When you hear discussion about virtually anything, you may very well encounter the term “corporate media”? What does that mean? Is it inherently bad? Or good? What else exists besides corporate media? Is social media corporate media?
The olde towne crier
We have always wanted, and needed, to spread the news. At first, it was just one person telling another. But, within every community there was always one person who knew more than others and, the more they were known for their news, the more people utilized them as a means of disseminating the news. The town gossip (or clan gossip or tribal gossip) usually just “came about”. It usually wasn’t a paid position and it certainly wasn’t a position for which you went to school. As communities turned into villages, which turned into towns, which turned into cities, a need became clear as to how to spread official news. This might be news from the king, or the mayor, or some other “official” source. This was an addition, to the town gossip, for official community informations. This person (almost universally male) was called the town crier.
In addition to telling the official news, the town crier would also post notices about new policies, laws, or general information. As has always been true, official information was not always correct information but the source was known. Of course, that was true about the town gossip also. At heart, you trusted the news if you trusted the source. And we knew (or thought we did) the sources.
The printing press brought newspapers which were often generated by one person. The reputation of this person was the reputation that you trusted. Then bigger and bigger. It then became the reputation of the people at the newspaper, as a whole, that determined your trust. But the bigger it was, the more abstract it became. Some papers were no longer content to report the news, they wanted to make it.
From local to corporate
Newspapers were still local. Then mass media took hold. William Randolph Hearst grew his group of newspapers to nearly 30 and is considered to be a founder of “yellow journalism” (cheap newspaper turns yellow with age). Yellow journalism carried the news that the owners wanted and suppressed what they didn’t want. Sometimes they even invented “news” if public opinion did not move towards the desires of owners (Hearst, for example) quickly enough. Although not directly responsible for the Spanish American war, Hearst newspapers helped fan the flames.
When newspapers were local, the object was primarily to inform. The local owners certainly wanted to earn a profit or, at least, break even. But, they were very much part of the community and their reputation, and pride, was partially connected to the reputation, and veracity, of the newspaper. As they grew, and as ownership was separated from the community, this bond was stretched to become unimportant. All that was left was the “journalistic code”.
As there became more methods of conveying information beyond that of the printed word, or announced from the printed word, the word media was used as an envelope for the different methods of distribution. These still include the printed word but also broadcast, streamed, cabled, radio/podcast, and other methods of distribution.
The Journalistic Code or the “Code of Ethics”
Professional journalists, who took pride in their craft, wanted to be looked at seriously and to be trusted. This was especially true in the US, where the First Amendment, though often attacked and confronted, guarantees an independent press and the ability of citizens to civilly express their thoughts. To support this, professional associations created a Code of Ethics. These ethics include the concepts of
Seek Truth and Report It
Minimize Harm
Act Independently
Be Accountable and Transparent
Of course, not all individuals adhered to this code of ethics but it was a standard to be used within the profession.
Erosion of the Code in Corporate Media
For a very few organizations, the Code still comes first. But even those few sometime back off a bit from the harder parts of the Code. I understand it. There are too many situations where a person or organization may be “right” and still end up paying (in time and money and personnel) to the point of severe loss.
In more of the organizations, owned by even larger corporations or directly by ultra wealthy families or individuals, the journalistic code became a cute idea whose time had passed. Individual people on staff might try to continue to honor it but the corporation, as a whole, had little interest. That which would increase profit was good. Information that the people who paid (advertisers and readers) liked was what they wanted to publish. Being true was a bonus but not necessary.
The slippery distinction between investigative reporting and event reporting
If a journalist were to investigate a person, group, or event then they would attempt to use the Code in their dealings. They would present the most honest and accurate representation of the truth that they could. But what happened when they were not determining the information; they were reporting on information presented by others? Does the Code apply to this? When someone who is being quoted says something incorrect or inflammatory, does the journalist have the responsibility to call this out so that the reader not only is informed of what was said but also what was true? I am not sure that that is directly addressed in the Code but doing such certainly is to the benefit of the reader. It is not often done, especially within corporate media.
Journalist versus Announcer
A journalist tries to work within the Code of Ethics of journalism. They don’t always succeed but they try. One test of such is whether they apologize for errors and publish retractions that call out changes of information. People make mistakes. People that care about reality admit their errors, and take responsibility for them, when they find out they make a mistake. Someone who makes errors (particularly those that make them often) and never take responsibility for, or acknowledge, those errors is NOT behaving in accordance with the journalistic code (and, for that matter, are not behaving in an honorable fashion).
How about those who present themselves, or their words, online or on the air or in print, and don’t take on the journalistic code as an obligation? They are announcers. They are modern “town criers”. They say what they are paid to say. Alas, in the US (and presumably elsewhere in the world) this happens more and more often. Some “news” outlets (such as FoxNews for the “right” and The Daily Beast for the “left”) are really sufficiently unreliable (without cross-checking and further fact-checking) that they should be treated as only infotainment. Infotainment is comforting (aligned with your own biases) information in a pseudo-news entertainment format.
A journalist tries to follow a code of ethics. An announcer says what they are paid for.
The slide towards corporate media
So, corporate media is associated with larger corporations which is no longer connected to their audience. The owners don’t “mingle” with the consumers. The owners feel no responsibilities to the consumers. Their aim is to understand the consumers well enough to produce a profitable product. Recognizing what the consumers, and any financial supporters such as advertisers, are expecting, they align information with expectations to make them more desirous to continue watching/reading/seeing from that source. Truth is irrelevant. The corporation is amoral. Sometimes, when a desire to harm the consumers with their information exists (this may be called propaganda), they may even be declared immoral.
The movement towards corporate media is caused by consolidation and separation from the market. A small number of owners who lead lives isolated from the lives of the consumers. Or, in other words, sources owned by a few ultra-rich individuals or groups highly isolated from the lives of consumers of their product.
How to work to regain journalistic integrity in media
Split up, and require more owners of corporate media sources. Don’t have three or four ultra-rich groups/individuals owning, and controlling, hundreds of media sources. Instead, have hundreds of less-wealthy groups/individuals who are located near (and live in the same fashion as) their consumers control those hundreds of media sources.
Require adherence to the journalistic code of ethics. Make certain that errors are acknowledged and retractions made obvious and public.
When reporting (non-investigative but information gathering) activities are done, ensure that the public consumer is presented with the equivalent journalistic investigation along with the accurate quotations of what others say. In other words, there should be in-line fact-checking that is included with reporting of what people say.
Will that happen? Not without regulation. Unregulated capitalism favors information tailored to the customer, in order to maximize profits, and this is antithetical to journalistic integrity.
It is up to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment