to also ask why, and receive an answer.

The third model, the public advocate model of the news, is a kind of supercharged version of the second. In this approach, the seeking of truth by questioning is not just a passive right of media involvement; journalists must use the newsgathering process in order to engage both newsmakers and the public in discussions of political issues. To summarize in one sentence, media outlets must provide information, discussion, and debate in order to enlighten the citizenship, while safeguarding the rights of individuals by serving as a watchdog against the government and providing a medium of advertising for the economic sector of society - all while maintaining their financial self-sufficiency (so as to be free from the influence of special interest groups) and continuing their engaging, entartaining form of presentation.

The next paradigm seems almost boring compared to the fast-paced, life-changing style of the public advocacy mold, but it is one that many feel best approximates the reality. This fourth model of mass media communications takes a hard look at the U.S. mass media institutions and calls them what they are; privately owned, purely capitalistic business enterprises. In this role the media is devoid of responsibility to either the government or the governed. The only thing that is important is generating profits for their owners; as Leighley wryly notes;

"What is being or should be produced, according to this model, is not an enlightened or informed citizenry or more responsive government officials, but rather a profit."

The fifth and final of Leigley's theoretical models is the propagandist model, which takes the position that the main function of the media is to support and advance the interests of those already in psoitions of power. In doing so, the media plays the reverse role of what it did in the public advocate model, serving the state by legitimizing its policies and interests in the public eye, and sometimes at the public's expense. The definition though is not limited to media support for government officials who are in power; it can also be reflective of an interest in legitimizing the what the dominant class (typically the business class) sees fit to legtimize. Essentially, the media works to mantain and defend the social, political, and economic status quo.

Again, before we continue, we must examine and define our scope. Who are we, exactly, to be looking for an ideal system? As corporate investors we may see the profit-seeker model as coming closest to what we would personally want out of the media, while as political incumbents we may prefer to talk about the benefits of a propagandist mold. What then do we mean when we refer to what we think the media should look like?

For the purposes of this blog entry, we will consider as a theoretical ideal the system of media involvement that we, as informed participants in a polity, feel would best serve the citizens of a representative democracy in a democratic fashion, noting that government officials are also included under this rubric.

Definitions are trickier with what some have referred to as the sixth media model. What Leighley has outlined are five very general different ways that the media could view themselves in the fulfillment of their duties. In regards to any of these models, what we have to ask is what exactly, in our democratic ideal, the media have to actually do in order to be considered succesful. While the profit seeker model is basically self-explanatory, and the propagandist can be measured against an already existing background that just has to be maintained, what about the other three, more pro-active models? What do media outlets have to do on a daily basis to be in fulfillment of their stated objectives? Although it may not be a 'model' in the same sense of the word that Leighley means, for these answers we can turn to Alexis de Tocqueville's " Of the Relation Between Public Associations and the Newspapers," written back in 1834, yet as relevant today as ever was.

Coming from a slightly different angle than the one Leighley chose , Tocqueville does not identify how media should work, but what it is that media should hope to accomplish. He says that a newspaper should ideally be a beacon that draws like-minded individuals together, helping them form a united front, and associations based on ideas. This is so important to Tocqueville because of the way a democracy works;

"In order that an association among a democratic people should have any power, it must be a numerous body. The persons of whom it is composed are therefore scattered over a wide extent, and each of them is detained in the place of his domicile by the narrowness of his income or by the small unremitting exertions by which he earns it. Means must then be found to converse every day without seeing one another, and to take steps in common without having met. Thus hardly any democratic association can do without newspapers."

Equally important to Tocqueville though is the ease with which the knowledge contained in a newspaper can be imparted to its readership; the newspaper shows up every day, waits patiently on the doorstep to gain entrance for its turn to talk, then lets the citizen acquire knowledge at his own pace, through his own perusings. I would like to point out that a careful reading of Tocqueville finds no reference whasoever to the need for all citizens to be informed on all matters; what Tocqueville considers important is the citizens having the ability to be informed on all matters. In fact, it is quite clear several times that the citizen must have easy access to informaton without it being forcefully rammed down his throat. Thus we find that, according to his essay, the newspaper should talk to you "without distracting you from your private affairs." Also, in the crucial paragraph, with the newspaper as the saving grace of democracy, he writes that (emphasis mine) "it frequently happens that a great number of men who wish or who want to combine cannot accomplish it," and that is where newspapers step in. Note that even for Tocqueville the reader chooses what articles he or she wants to read and/or care about. All that is necessary for this ideal is the concept of availability to unite with others who also care about those issues. The laws of the country that he feels compel every Amercian to co-operate every day of his life with some of his fellow citizens for a common purpose can be satisfied with as nomimal a political involvement as each citizen deems appropriate.

Having set out these models as our possible options to choose from and tinker with, let us now proceed to set the standard against which all media should be judged. Because we are dealing with reality, certain practical factors must carry considerable weight, even in our fantasy construction, as a standard that cannot exist is not worth being weighed against. Our ideal vision of the media must therefore incorporate just enough of the profit-seeker mold that it will be worthwhile for the backbone of infrastructure behind it to put in the time and effort to do a good job. This will also, as in the public advocate model, allow the media to be independent of outside funding and special interest groups.

The limits of the reporters of objective fact model in a real world society are two-fold. On the part of the providers, the writers and editors, absolute objectivity is impossible, for every retelling of a story is by default a re-interpretation, if just by the decision of which objective facts to include. On the part of the reader, it is useless, for without some sort of analytical framework through which to view the facts, they will undoubtedly become nothing more and nothing less than meaningless pieces of information, hardly educational in the way that Tocqueville would have wanted. What we are shooting for then are facts with an objective analysis; that is a bias-free or bi-partisan window, a formula in which all of the decisions, events, their manifold ramifications, and any other pieces are laid out for the consumer, and he or she just has to put the puzzle together in the manner that they see fit. Such a media could both serve as a watchdog against the government by aggresively exposing any injustices being committed, and at the same legitimize what the powers that be are doing, all depending on who is doing the reading. It is all a matter of simply laying out the facts, in their proper framework, and letting the reader be the judge. Once this has been achieved, the Tocqueville-esque associations can form between readers with similar viewpoints on the world.

Is this, you ask, really a possibility, given our current U.S. media model? If not, then we'd have to redefine it again in order to give it a chance to exist. Luckily though, the answer is yes, it is a possibility, at least in some ways. Let me explain:

The truth is that every journalist, so far as I know, is a human being. And every human being is by nature full of biases, whether conscious or unconscious or even developed. Every newspaper owner, editor, or even writer will therefore unquestionably infuse their work with those biases, even if they try not to, and therefore any one article, edition, paper, or even chain cannot by any reasonable expectation hope to provide an objective analysis.

