Roger replied to my Media Bias post with a very interesting position. Interesting enough that my response because a post in itself that I wanted to share.
well, my position is that the media is really in the service of global capital. People may think it is unbiased, or that it is too liberal or whatever. The problem isn’t in its ideology, per se–but in the way it focuses on particular problems and elevates particular ideas to the expense of others. And almost always, this is why people don’t really see the protests happening everyday against Iraq and against the way the War on Terror is being run, this is done in the service of keeping the global media conglomerates making money. So, what we need isn’t an unbiased news source–this is absolutely impossible–what we need is to democratize news making. To make it absolutely obvious that what we see when people report the news is always seen through a particular eye. I think that projects such as indynews.org–where anyone can send a report in and be shown on an international web site is probably where we need to go. Not in the direction of unbiased news, but in the direction of a news that is brought to us by people aware of and giving their positionality as limited human beings with biases.
I agree with Roger to the extent that, fundamentally the main stream press is in the business to entertain as much as they are in the business to inform. Profit seeking news outlets must attract visitors to stay in business and as such have a tendency to promote news stories that attract the most attention. Protests,foreign relations, and foreign news do not generally interest people as much as,say… how many husbands JLO has had. I don’t, however, believe there is anything wrong (or for that matter immoral) with seeking profit, attracting visitors, or being a “global media conglomerate.”
Democratizing the news making process sounds like a fairly positive way to diversify the news coverage. It can be a useful tool for expanding amount of news that people have access to. In fact, fundamentally the Internet has created this very condition. It has expanded the amount of information available to people and has give many people (who would not otherwise be able to) a vehicle for presenting their positionality as a limited human being with biases. This blog is proof of that functionality. This open, cheep, and widely available publishing agent has freed people from the condition of “having” to get their news from a few select organizations that have the financial capabilities to provide daily news from around the world. And the world is better off for this.
The downside of democratizing news (or information for that matter) is “noise.” Democracy, in any form, is inherently inefficient. There is tons of duplication, waist, and just plain bad information. While inefficiency is a small price to pay for democracy (especially in the entity that has the most power to control our everyday lives, i.e. government), it has a cost non-the-less. Most people who use the net are easily aware of the diverse and abundant amount information available to them on the Internet. The problem isn’t that the information exists but that its so difficult to get the specific information you need.
Another side effect of democratizing news is that the people presenting news have a tendency to be attracted to those “publishers” to which they have something in common with. You invariable get groups of news outlets with similar topics, opinions, and biases. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it does mean that to get a broad and balanced overview of the news you will have to use multiple sources. In this environment even mainstream news outlets have their place. They work as a kind of reference point for people’s news gathering campaign. It is my guess that even Roger visits NPR or the New York Times once in a while.
I guess my point is that the “democratize news making” process has already begun. It is not a goal for the future but a process that must be refined in the present. Its existence does not negate the usefulness of the “global media conglomerate”, but it does negate the “need” for people to depend on it. And just like democracy in our government, the responsibility of taking advantage of these alternative news sources falls on individuals.