Capable of seeing all sides of an argument…
For many years now, I have been a resident of two countries, the USA and the UK. That ‘duality’ has taught me to look at the world from several perspectives at the same time. This is a story about newspapers and TV news in America, but it has its roots in English history. Stick with it, it’s interesting….
As an American, there is much to admire in England and in the English way of life, but for a long time I could never understand the British respect for the Monarchy. The ‘House of Windsor’ was to me an anachronism. Here were inept and painfully average people elevated to the height of power. What was more irking was that they were supported by tax money. “Off with their heads!”
Yet Republicanism has had little traction in Britain, and everyone supports the Monarchy. It’s an institution with very very deep emotional roots.
I did not really understand why until I read Winston Churchill’s History of the English Speaking Peoples.
My new understanding of English History has also given me a new view of journalism in the United States.
Charles I ruled England during the time of the Civil War (the British one, not the American one), and was overthrown and beheaded in 1649.
The Monarchy was then replaced by Republican rule under Cromwell who ruled under the title of Lord Protector. It was a popular revolution and it was England’s first and only experiment as a Republic. A short 12 years later, the Monarchy of Charles II was restored to vast popular acclaim across the length and breadth of the land.
What happened? And what does this have to do with Journalism in America?
The rule of Cromwell was a nightmare for pretty much everyone in England. Unbound by the restraints of Nobless Oblige, Cromwell and his followers became the Taliban of England. There were religious trials, there were religious police. It was a holy terror, in every sense of the word.
The English soon came to realize the value of a countervailing force in the institution of a Monarchy. While Parliament and democracy might well reflect the momentay passions of the population and the ups and downs of the economy or foreign fortune or failure, the Monarchy was able to stand a bit aloof and have a far longer and more stable perspective. Britain needed a Monarch, in a way, to allow the Parliament to function far more effectively. It was a pillar of stability. Alone it was unreasonable and could be dangerous. But in concert with an empassioned Parliament, it cast just the right balance. Hence, the experience of the Cromwellian Republic forever cast in the British temperment a healthy respect for the Institution of the Monarchy.
Clever.
Now we come to journalism in the United States.
Our nation, perhaps unlike any nation that has ever existed before, is as much run, defacto, by the Media as it is by our elected legislators. It might not be too unfair to say that the position of the media in fact has vast sway over the kind of government we get, our perception of foreign policy, domestic policy, the economy and so on. The very foundation of our goverment is in fact predicated on the notion of a well informed electorate; otherwise what is the point of a voting democracy? (note: First Amendment).
But when the voice of the media and thus of public discourse and public information is also married to the vicissituedes solely of the marketplace, does this place our democracy in danger?
We may, in the next few years, see the very disappearance of newspapers from many American cities and towns. The economics of the marketplace will simply no longer be able to support them. Television news may follow suit. There may be a new incarnation on the web… or there may not be. This remains to be seen.
By the same token, that which does make air, or make print, will increasingly be driven by baseline market demand. The cushion that once existed for newspapers, in the form of classifieds, car ads, house ads, want ads and so on has now been stripped away by the web. It is a naked news and nothing less.
At a conference I attended in Bristol, England last month, Paul Dacre, Editor of The Daily Mail, a very popular tabloid made a strong case for ‘shock news’. It is, he said, the only way to sell papers. Fox News in the US is no different. This is a business.
But it is also a business that is more than a business. It carries with it the concept of ‘the public good’ and ‘an informed electorate’.
There was a time when that responsibility rested firmly, (if tenderly) in the hands of a few families, the Sulzbergers, the Grahams, Bill Paley and David Sarnoff. They understood their responsibility to balance businesss with public service.
Those days are either over or rapidly drawing to a close.
And what will we be left with? A naked market driven information place…. The 21st Century equivalent of Cromwell’s Republic, but with ROI replace le roi, so to speak.
This is not healthy. This is not good for America.