But let's look at the bigger picture.

According to the Newspaper Association of America, as of 2005 there were 1,452 daily papers published in the U.S., each with its own ever- so- slightly unique take on the universe. Between all of these publications, it is perfectly reasonable to expect there to emerge a full media picture that presents both sides of the equation equally well. Speaking of equations, it's actually simple mathematics; the law of averages, as expressed in a normal distribution curve, says that despite the outlying extremes (for our intentions we'll call them the overtly liberal and overtly conservative mass media outlets), most things tend to fall somewhere in the large group in the middle, and taken as a lump provide both sides of the spectrum. Your educated consumer can easily subscribe to and get a beautifully broad and diverse cross-section of news analysis on any given day on any given topic.

That's all very nice in theory. But it doesn't really work. Here are the two main reasons why:

Referring back to our pre-concieved standard, the perfect media model would have just enough of a capitalist bent to make it worthwhile for qualified people to spend time and energy on developing it. The way our mass media has proven itself to operate, corporations tend to stifle what would naturally be a normal curve, forcing it to lean towards whatever side will sell the most merchandise and make the most money. More on that in a moment. But first, again referring back to our model, the Tocqueville-esque forming of associations we need would require there to be an easy way to access desired information. This access would also have to be cost effective.

The way our mass media is currently set up, this couldn't happen in America. Subscription prices to so many papers, even if the availability was there (which it's not), along with having to peruse not one, but many newspapers for the information you want, would nip the easy access requirement in the bud.

Now we'll return to the corporate question. We will evaluate its effects on both a practical and theoretical level. Practically speaking, is our news coverage largely affected by what sells (hint: it tends more to be along the lines of celebrity scandal and not-so-surprisingly less along the lines of content driven political debate coverage)? The answer is undoubtedly yes; see here, here, here, and here if you need any more convincing. The question then turns to the more theoretical why; it's fairly obvious (to us capitalists anyways), but watch the movie Network for a wonderful visual presentation of money-hungry grubbiness and its deleterious effects. Or at the very least read the review.

What should the news be about? Leighley has a discussion about this in Chapter 2 of her book. Within the 'reporters of objective fact' model, news must present an accurate reflection of reality, but even Leighley herself is not sure exactly what that means, conceding the point that we raised earlier, that in a real world situation editors and reporter must decide what content to include and what to leave out. For the next model, (rememeber that Leighley's book is about mass media and politics) she sees the role of media in the neutral adversary model as unelected representatives of the people, challenging those in power and making sure to keep them honest.

The ideal scope and level of political news coverage (how much, how deep, when, and why) finally finds some yard-stick for measurement in this interpretation, as those questions are directly tied into the relative importance of the various government institutions. Which isn't exactly a lucid definiton, but it is at least a start.

The public advocate model is where danger starts rearing its ugly head. In this theoretical situation, reporters are even more pro-active than they were as neutral adversaries. The model assumes that;

"the professional reporter can independently determine what the public interest is in a given political situation, and that he or she develops news storied that enhance the public's interest."

What Leighley means by this is that presumably whatever serves to interest the reporters, who are in fact 'of the people,' would be those same things that are important to the general public of which they are representative. It requires their "shared values" to be reflected in the news stories, and is the first model to openly recognize and draw heavily upon the interfacing process between the providers and consumers of the news. But because this model only does so in theory, without actual public involvement, it can also end up with reporters who unwittingly become 'disconnected' from the masses, or, in view of their newfound power, try and influence the masses to think like them. Which is the perfect seguay to our next two models, the profit-seeker and the propagandist.

Why would someone want to influence the public? The propagandist model says because if people think things are going well, power stays where it is. The profit-seeker model smirks and says, "because that way we get more money."

The profit-seeker, like the public advocate, pays a great deal of attention to public opinion and audience interests, but along with those is the added criterion of actual audience size. The sense of duty inherent in the previous models is lost here, and so instead of finding out what audiences are interested in within the narow confines of relevant political discussion, a much broader list of topics is explored. As noted, controversial and racy programming tend to draw bigger crowds, and so things of that nature become the focus of the newscasts, blurring the lines between the news business and show business. Without going to far off on a tangent, I'd like to just address an implicit assumption that we talked about in class. In our idealistic comparisons we will assume that preferences are not entirely indigenous, and that although we may or may not have some innate interest in bombings and murder mysteries, if we were exposed to more substantial subject matter at least some of us would form strong feelings and opinions, even, perhaps, interest. Which brings us to the billion dollar question; who is controlling our thoughts?

If the entertainment industry (media included) dictates who we are both as people and as a nation by telling us what should be important enough to talk about, then six corporations are in fact the real government of the United States. Check out this handy chart from The Nation for details.

How could anyone realistically expect General Electric, owners of NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC to name just a few of their television affiliates, to provide objective analysis on the war in Iraq when they also have numerous contracts with the U.S. Army (see here for one tiny, multi-million dollar example)? I'm not suggesting that their financial stake in the war in any way affects the kind of coverage they provide. I'm just saying that such a suggestion is a possibility worth noting.

To suggest that corporations would alter their subject matter in the hopes of making more money, essentially 'selling out' on their own integrity, is a serious accusayion. Life is not really like the movie Network, is it? How far will corporate executives go in the name of the dollar?

You might be surprised.

Take the rather bizarre example of Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corporation, which in turn owns Fox, perhaps the one station whose consevative biases even children on the street are familiar with. Fox supports President Bush. President Bush does not support Al-Jazeera (according to the background provided by the Accuracy in Media Organization, Al-Jazeera supports the 9/11 "Truth" movement", which blames the U.S. government for the September 11th attacks). So the following quote, taken from the transcript of 'The Journal Editorial Report,' a program that airs on Fox, seems perfectly in keeping with News Corps agenda;

"What about the role of the Western media — CNN, Al-Jazeera — when they put some of these terrible events, these deaths, civilian deaths on camera, are they playing into the hands of that Hezbollah strategy as well?"

Indeed one could easily claim that the implicit accusation here, the charge that Al-Jazeera, kowingly or unknowingly, plays into the hands of Hezbollah, is not surprising at all. What is surprising is this next bit of news; Al-Jazzera now has an English language channel; in Britain it is carried by none other than: Rupert Murdoch. Turns out his British Sky Broadcasting has been carrying the original Al-Jazeera for some time.

