Media’s Predicament

I’d like to start this post by asking everyone a simple question. What is the source of information for your daily/periodic dose of news and current affairs? I figure all of us cite one form of the “mainstream” media source as an answer. Mainstream media is a term used for the kind of media system which is owned by corporations whose primary motive is to maximize profits for their company shareholders and investors (or so goes my knowledge of capitalism). It becomes really hard for something like public interest to compete with these heavyweight terms like advertisement revenue, return on investment, let alone market share and the renowned TRPs (Target Rating Points).

My next question is – Are we conscious of the value of objective news as a commodity? There is an incentive for corporations which own and control the same media sources we rely on for our knowledge to introduce bias to suit their agenda, given the power of media to influence the public perception and opinion about virtually any subject. This area of media bias and corporate influence on media has been studied well in the western world. The 1988 book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman presents the Propaganda Model, which shows the transformation of media organizations as business entities who are interested in selling products (interestingly not news)– viewership and audience – to business interests, and advertisers favoring profit and stability of the media organization over public interest. The Propaganda Model postulates five filters (ironically, after passing through these, it rarely qualifies as news anymore) which determine the news presented in a channel or media source near you:

1. Ownership of the media source
2. Sources of funding
3. News sourcing
4. Flak (hate mail)
5. Anti-ideologies.

Issues with ownership of the source and source of funding are easy to identify and to pay attention (Not that private entities would open their account books for you to take a look). News sourcing is an important issue in the sense of limits to geographic and subject-related range of the media entity. For example, if your media source is a regional player in a state of your country, it relies on other major news sources for national and international news. An interesting note here is that despite the overcrowding of news organizations on the international scene, they depend heavily on few wire services like The Associated Press and Reuters. Flak is very instrumental in managing public information by negative responses to a piece of news. Anti-ideologies magnify threats from manufactured diabolic entities which practice them. Communism and socialism are still portrayed as infringing on individual freedom. (Ever wondered why Russia and China are preceded by the word “Communist” in the mainstream media?)

With all the power that media has to influence our perception on politics, public life, and day to day events, should they be held to the same standards as any other business corporation? We recognize several conflicts of interest in many forms when we see them – why do we simply ignore this in such an important area which feeds us with the knowledge of world around us? Aren’t we entitled to objectivity in news? What should be done to set things straight? I advocate an overhaul by making news-reporting media not-for-profit, and sever the nexus between corporations and news-media, by enacting laws barring corporate media conglomerates from owning news media.

Trias Politica - Separation of Powers

For those of us who are thinking what the title is all about, it is because we were never political students, not in the simplest way possible – as stakeholders in our own future and the part where democracy means “of the people”, this model for separation of powers was conceived to avoid “conflicts of interest” and centralization of power on one leg of the governing tripod. Even with its peccadilloes, the idea of separation of powers was limping along fine – until the tripod got comfortable and transformed into a chair – or should we say, added itself another leg – the “for profit media”.

The for-profit media or the media business made quite an entrance. Until then, we just relied on what the government wanted us to hear – at least in the electronic media . So, we were able to decipher what was actually going on in the real world and what the government wanted us to believe, until an occasional accusation by the member of the opposition shouted “misuse of media by the government”. In retrospect, it does not make sense that the “state-run” media was somehow supposed to be neutral. However, journalism was not a lucrative profession until the advent of the private media business. Now the signals are too jumbled to make sense of any political situations – depending only on the affiliation of a media house to the entity being reported.

A recently released movie depicts how this media business – as a fourth leg of the power chair could be extremely powerful, dare I say than the other legs. If you have doubts about this statement, think for a second – media can make or break a person’s public image. There are very few people conscious than public images than our vidhayak-the legislature, whose political futures and the ability to be influential depends on maintaining and enhancing their image. The ability of the media to take sides and drive home policy points irrespective of how they impact the common man, is a lucrative ability for the netas – the executive. I would have spared the judiciary some trouble since the popular perception is that it somehow is the least corroded among the powers. However, trial by media, fast-tracking of “spicy” and interesting cases by the media, which can be packaged as crowd-pulling multi-part series of television programs, or make for even more gruesome movies. There goes the jaj saahab (judiciary) – the third leg.

What led to this meteoric rise of media business? Why should anyone be concerned? I guess this is the part where it affects the aam aadmi – who strangely does not figure in the equation of governance. Is it the unlimited power that media can unlock for the other legs of governance that catapulted its rise? The mainstay of the media is its ability to propagate – a perspective, policy, action, concern, whatever it is. It is the most powerful tool that the remaining legs of the chair lack. How long would it take you to read a bill passed, a judgment, or a government order if there was no media? So, how do you know that you are getting the pristine, immaculate news without smoke screens? Do we, the people, value such access to information anymore? What are we prepared to do to get such access and value it as a commodity in our lives?

With great power comes great responsibility – or so was Spiderman led to believe. Can we leave the media to be responsible on its own? How can we make hold media accountable? My next blog will address this issue in detail. For now, I leave you with two words – Public Media.