Thus, perhaps we should start to think of creating a kind of separate and non-market driven countervailing force in the world of journalism. One that exists not to replace the Fox News or Today Show of the world, but to provide a stable pillar of quality journalism. A benchmark. An alternative that is not driven by ratings or the passions of the moment.
It is true we have both NPR and PBS, but both are woefully underfunded, and in the case of PBS, so badly constructed from its birth as to be almost stillborn.
Perhaps what we really need in this country is a kind of BBC; free of ratings and a haven for the best journalists in the nation (as Harvard tenure, for example… ), where they can work unthreatened by layoffs or cutbacks. A place where television, newspaper and online journalism might flourish at its best; and provide a ‘safe haven’ for the information we so desperately need to function effectively.
It would cost us, but far far less than we spend on so many other goverment ‘programs’ that deliver so far less.
It might be the best investment we could make with a small percentage of our tax dollars. Something that would return a thousand fold.
You might, for the moment, think that you can depend upon The New York Times. But in this world, there is no guarantee that the vagaries of the marketplace might not place that newspaper ‘on the block’, the same place Charles I found himself 360 years ago, this month.
10 Comments
Pingback: Finally | Finally Friday - An Emotional Memorial Week
steve punter January 03, 2009
and please
knock off
the ‘e’
in precis
steve punter January 03, 2009
“The English”… soon realised the need for a monarchy…
I precise
as politely as
I can
as
we recover from
the holidays
here
on my small island
with your phrasing
Taliban?
perhaps
a little
too broad sworded
for our times
The English learnt …
for their pains
and for their troubles
during our civil war
Cheap shirted
sans coulotte
our labouring
peasants
my ancestors
our poor
Chopsticks
as William Cobbett
my hero
would say
All those
unpressed
unread
unschooled
who went
against
to fight
a king’s divine right
To tell them
what to think
The English….
Soon
discovered
how…
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
a century before it was written down
in your land
depends on which part
of a larger battle field
you hold your weapons
and stand on
They
lost
the Diggers
the Levellers
that’s
all
Michael
you
have media barons
And a media monarch
King Rupert
the First
to cash
in
already
why swap that majesty
for the
BBC
or
a
USBBC
when
for £4.5 billion
a year
all you get
back
is a monastery
Keep the faith
‘cos your money
spent
on
your media king
will only bring
you
costume bonnets
sci-fi
some shock-less jocks
and dancing
and news
that moves to the centre
chasing Fox
every time
it matters
No my friend
and I say this sweetly
let the old die peacefully
Do what you do best
Make citizen
publishers
poets
of us all
with warmest regards
ever
Dan Hayes January 02, 2009
i must say michael, i normally agree with most of the stuff you post here but not today.
competition
i agree that competition can be a bit of a double edged sword but let’s be honest here, bleeds it leads will always be with us. it always has been. it’s important to recognize the good that comes from competition. it provides incentive for journalists to go after stories that aren’t being told. it leads to innovative approaches to storytelling. most importantly competition provides consumers more choice, which is a GREAT thing. if you don’t like o’reilly and fox news, stick with npr and the times. or avoid the big guys altogether. go to rosenblumtv to get inside information from an industry expert who writes and distributes his thoughts outside of mainstream altogether.
government
this section is particularly troubling. “a haven for the best journalists in the nation (as Harvard tenure, for example… ), where they can work unthreatened by layoffs or cutbacks.”
who decides who the best journalists are anyway? the government? the same federal government that created the mess in iraq? the same federal government responsible for medicare, medicaid and social security? the same federal government that’s bailing out financial institutions and the auto industry? you want these people to be in a position to make decisions about which journalist i shoud listen to? no thanks, i can figure that out myself.