While some may almost sarcastically see this as a good thing, a chance for News Corp to participate in the bigger picture of balanced journalism, by at least providing (according to their own interpretation) both sides of the news, albeit on different stations, that claim does not actually hold water when stacked up against the real world evidence. Murdoch has said that his other satellite service, DirecTV, had no plans to air Al-Jazeera International into U.S. homes. Why, you might ask? Here is a quote from the Transnational Broadcasting Journal that might shed some light on the real reason why the station is being aired in some countries and not others;

"The problem is not merely the brand’s controversial reputation. Many consider AJI’s international news product a hard sell in the already tight American cable market, where speciality channels dedicated to reality TV shows are likely to generate much more profit than an all-news lineup."

Basically, Murdoch is no fool, and has no desire to promote a station in America that won't make him money in America. That may be perfectly understandable from a financial standpoint, but this little anecdote sheds much light on why we often cannot believe the things our news stations tell us; not only do they have biases, but should those biases prove less profitable than others, they would not hesitate to make the switch. Which leaves our ideal model severely injured on two fronts; it has way too much of the profit-seeker mold to ever give us objective analysis, and is not at all free from outside influences, be they other affiliates or the desire to make money in a cutthroat, competitive market.

As we are beginning to see, the media models in reality form are all very much connected. Stations such as Fox have biases because those biases are profitable; those biases in turn can work for the public advantage, (see non profit public access models, which are sadly just not popular enough to factor in significantly, for details on how to do this) if the powers that be deem to do so. Or, as this report makes clear, those same biases can lead to public misconceptions and manipulations, the propagandist dream. This is fairly obviously dangerous, as people who don't know that they are in fact uneducated and think that they do know the truth end up supporting wars that they don't know all the possible reasons for, and not supporting initiatives that could help save lives in the future. The most humorous example of the power of media to form immediate and often counterintuitive opinions remains to this day the 1938 'War of the Worlds' disaster. The following quote, written by Dorothy Thompson for the New York Tribune and taken from the above article, really serves to highlight our point here, namely that the broadcast revealed the extent of the theoretical influence that politicians could have by using the power of mass communications to manipulate the public;

"All unwittingly, Mr. Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater of the Air have made one of the most fascinating and important demonstrations of all time. They have proved that a few effective voices, accompanied by sound effects, can convince masses of people of a totally unreasonable, completely fantastic proposition as to create a nation-wide panic. They have demonstrated more potently than any argument, demonstrated beyond a question of a doubt, the appalling dangers and enormous effectiveness of popular and theatrical demagoguery....

Hitler managed to scare all of Europe to its knees a month ago, but he at least had an army and an air force to back up his shrieking words.
But Mr. Welles scared thousands into demoralization with nothing at all."

(By the way, think this couldn't happen again? Try just this week, in Belgium)

Although she doesn't mention this outright, throughout history there have been those, like Hitler, who have made exceptional use of outright propaganda to acheive their goals, but even in our own cautiously enlightened era there is still a lot that can be done.

Issues like agenda-setting, which recognizes the fact that even if the media doesn't end up telling us what to think, it can still be succesful in telling us what to think about (harking back once again to our point that there ca never just be objective fact telling), and the formation of framing effects, which result from a media description of an event or issue that emphathizes a "subset of potentially relevant considerations," that "cause individuals to focus on these considerations when constructing their opinions" (according to Bernard C. Cohen, as quoted in Leighley) are both dealt with in both Leigley's book, as well as in Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy's Politics and Propaganda, are essentially ways that both the media and/or politicians can and do subversively make use of propaganda-like strategies. Other tactics include the not-so-subtle repetition of implied and assumed connctions between events or reactions. See here for a great example of how, without actually lying, or making an outright connection, President Bush creates what O'Shaughnessey in Chapter 9 terms a "foundation myth," effectively linking Bin-Laden and September 11th to the ongoing war in Iraq.

Surprised that our government would do that? Don't be- Harold Ford Jr. isn't. Recall if you will the recent midterm elections, and ads like these:





Still not convinced? I didn't want to have to do this, but alright, I will. Please take a moment and answer the following question;

Do you think that the system of political polling, wherein a perfectly representative sample of society is asked a carefully unloaded question, with language that wold never, ever, dream of trying to push them one way or the other, is a wonderful and democratic way to fulfill the American dream? (Please note that if you answer the question in the negative, your passport and license will be revoked for seeming unpatriotic.)

Okay, so the above is a bit of an exaggerated example. But one of the problems of political polling is that the questions are often designed to unconsciously nudge the responders, who often are not in fact representative of all citizens (for instance, those who do not have telephones, or don't speak English), in one direction or another. And don't forget the skewing of results, often by the media, as we turn full circle and tie this back in to the profit-seeker model and it's flaws. To help us, here is a little quote from something that a man named Mark posted sometime earlier this year;

"Be wary of the news- a headline this week proclaiming that most Americans dislike Bush may in fact be mathematically true, but provides a lot more gusto than saying a mere 58% are unhappy. Also interesting to note is the last poll's information- a week ago 39% approved while 3% were unsure, with the same 58% disapproving. The President's approval rate can therefore be said to basically have stayed the same throughout the week. But a headline that excitedly reports the President's approval rating falling rapidly, is, especially now, with mid-term elections approaching, something that we are much more likely to see."

What's funny is that while we've spent the last few minutes discussing problems of the media, only now do we finally actually make reference to 'The Problem of the Media,' an important work by Robert W. McChesney.

What is perhaps McChesney’s greatest contribution to our discussion is the astute observation that politics is essentially a game of semantics, wherein the word deregulation can simply mean regulation of another sort. He argues from history that the press started its life in the U.S. as an equalizer, giving everybody equal information so that even poor citizens could have the capacity, if not the means, to be effective citizens, but with the rise of contemporary corporate capitalism as the driving force behind the media, its force as a democratic institution has dwindled.

