An interesting article from Al-Jazeera on media bias and the US electoral campaign has propelled me to write this article on the media and the faux débat of public versus private sector owned media. The 30 minute documentary is here below:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/09/elections-media-160916141606631.html
First of all, public media is not superior than privately own media. In the second case, we have indeed saw a massive concentration of press and media in the last few decades. This has been seen everywhere. France has now a concentration of it's printed press (the press is equivalent to the Church in this country of secularism) who is mostly in the private sector, but from all political spheres. Same deal with Jeff Bezos and it's recent acquisition of the Washington post. That's an expensive blog you got there Jeff! But I guess if you want to compete against the FANGS of this world, you need to invade yet another business that makes very little money...
That's one of the weird thing here. Old school media is dying. It is making less and less revenues as more people are leaving the printed paper and now even the cable tubes. And yet those high end billionaires are rushing to purchase those zombisnisses like they were heading for a brilliant and reformed future. Oligarchs and friends purchase local journals to « instigate » a breath of fresh air into the business. The concept here is that the plebs do not understand where this is going on. So here I'll explain.
The containers are getting old (paper, tv or else), and worse even, the content is frequently tainted. It is stuck in a left-right narrative that too is getting old. And so, less and less people are tuning in. The trust is also getting thin my friends. In an era where we are told that the average individual's attention span is 8 seconds (and getting shorter) our media have decided to adapt. In a pattern where clicks and views are crucial to pay your ad space, you must get snappier, sexier and simpler by the day. In a world where knowledge, data and education is getting crucial to survive the technological holocaust, a shorter attention span is a contradiction. It will have to give way at some point, and the ADDs of this world will end up in an ignorant poverty death spiral. But the news need their views. God help us all!
Mass media is trying to please lazy and specific individuals in a mass market. That is wrong and so out of this time that it makes you think. Technology normally does not replace, but ads and diversify a given sector. It does not kill the sector of disruption, it improves it. Mp3, Bitcoin, cars, or LED lamps did not replace vinyls records, gold, horses and the fireplace. But the media is not ready for disruption; it is sick.
So some might argue that the media just needs a vital rejuvenation. It needs more diversity. I will say yes, but not in the classical way. You'll see why soon enough. I write in English, but I speak French and I see daily the results of public sector's influence and results on our daily lives, including the unintended consequences of publicly owned mass media. It is not rosy! It would not correct the worsening medias of corporate America. Here are some of the quite uncool findings of mass media ownership or should I say, of owned media, whether public or private.
Mass media will always look for other mainstream media as a reference and validation accessory. The publicly owned or privately owned will mainly look for similar politically inclined colleagues that agrees with their position. If they don't invite on stage someone for their opinion, it's only to do a show out of it. You see bullying all the time on CNBC where invites are pounded for their contrarian investment strategies. Showtime baby!
If your favorite journalist only reads the New York Times to up its game, he is doing a disservice to you and himself. He is only increasing his pecking order status, not the quality of his job. Citation of a colleague who made it big in journalism gives you the credibility you crave, not the improvement of your culture. This shallow approach is the equivalent of the « likes » structure of social media... only it's even less democratic, because nobody will vote a journalist out if he sucks donkey balls writing mainstream consensus!
New media platforms is better right? Vice news and GroupM should make you reflect on the relevance of the hype media where weed is sweet and swearing makes it real. It's the trap of the newcomer that gives the impression of being the shit. See I can make it real too! The new media rarely have the experience with ethics that older generation journalism still aspires to. It has not yet screwed up... yet! Facebook or Google are no different than Disney or Comcast for it is the same business structure. The only difference between the two is the speed at which it comes to play an intrusive role in Society; it's efficiency to spy on each of us. The ownership defines the media. The structure defines the content and it's service to the reader, listener or spectator.
Media is urban and homogeneous. Very little attention is given to diversity in media, whatever is said. As 90%+ of the West lives in cities, journalists, TV analysts, and other participants in the masquerade are bread and swayed by the surroundings of their TV station or news office. They exchange with colleagues during the lunch hour and become that "culture" which is distinct from the society they are supposed to serve. I could only recommend to read the silo effect from Gillian Tett at this point. It pretty much explain why journalism is a tribe thing too. Diversity is much... so much more than what a society believes it is!
Public media is getting old. As we progress in time, the media does not seems to perform as much as we used to expect from it. I never did and probably never will see a 25 year-old anchorman. Unless it's a hot bimbo. For some media, an experienced journalist is the sign of credibility. But that experienced individual becomes part of the system as he or she grows in credibility. Like in politics or business, these people as they evolve into their position grow to believe they have status. They end up thinking they own the right to influence... or should I say are influenced into thinking they are right.
Then it gets worst even. These high-end journalists have friends too. Their friends were in the same universities cliques where they studied in their younger years. One studied law, the other studied politics, the other went into journalism. Your favorite journalist might be very good friends with that politician you hate so much. Where I'm from, the jump between journalism and politics is a natural one. Similar to public service and corporate world revolving doors, for me this is a clear demonstration: journalists are one part of a big ass system, they are the establishment.
Public media serves... government? Just examine France! As we see terror events, unemployment figures or other pessimistic news unfold, we actually see more intervention of the State to constrain the liberty of the press. It's a pain to have Charlie Hebdo make fun of Islam because you then need to send a shitload of staffers to cleanup the red spots on the white limestone of Parisian buildings. Having to report on young women being molested by groups of Muslim men is also a situation that might need to be silenced... You know, because it might create racism? In France, not one but five TV chains are publicly funded (in part). More government means more laws and regulation. The money imperative of corporate media are therefore replaced by government interests. You do as you're told or we'll cut your funding.
So here we are, the mainstream media is part of the establishment. It pats corporation and/or government on the back and gets funding back for it. In our modern lives, those with a minimum of critical thinking have seen and realized that we, the plebs are losing the game. We have less liberty today than our Grand Parents did during World War 2.
Not all is wrong in this picture though. I do listen and appreciate the BBC documentaries on Youtube. They are savvy and informative. Interesting and well made. The BBC did marvels of television art with the series of Top Gear. Brits know their shit when it comes to music and TV. But that's the point, I watch the BBC on Youtube... The classical model is over. In a world of over 200% debt to GDP, public balance sheets and where big studios are running a hacking marathon against torrents (good luck with that), the mainstream model will eventually die a horrible death. Like many other things we today take for granted and overvalue.
Classical economist and liberal thinkers showed us that liberty of the press is paramount for a free society. In a world where freedom has been sacrificed during decades for the equal opportunity dogma and special interest, the only way to access more equality is to get our liberty back. There is no way around. And so I truly believe that the future is not a left or a right wing spectrum media. It's not a public or privately owned media. In the 21st century that I know, Liberty of the press is... no press at all... It's a none centralized and free of special interest media. It's an everybody's media. It's a place where crappy information and rhetoric is numerous, but also has a hard time from the majority of readers. That might be a more difficult environment, but it's the challenge of living with others. And so, SteemIt is the future bitches!