faster, lighter, quicker
consolidating resources in one quasi-government entity would be a contradiction to everything you’ve advocated for over the years. the lighter cameras, lights and other gear allow for one man crews to head out and tell stories. whether working as a VJ for a paper, for network news or just as concerned citizen x. that’s the BEST PART about what’s going on right now. any one with a knack for storytelling, a good eye and a couple thousand bucks can get out and make something. and now they can DISTRIBUTE it as well. how exciting! people can bring camera’s in places they’ve never been before (think of sadaam’s hanging etc.) we’re entering an amazing era of proliferation of choice for consumers. a move toward consolidation could work against that movement by de-legitimizing citizen and VJ docs that are posted online. the newspaper industry, the government, the major networks and all of the people helping to shape the media landscape should encourage this type of engagement to add legitimacy to web 2.0 and user generated content. it would promote all kinds of new ideas and important conversations that might be otherwise ignored.
obama
to his credit obama’s use of new media and video on the web was extraordinary. he continues to use it in his excellent transition to power series online. he’s already made the weekly radio address into a weekly web video. smart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy6aBVdOCg8 114,000 people who might not have listened to the address on the radio watched online. that’s engagement. they also ask for letters from citizens on issues that are important to them. viewers then create short videos with ideas or send in letters and the obama team reads back some of the good suggestions and talks about how they are hoping to incorporate the citizens ideas into obama’s policies. at the end of the day are the viewers really making policy for obama, no, but they are engaged in way that they haven’t been in years and i think that’s an extremely valuable thing.
depth, layers and choice
i think the key to the new media landscape is providing more choices and more ways to engage the consumer. say you have one very good story that’s worthy of a good 5 minute documentary style video. you need to repackage your content in several ways so that consumers can decide how little or how much they care to engage your idea/story. this means a one sentence TWEET on twitter, a headline and sub head on a website, a blog post with a short summary, a 30 second promo video with some sexy/interesting soundbites, the full five minute doc and a couple longer interviews with subjects of the documentary to supplement the original piece for those who can’t get enough of the story.
as you can see i feel pretty strongly about this. anyhow, take it for what it’s worth and thanks for making me look at things in a different way. i really appreciate your blog and your work.
dan hayes…
Shep January 02, 2009
PBS is definitely set up to fail. You have so many different ways of setting up members, and more than one members in each market. It’s just a crapshoot.
Kevin Oldham January 02, 2009
Why would we want to create another publicly funded media outlet? It would seem to me that “grass root” programing/reporting (with free access to the cable/airwaves) would be less obligated to any funding “master” (corporate or public funding). But, as in any source of information, what is credible/reliable? One person’s truth is another person’s untruth.
Cliff Etzel January 02, 2009
Avery, if your definition of the programming on PBS and NPR is dribble – what do you call what passes for mainstream commercial broadcast programming? At least here in Oregon, OPB has some of the finest programming I’ve ever watched – one of the only reasons I still watch what little TV I do.
I agree with Michael – a U.S. equivalent of the BBC would do this country some good from a broadcast TV standpoint. Nothing to speak of is worth watching these days that actually informs except what I’ve seen on PBS.
Peter Ralph January 01, 2009
King Rosenblum the First?
It has a certain ring to it…
rosenblumtv January 01, 2009
Not to worry Avery. That’s what a free press is all about! 🙂
Avery January 01, 2009
Michael, please “don’t piss down my back and tell me its raining†because when I hear folks telling me how good it would be if the Government could step in and make things right… well, I know, and history has shown, that its about to get ugly and we are all going to be little less free.
This is America, not Britain, not Holland or whatever socialist country you care to name. There was a day when Americans didn’t want Government involved in much of anything. For me, thats the way I believe it should be but unfortunately I’m starting to feel kind of lonely these days in this regard.
The “media’s†customers are going away, why is that? Because thats what happens in a free society when you no longer provide goods or a service that people want.
Who the hell wants more of the dribble that PBS or NPR have to offer? Michael, you say they are “Under fundedâ€- come on, most of what they produce is crap, Government subsidized CRAP.
The news papers and the media (in general) are in trouble because they have become infested with hard core, agenda driven liberals and people have had enough, simple as that.
This Country voted for “change†and we are sure going to get it. Let the “change†begin!
Avery
Hey Michael, I understand one of my segments will air on “What’s Your Trip†this Saturday on Travel Channel. That is very cool, hope my free market views wont disqualify for consideration for future broadcasts : )