McChesney notes, for example that in the 1930's, because it was so new and undefined, traditional laissez-faire media making policy had to be revisited for radio, creating what he calls a 'critical juncture,' (a 'historical moment when the policy-making options are relatively broad and the policies put in place set the media system on a track that will be difficult to reroute for decades, even generations') eventually leading to the Communications Act of 1934 and mass 'deregulation.' McChesney feels that the clause requiring the broadcasters to provide for the public interest in exchange for their rights was never seriously enforced or met, and thus that such regulation in the United States has effectively been a mockery and a failure. In the 1980s, the clause was taken out, leading to the author’s belief that the FCC itself is now the one being regulated by the money-hungry broadcasters themselves. Because concerned activists could not muster enough public attention or support, their ability to gain anything other than small token concessions was severely limited at best. Their numbers dwindled and they were replaced by neoliberal activists, lobbying for the business domination of media policy making. Neoliberalism removed the idea that the government should represent the public vis-à-vis the corporate interest, and culminated in the signing of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which lifted regulation and restrictions, an act McChesney considers corrupt because of the quiet, secretive, way in which a private few handled its process and outcome.

At this point I would like to make it clear that we will be using McChesney to set the stage for an argument that he does not intend to make- while McChesney ends his book on a high and optimistic note, believing or at least pretending to believe that the uprising of 2003, when "media policy absolutely exploded into the public consciousness as millions of Americans registered their opposition to the relaxation of long-standing media ownership rules," will force open a new critical juncture that can lead to significant and necessary overall improvement to our current media model.

I disagree. Having presented all the problems that we have with Big Media, I say that it's time we move on. Luckily, we have somewhere to go; online.

In We the media, Dan Gillmor explores the power of New Media, with a focus on the internet and especially on blogs and wikis. Gillmor's main idea can be summued up effectively in the following quote, paraphrased from his own introduction;

"Big Media ...treated the news as a lecture," while, "tomorrow's news reporting and production will be more of a conversation, or a seminar. The lines will blur between produers and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we're only beginning to grasp now. The communication network itself will be a medium for everyone's voice..."

How does Gillmor solve all of the problems that our older version of the media raised? Let's take them one by one.

As we have seen, one of the main issues with conventional media is the ability for outside influences, be they power and/or money related, to dictate what the public receives as newsworthy information. Instead of serving as a linkage institution between the people and the government, traditional media has the ability to hijack the airwaves (or presses) and either cover up what we should know, or tell us things we don't need to know. Going the other way, media can easily ignore the voice of the people, or even distort that information by carefully crafted poll questions.

But New Media is different- where Leighley had a triangle, Gillmor has a straight line. Using blogs and other online tools, people have begun voicing their own opinions without third-party media intervention. And don't think that this is a one-way linkage street- government officials, too, can join in on this quicker and more personable method of interaction. Some already have.

Our ideal system of media called for equal and fair reporting, such that people could view the facts within an unbiased framework and then make up their own minds. We conceded that no single organization could provide that, and that we'd have to look at the bigger picture for a well-rounded image to emerge. That idea was scrapped though, because access to that wide an array of opinions was impractical on both a financial and time-conscious level. With the internet, that is no longer the case- most blogs, wikis, and websites are free to browse, and in terms of finding what you are looking for, nothing could be quicker than a Google search. Say you wanted to find out about a recent House decision- you could google first for the bare, meaningless facts, then for both the Democratic and Republican opinions, respectively. Having established your own framework, with both sides of the debate literally at your fingertips, you are then free to have a educated opinion, and to form Tocquevillian associations, in the comfort of your home, with those who share your feelings on the matter.

But which matters will you look into? Whichever ones you want; numerous websites and blogs feature continously updating headlines, and if you don't wan to even bother scrolling down the page to find something that catches your eye, an RSS feed can bring you info on both sides of an issue that you already care about. People publishing, reading, and commenting on blogs can discuss things that they feel are important, without the added worry of making sure to meet corporate goals. Our ideal model's assumption, that at least a certain amount of profit had to be generated so that those writing would keep doing so, has been pleasantly bypassed by the even more powerful spur of genuine subject-matter interest.

Additionally, in our new online model, the public can keep a check on those in power, and act as its own advocate; the people themselves have become the Fourth Institution of the government. And they do have real authority- Gillmor's retelling of the Trent Lott story, which he refers to as New Media's first scalp, definitely makes that clear.

So what is New Media missing? Here's what people are most scared of, from the perspectives of first the readers and then the bloggers themselves:

1) Reliability- who is to say that the people posting are really telling the truth? To which I respond that much as New Media acts in its own defense against the government, so too does it act against those within who would cause trouble. On the simplest level, as citizen journalists gain mass and experience, the unconsciously incredible amount of people viewing a given statement forces it to undergo the severe fact-checking rites of sheer numbers.

And, for those who want to blog;

2) The unknown- how do old-fashioned laws like copyright and libel apply to new-age technologies like blogging? To which I respond; not to worry. The Poynter Institute, the industry-wide leader in setting journalistic standards, is working on it. All we need to do is give it a little more time.

Which is also what I tell people who make the true but misleading claim that blogs have yet to really influence a major election; while it may be true that Howard Dean did not come close to being President, that fact that he elbowed his way into serious contention for the Democratic nomination is more than proof that blogs can, and will, have major effects on elections in the future. Academics like David Perlmutter are only trying to find out just how strong their power will be.

New Media, in theory, has all the tools it takes to fulfill our ideal model of what the media should be. As more and more people take notice and start to get involved, as more and more of the people stand up to let their voices be heard, it is my sincere hope and trust that it eventually will, surpassing mass media as we know it now in a Darwinian evolution of communication and technology, paving the way for a brighter, more connected, more democratic, and more educated future.

The Final; A State of the Media Address

This post will attempt to evaluate both old and new forms o media; their successes, their shortcomings, and their struggles in the fight to gain the upper hand in terms of absolute media consumption. To do so requires us to first define an ideal normative standard against which both Old and New media can be considered. That being the case, we must first step back and take a moment to consider our options regarding the contruction of that model.

For purposes of easy reference we will adopt the list of possible models and definitions laid out by Jan E. Leighley in Mass Media and Politics; A Social Science Perspective. (Although Leighley provides a tremendous amount of detail throughout that work, for our purposes a brief summary of each will suffice.) As a preface, it is important to note that Leighley views the media as a linkage institution, providing citizens in a representative democracy with basic information about their government and its policies, and also providing the government with basic information about its constituents and their interests. A sort of triangle is formed between the media, the government, and the people.

Leighley's first model has the media playing the part of 'reporters of objective fact.' In her own words, in that function the media;

"...play a limited role in political communication between government and citizens. That is, the mass media are merely a conduit for information, tools used by citizens and government officials to expand their scope of vision or communication, not active participants in the communication process. Beyond providing an accurate and true portrayal of the factual world of politics amd society, according t this model, the media have no particular role or function to perform."

The next model Leighley presents is the neutral adversary model, which is based on the idea that the mass media act as a sort of check on government; without being overly antaganostic, the media's job is to see to it that the government carry out all of its functions in an open, fully disclosed manner. This means that the press, and by simple extension the public, should have the ability to not only see what exactly is going on, but to also ask why, and receive an answer.

The third model, the public advocate model of the news, is a kind of supercharged version of the second. In this approach, the seeking of truth by questioning is not just a passive right of media involvement; journalists must use the newsgathering process in order to engage both newsmakers and the public in discussions of political issues. To summarize in one sentence, media outlets must provide information, discussion, and debate in order to enlighten the citizenship, while safeguarding the rights of individuals by serving as a watchdog against the government and providing a medium of advertising for the economic sector of society - all while maintaining their financial self-sufficiency (so as to be free from the influence of special interest groups) and continuing their engaging, entartaining form of presentation.

The next paradigm seems almost boring compared to the fast-paced, life-changing style of the public advocacy mold, but it is one that many feel best approximates the reality. This fourth model of mass media communications takes a hard look at the U.S. mass media institutions and calls them what they are; privately owned, purely capitalistic business enterprises. In this role the media is devoid of responsibility to either the government or the governed. The only thing that is important is generating profits for their owners; as Leighley wryly notes;

"What is being or should be produced, according to this model, is not an enlightened or informed citizenry or more responsive government officials, but rather a profit."

The fifth and final of Leigley's theoretical models is the propagandist model, which takes the position that the main function of the media is to support and advance the interests of those already in psoitions of power. In doing so, the media plays the reverse role of what it did in the public advocate model, serving the state by legitimizing its policies and interests in the public eye, and sometimes at the public's expense. The definition though is not limited to media support for government officials who are in power; it can also be reflective of an interest in legitimizing the what the dominant class (typically the business class) sees fit to legtimize. Essentially, the media works to mantain and defend the social, political, and economic status quo.

Again, before we continue, we must examine and define our scope. Who are we, exactly, to be looking for an ideal system? As corporate investors we may see the profit-seeker model as coming closest to what we would personally want out of the media, while as political incumbents we may prefer to talk about the benefits of a propagandist mold. What then do we mean when we refer to what we think the media should look like?

For the purposes of this blog entry, we will consider as a theoretical ideal the system of media involvement that we, as informed participants in a polity, feel would best serve the citizens of a representative democracy in a democratic fashion, noting that government officials are also included under this rubric.

Definitions are trickier with what some have referred to as the sixth media model. What Leighley has outlined are five very general different ways that the media could view themselves in the fulfillment of their duties. In regards to any of these models, what we have to ask is what exactly, in our democratic ideal, the media have to actually do in order to be considered succesful. While the profit seeker model is basically self-explanatory, and the propagandist can be measured against an already existing background that just has to be maintained, what about the other three, more pro-active models? What do media outlets have to do on a daily basis to be in fulfillment of their stated objectives? Although it may not be a 'model' in the same sense of the word that Leighley means, for these answers we can turn to Alexis de Tocqueville's " Of the Relation Between Public Associations and the Newspapers," written back in 1834, yet as relevant today as ever was.

Coming from a slightly different angle than the one Leighley chose , Tocqueville does not identify how media should work, but what it is that media should hope to accomplish. He says that a newspaper should ideally be a beacon that draws like-minded individuals together, helping them form a united front, and associations based on ideas. This is so important to Tocqueville because of the way a democracy works;

"In order that an association among a democratic people should have any power, it must be a numerous body. The persons of whom it is composed are therefore scattered over a wide extent, and each of them is detained in the place of his domicile by the narrowness of his income or by the small unremitting exertions by which he earns it. Means must then be found to converse every day without seeing one another, and to take steps in common without having met. Thus hardly any democratic association can do without newspapers."

Equally important to Tocqueville though is the ease with which the knowledge contained in a newspaper can be imparted to its readership; the newspaper shows up every day, waits patiently on the doorstep to gain entrance for its turn to talk, then lets the citizen acquire knowledge at his own pace, through his own perusings. I would like to point out that a careful reading of Tocqueville finds no reference whasoever to the need for all citizens to be informed on all matters; what Tocqueville considers important is the citizens having the ability to be informed on all matters. In fact, it is quite clear several times that the citizen must have easy access to informaton without it being forcefully rammed down his throat. Thus we find that, according to his essay, the newspaper should talk to you "without distracting you from your private affairs." Also, in the crucial paragraph, with the newspaper as the saving grace of democracy, he writes that (emphasis mine) "it frequently happens that a great number of men who wish or who want to combine cannot accomplish it," and that is where newspapers step in. Note that even for Tocqueville the reader chooses what articles he or she wants to read and/or care about. All that is necessary for this ideal is the concept of availability to unite with others who also care about those issues. The laws of the country that he feels compel every Amercian to co-operate every day of his life with some of his fellow citizens for a common purpose can be satisfied with as nomimal a political involvement as each citizen deems appropriate.

Having set out these models as our possible options to choose from and tinker with, let us now proceed to set the standard against which all media should be judged. Because we are dealing with reality, certain practical factors must carry considerable weight, even in our fantasy construction, as a standard that cannot exist is not worth being weighed against. Our ideal vision of the media must therefore incorporate just enough of the profit-seeker mold that it will be worthwhile for the backbone of infrastructure behind it to put in the time and effort to do a good job. This will also, as in the public advocate model, allow the media to be independent of outside funding and special interest groups.

The limits of the reporters of objective fact model in a real world society are two-fold. On the part of the providers, the writers and editors, absolute objectivity is impossible, for every retelling of a story is by default a re-interpretation, if just by the decision of which objective facts to include. On the part of the reader, it is useless, for without some sort of analytical framework through which to view the facts, they will undoubtedly become nothing more and nothing less than meaningless pieces of information, hardly educational in the way that Tocqueville would have wanted. What we are shooting for then are facts with an objective analysis; that is a bias-free or bi-partisan window, a formula in which all of the decisions, events, their manifold ramifications, and any other pieces are laid out for the consumer, and he or she just has to put the puzzle together in the manner that they see fit. Such a media could both serve as a watchdog against the government by aggresively exposing any injustices being committed, and at the same legitimize what the powers that be are doing, all depending on who is doing the reading. It is all a matter of simply laying out the facts, in their proper framework, and letting the reader be the judge. Once this has been achieved, the Tocqueville-esque associations can form between readers with similar viewpoints on the world.

Is this, you ask, really a possibility, given our current U.S. media model? If not, then we'd have to redefine it again in order to give it a chance to exist. Luckily though, the answer is yes, it is a possibility, at least in some ways. Let me explain:

The truth is that every journalist, so far as I know, is a human being. And every human being is by nature full of biases, whether conscious or unconscious or even developed. Every newspaper owner, editor, or even writer will therefore unquestionably infuse their work with those biases, even if they try not to, and therefore any one article, edition, paper, or even chain cannot by any reasonable expectation hope to provide an objective analysis.

But let's look at the bigger picture.

According to the Newspaper Association of America, as of 2005 there were 1,452 daily papers published in the U.S., each with its own ever- so- slightly unique take on the universe. Between all of these publications, it is perfectly reasonable to expect there to emerge a full media picture that presents both sides of the equation equally well. Speaking of equations, it's actually simple mathematics; the law of averages, as expressed in a normal distribution curve, says that despite the outlying extremes (for our intentions we'll call them the overtly liberal and overtly conservative mass media outlets), most things tend to fall somewhere in the large group in the middle, and taken as a lump provide both sides of the spectrum. Your educated consumer can easily subscribe to and get a beautifully broad and diverse cross-section of news analysis on any given day on any given topic.

That's all very nice in theory. But it doesn't really work. Here are the two main reasons why:

Referring back to our pre-concieved standard, the perfect media model would have just enough of a capitalist bent to make it worthwhile for qualified people to spend time and energy on developing it. The way our mass media has proven itself to operate, corporations tend to stifle what would naturally be a normal curve, forcing it to lean towards whatever side will sell the most merchandise and make the most money. More on that in a moment. But first, again referring back to our model, the Tocqueville-esque forming of associations we need would require there to be an easy way to access desired information. This access would also have to be cost effective.

The way our mass media is currently set up, this couldn't happen in America. Subscription prices to so many papers, even if the availability was there (which it's not), along with having to peruse not one, but many newspapers for the information you want, would nip the easy access requirement in the bud.

Now we'll return to the corporate question. We will evaluate its effects on both a practical and theoretical level. Practically speaking, is our news coverage largely affected by what sells (hint: it tends more to be along the lines of celebrity scandal and not-so-surprisingly less along the lines of content driven political debate coverage)? The answer is undoubtedly yes; see here, here, here, and here if you need any more convincing. The question then turns to the more theoretical why; it's fairly obvious (to us capitalists anyways), but watch the movie Network for a wonderful visual presentation of money-hungry grubbiness and its deleterious effects. Or at the very least read the review.

What should the news be about? Leighley has a discussion about this in Chapter 2 of her book. Within the 'reporters of objective fact' model, news must present an accurate reflection of reality, but even Leighley herself is not sure exactly what that means, conceding the point that we raised earlier, that in a real world situation editors and reporter must decide what content to include and what to leave out. For the next model, (rememeber that Leighley's book is about mass media and politics) she sees the role of media in the neutral adversary model as unelected representatives of the people, challenging those in power and making sure to keep them honest.

The ideal scope and level of political news coverage (how much, how deep, when, and why) finally finds some yard-stick for measurement in this interpretation, as those questions are directly tied into the relative importance of the various government institutions. Which isn't exactly a lucid definiton, but it is at least a start.

The public advocate model is where danger starts rearing its ugly head. In this theoretical situation, reporters are even more pro-active than they were as neutral adversaries. The model assumes that;

"the professional reporter can independently determine what the public interest is in a given political situation, and that he or she develops news storied that enhance the public's interest."

What Leighley means by this is that presumably whatever serves to interest the reporters, who are in fact 'of the people,' would be those same things that are important to the general public of which they are representative. It requires their "shared values" to be reflected in the news stories, and is the first model to openly recognize and draw heavily upon the interfacing process between the providers and consumers of the news. But because this model only does so in theory, without actual public involvement, it can also end up with reporters who unwittingly become 'disconnected' from the masses, or, in view of their newfound power, try and influence the masses to think like them. Which is the perfect seguay to our next two models, the profit-seeker and the propagandist.

Why would someone want to influence the public? The propagandist model says because if people think things are going well, power stays where it is. The profit-seeker model smirks and says, "because that way we get more money."

The profit-seeker, like the public advocate, pays a great deal of attention to public opinion and audience interests, but along with those is the added criterion of actual audience size. The sense of duty inherent in the previous models is lost here, and so instead of finding out what audiences are interested in within the narow confines of relevant political discussion, a much broader list of topics is explored. As noted, controversial and racy programming tend to draw bigger crowds, and so things of that nature become the focus of the newscasts, blurring the lines between the news business and show business. Without going to far off on a tangent, I'd like to just address an implicit assumption that we talked about in class. In our idealistic comparisons we will assume that preferences are not entirely indigenous, and that although we may or may not have some innate interest in bombings and murder mysteries, if we were exposed to more substantial subject matter at least some of us would form strong feelings and opinions, even, perhaps, interest. Which brings us to the billion dollar question; who is controlling our thoughts?

If the entertainment industry (media included) dictates who we are both as people and as a nation by telling us what should be important enough to talk about, then six corporations are in fact the real government of the United States. Check out this handy chart from The Nation for details.

How could anyone realistically expect General Electric, owners of NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC to name just a few of their television affiliates, to provide objective analysis on the war in Iraq when they also have numerous contracts with the U.S. Army (see here for one tiny, multi-million dollar example)? I'm not suggesting that their financial stake in the war in any way affects the kind of coverage they provide. I'm just saying that such a suggestion is a possibility worth noting.

To suggest that corporations would alter their subject matter in the hopes of making more money, essentially 'selling out' on their own integrity, is a serious accusayion. Life is not really like the movie Network, is it? How far will corporate executives go in the name of the dollar?

You might be surprised.

Take the rather bizarre example of Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corporation, which in turn owns Fox, perhaps the one station whose consevative biases even children on the street are familiar with. Fox supports President Bush. President Bush does not support Al-Jazeera (according to the background provided by the Accuracy in Media Organization, Al-Jazeera supports the 9/11 "Truth" movement", which blames the U.S. government for the September 11th attacks). So the following quote, taken from the transcript of 'The Journal Editorial Report,' a program that airs on Fox, seems perfectly in keeping with News Corps agenda;

"What about the role of the Western media — CNN, Al-Jazeera — when they put some of these terrible events, these deaths, civilian deaths on camera, are they playing into the hands of that Hezbollah strategy as well?"

Indeed one could easily claim that the implicit accusation here, the charge that Al-Jazeera, kowingly or unknowingly, plays into the hands of Hezbollah, is not surprising at all. What is surprising is this next bit of news; Al-Jazzera now has an English language channel; in Britain it is carried by none other than: Rupert Murdoch. Turns out his British Sky Broadcasting has been carrying the original Al-Jazeera for some time.

While some may almost sarcastically see this as a good thing, a chance for News Corp to participate in the bigger picture of balanced journalism, by at least providing (according to their own interpretation) both sides of the news, albeit on different stations, that claim does not actually hold water when stacked up against the real world evidence. Murdoch has said that his other satellite service, DirecTV, had no plans to air Al-Jazeera International into U.S. homes. Why, you might ask? Here is a quote from the Transnational Broadcasting Journal that might shed some light on the real reason why the station is being aired in some countries and not others;

"The problem is not merely the brand’s controversial reputation. Many consider AJI’s international news product a hard sell in the already tight American cable market, where speciality channels dedicated to reality TV shows are likely to generate much more profit than an all-news lineup."

Basically, Murdoch is no fool, and has no desire to promote a station in America that won't make him money in America. That may be perfectly understandable from a financial standpoint, but this little anecdote sheds much light on why we often cannot believe the things our news stations tell us; not only do they have biases, but should those biases prove less profitable than others, they would not hesitate to make the switch. Which leaves our ideal model severely injured on two fronts; it has way too much of the profit-seeker mold to ever give us objective analysis, and is not at all free from outside influences, be they other affiliates or the desire to make money in a cutthroat, competitive market.

As we are beginning to see, the media models in reality form are all very much connected. Stations such as Fox have biases because those biases are profitable; those biases in turn can work for the public advantage, (see non profit public access models, which are sadly just not popular enough to factor in significantly, for details on how to do this) if the powers that be deem to do so. Or, as this report makes clear, those same biases can lead to public misconceptions and manipulations, the propagandist dream. This is fairly obviously dangerous, as people who don't know that they are in fact uneducated and think that they do know the truth end up supporting wars that they don't know all the possible reasons for, and not supporting initiatives that could help save lives in the future. The most humorous example of the power of media to form immediate and often counterintuitive opinions remains to this day the 1938 'War of the Worlds' disaster. The following quote, written by Dorothry Thompson for the New York Tribune and taken from the above article, really serves to highlight our point here, namely that the broadcast revealed the extent of the theoretical influence that politicians could have by using the power of mass communications to manipulate the public;

"All unwittingly, Mr. Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater of the Air have made one of the most fascinating and important demonstrations of all time. They have proved that a few effective voices, accompanied by sound effects, can convince masses of people of a totally unreasonable, completely fantastic proposition as to create a nation-wide panic. They have demonstrated more potently than any argument, demonstrated beyond a question of a doubt, the appalling dangers and enormous effectiveness of popular and theatrical demagoguery....

Hitler managed to scare all of Europe to its knees a month ago, but he at least had an army and an air force to back up his shrieking words.
But Mr. Welles scared thousands into demoralization with nothing at all."

(By the way, think this couldn't happen again? Try just this week, in Belgium)

Although she doesn't mention this outright, throughout history there have been those, like Hitler, who have made exceptional use of outright propaganda to acheive their goals, but even in our own cautiously enlightened era there is still a lot that can be done.

Issues like agenda-setting, which recognizes the fact that even if the media doesn't end up telling us what to think, it can still be succesful in telling us what to think about (harking back once again to our point that there ca never just be objective fact telling), and the formation of framing effects, which result from a media description of an event or issue that emphathizes a "subset of potentially relevant considerations," that "cause individuals to focus on these considerations when constructing their opinions" (according to Bernard C. Cohen, as quoted in Leighley) are both dealt with in both Leigley's book, as well as in Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy's Politics and Propaganda, are essentially ways that both the media and/or politicians can and do subversively make use of propaganda-like strategies. Other tactics include the not-so-subtle repetition of implied and assumed connctions between events or reactions. See here for a great example of how, without actually lying, or making an outright connection, President Bush creates what O'Shaughnessey in Chapter 9 terms a "foundation myth," effectively linking Bin-Laden and September 11th to the ongoing war in Iraq.

Surprised that our government would do that? Don't be- Harold Ford Jr. isn't. Recall if you will the recent midterm elections, and ads like these:





Still not convinced? I didn't want to have to do this, but alright, I will. Please take a moment and answer the following question;

Do you think that the system of political polling, wherein a perfectly representative sample of society is asked a carefully unloaded question, with language that wold never, ever, dream of trying to push them one way or the other, is a wonderful and democratic way to fulfill the American dream? (Please note that if you answer the question in the negative, your passport and license will be revoked for seeming unpatriotic.)

Okay, so the above is a bit of an exaggerated example. But one of the problems of political polling is that the questions are often designed to unconsciously nudge the responders, who often are not in fact representative of all citizens (for instance, those who do not have telephones, or don't speak English), in one direction or another. And don't forget the skewing of results, often by the media, as we turn full circle and tie this back in to the profit-seeker model and it's flaws. To help us, here is a little quote from something that a man named Mark posted sometime earlier this year;

"Be wary of the news- a headline this week proclaiming that most Americans dislike Bush may in fact be mathematically true, but provides a lot more gusto than saying a mere 58% are unhappy. Also interesting to note is the last poll's information- a week ago 39% approved while 3% were unsure, with the same 58% disapproving. The President's approval rate can therefore be said to basically have stayed the same throughout the week. But a headline that excitedly reports the President's approval rating falling rapidly, is, especially now, with mid-term elections approaching, something that we are much more likely to see."

What's funny is that while we've spent the last few minutes discussing problems of the media, only now do we finally actually make reference to 'The Problem of the Media,' an important work by Robert W. McChesney.

What is perhaps McChesney’s greatest contribution to our discussion is the astute observation that politics is essentially a game of semantics, wherein the word deregulation can simply mean regulation of another sort. He argues from history that the press started its life in the U.S. as an equalizer, giving everybody equal information so that even poor citizens could have the capacity, if not the means, to be effective citizens, but with the rise of contemporary corporate capitalism as the driving force behind the media, its force as a democratic institution has dwindled.

McChesney notes, for example that in the 1930's, because it was so new and undefined, traditional laissez-faire media making policy had to be revisited for radio, creating what he calls a 'critical juncture,' (a 'historical moment when the policy-making options are relatively broad and the policies put in place set the media system on a track that will be difficult to reroute for decades, even generations') eventually leading to the Communications Act of 1934 and mass 'deregulation.' McChesney feels that the clause requiring the broadcasters to provide for the public interest in exchange for their rights was never seriously enforced or met, and thus that such regulation in the United States has effectively been a mockery and a failure. In the 1980s, the clause was taken out, leading to the author’s belief that the FCC itself is now the one being regulated by the money-hungry broadcasters themselves. Because concerned activists could not muster enough public attention or support, their ability to gain anything other than small token concessions was severely limited at best. Their numbers dwindled and they were replaced by neoliberal activists, lobbying for the business domination of media policy making. Neoliberalism removed the idea that the government should represent the public vis-à-vis the corporate interest, and culminated in the signing of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which lifted regulation and restrictions, an act McChesney considers corrupt because of the quiet, secretive, way in which a private few handled its process and outcome.

At this point I would like to make it clear that we will be using McChesney to set the stage for an argument that he does not intend to make- while McChesney ends his book on a high and optimistic note, believing or at least pretending to believe that the uprising of 2003, when "media policy absolutely exploded into the public consciousness as millions of Americans registered their opposition to the relaxation of long-standing media ownership rules," will force open a new critical juncture that can lead to significant and necessary overall improvement to our current media model.

I disagree. Having presented all the problems that we have with Big Media, I say that it's time we move on. Luckily, we have somewhere to go; online.

In We the media, Dan Gillmor explores the power of New Media, with a focus on the internet and especially on blogs and wikis. Gillmor's main idea can be summued up effectively in the following quote, paraphrased from his own introduction;

"Big Media ...treated the news as a lecture," while, "tomorrow's news reporting and production will be more of a conversation, or a seminar. The lines will blur between produers and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we're only beginning to grasp now. The communication network itself will be a medium for everyone's voice..."

How does Gillmor solve all of the problems that our older version of the media raised? Let's take them one by one.

As we have seen, one of the main issues with conventional media is the ability for outside influences, be they power and/or money related, to dictate what the public receives as newsworthy information. Instead of serving as a linkage institution between the people and the government, traditional media has the ability to hijack the airwaves (or presses) and either cover up what we should know, or tell us things we don't need to know. Going the other way, media can easily ignore the voice of the people, or even distort that information by carefully crafted poll questions.

But New Media is different- where Leighley had a triangle, Gillmor has a straight line. Using blogs and other online tools, people have begun voicing their own opinions without third-party media intervention. And don't think that this is a one-way linkage street- government officials, too, can join in on this quicker and more personable method of interaction. Some already have.

Our ideal system of media called for equal and fair reporting, such that people could view the facts within an unbiased framework and then make up their own minds. We conceded that no single organization could provide that, and that we'd have to look at the bigger picture for a well-rounded image to emerge. That idea was scrapped though, because access to that wide an array of opinions was impractical on both a financial and time-conscious level. With the internet, that is no longer the case- most blogs, wikis, and websites are free to browse, and in terms of finding what you are looking for, nothing could be quicker than a Google search. Say you wanted to find out about a recent House decision- you could google first for the bare, meaningless facts, then for both the Democratic and Republican opinions, respectively. Having established your own framework, with both sides of the debate literally at your fingertips, you are then free to have a educated opinion, and to form Tocquevillian associations, in the comfort of your home, with those who share your feelings on the matter.

But which matters will you look into? Whichever ones you want; numerous websites and blogs feature continously updating headlines, and if you don't wan to even bother scrolling down the page to find something that catches your eye, an RSS feed can bring you info on both sides of an issue that you already care about. People publishing, reading, and commenting on blogs can discuss things that they feel are important, without the added worry of making sure to meet corporate goals. Our ideal model's assumption, that at least a certain amount of profit had to be generated so that those writing would keep doing so, has been pleasantly bypassed by the even more powerful spur of genuine subject-matter interest.

Additionally, in our new online model, the public can keep a check on those in power, and act as its own advocate; the people themselves have become the Fourth Institution of the government. And they do have real authority- Gillmor's retelling of the Trent Lott story, which he refers to as New Media's first scalp, definitely makes that clear.

So what is New Media missing? Here's what people are most scared of, from the perspectives of first the readers and then the bloggers themselves:

1) Reliability- who is to say that the people posting are really telling the truth? To which I respond that much as New Media acts in its own defense against the government, so too does it act against those within who would cause trouble. On the simplest level, as citizen journalists gain mass and experience, the unconsciously incredible amount of people viewing a given statement forces it to undergo the severe fact-checking rites of sheer numbers.

And, for those who want to blog;

2) The unknown- how do old-fashioned laws like copyright and libel apply to new-age technologies like blogging? To which I respond; not to worry. The Poynter Institute, the industry-wide leader in setting journalistic standards, is working on it. All we need to do is give it a little more time.

Which is also what I tell people who make the true but misleading claim that blogs have yet to really influence a major election; while it may be true that Howard Dean did not come close to being President, that fact that he elbowed his way into serious contention for the Democratic nomination is more than proof that blogs can, and will, have major effects on elections in the future. Academics like David Perlmutter are only trying to find out just how strong their power will be.

New Media, in theory, has all the tools it takes to fulfill our ideal model of what the media should be. As more and more people take notice and start to get involved, as more and more of the people stand up to let their voices be heard, it is my sincere hope and trust that it eventually will, surpassing mass media as we know it now in a Darwinian evolution of communication and technology, paving the way for a brighter, more connected, more democratic, and more educated future.

My biology teacher was upset today. Why, you might ask, was this normally benign gentleman up in arms this afternoon? And why does his frustration warrant a post? let me explain.

We had been discussing one of Mendel's theory's on genetics when the agitation began. He was visibly perturned and finally paused from teaching the class in order to tell us what was on his mind. Apparently, a recent study has shown that some Harvard professors in various science departments had been fudging their results. Sensing the sensationalism, a reporter for a major paper, (I'm still looking; he wouldn't say) published a piece on how many of the so called 'great experiments' in science were really based on false testimonial evidence.

Shocked at lack of sources in the article, as well as the apparently blatant disregard for the truth, my professor conscientiously phoned in to the newsoaoer and asked the editor why he'd let it run.

"It sold a lot of papers," came the honest answer.

But surely there has to me some level of accountability, I mean, doesnt it matter that this journalist was objectively wrong?

"So what?"

Behold one and all, Leighley's profit -seeker model, manifest in all of its glory.