News media (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements. |
See also: Media bias in the United States
Media are the means through which information is transmitted to a large audience. This includes newspapers, television, radio, and more recently the internet. Those which provide news and information are known as the news media.
Several high quality news media organizations exist in the United States. However, some critics suggest they are undermined by lower quality media, which do not satisfactorily provide information and critical analysis. Others argue that the news media are simply catering to public demand. The role of the government funded media is small in the US in comparison to the public media in other comparable countries.
Contents |
[edit] Structure of US news media
The American media is essentially made up of profit-making enterprises. There is also a public news service, which is called the Public Broadcasting Service or PBS. In the United States, profit-making media dominate, and the PBS is a minor provider of media output.
[edit] Private sector news media
There are widely available press publications which are generally considered detailed, high quality publications. There are several newspapers, such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the International Herald Tribune, as well as news magazines such as Time and Newsweek. They often keep editorial opinions in separate columns from news. However, they generally carry little international news compared to the practice in other countries.
Major providers of television news:
Major newspapers include:
Major news magazines:
[edit] Public sector news media
The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is a non-profit public broadcasting television service with 349 member TV stations in the United States. PBS was founded in 1969, at which time it took over many of the functions of its predecessor, National Educational Television (NET).
PBS is funded more by charitable donations than by the government. It is responsible for a relatively small portion of US media output. There also exists a non-profit-making radio network.
The United States differs greatly from other countries, especially in Europe, in that the public service broadcasting is very limited. In many countries (e.g. United Kingdom, France) public sector broadcasting is highly respected and is considered to provide high quality news information and analysis.
[edit] The profit motive and "Infotainment"
US private media is profit-driven, as academics such as McKay, Jamieson, and Hudson have observed. For the private media, profits are dependent on viewing figures, regardless of whether the viewers found the programs adequate or outstanding. The strong profit-making incentive of the American media leads them to seek a simplified format and uncontroversial position which will be adequate for the largest possible audience. The market mechanism only rewards numbers of viewers, not how informed the viewers were, how good the analysis was, or how impressed they were.
According to some, the profit-driven quest for high numbers of viewers, rather than high quality for viewers, has resulted in a slide from serious news and analysis to entertainment:
"Imitating the rhythm of sports reports, exciting live coverage of major political crises and foreign wars was now available for viewers in the safety of their own homes. By the late-1980s, this combination of information and entertainment in news programmes was known as infotainment." [Barbrook, Media Freedom, (London, Pluto Press, 1995) part 14]
[edit] Simplified structure of news reports
Kathleen Jamieson notes that most television news stories are made to fit into one of five categories[1] :
- Appearance versus reality
- Little guys versus big guys
- Good versus evil
- Efficiency versus inefficiency
- Unique and bizarre events versus ordinary events.
In these five categories, we see a tendency towards an unrealistic black/white mentality, in which the media simplifies the world into comfortingly easily understood opposites.
In such cases the media provides an over-simplified skeleton of information which is more easily commercialised.
[edit] Alleged effects on elections
Various critics, particularly Hudson, have shown concern at the link between the news media reporting and what they see as the trivialised nature of American elections.
Hudson [2] argues that America’s news media elections damage the democratic process.
He argues that elections are centered on candidates, whose advancement depends on funds, personality and sound-bites, rather than serious political discussion or policies offered by parties. His argument is that it is on the media which Americans are dependent for information about politics (this is of course true almost by definition) and that they are therefore greatly influenced by the way the media report, which concentrates on short sound-bites, gaffes by candidates, and scandals. The reporting of elections avoids complex issues or issues which are time-consuming to explain. Of course, important political issues are generally both complex and time-consuming to explain, so are avoided.
Hudson blames this style of media coverage, at least partly, for trivialised elections:
"The bites of information voters receive from both print and electronic media are simply insufficient for constructive political discourse… candidates for office have adjusted their style of campaigning in response to this tabloid style of media coverage… modern campaigns are exercises in image manipulation... Elections decided on sound bites, negative campaign commercials, and sensationalised exposure of personal character flaws provide no meaningful direction for government". [3]
[edit] US public attitudes to news media
Research suggests that most Americans do believe the news that they receive through the media, but with reservations[4] :
"[Americans] say they can believe most, but not all of what national news organizations say… [But] upwards of 20% say they disbelieve much or all of the news delivered by many national news outlets." [Source: The Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press [5]]
If the American public are conscious of the need to consider media output as not necessarily true, the potential for them to be led astray by misleading media reporting is presumably much lower.
[edit] Agenda-setting
An important role which is often ascribed to the media is that of agenda-setter. Wasserman describes this as "putting together an agenda of national priorities- what should be taken seriously, what lightly, what not at all". Wasserman calls this "the most important political function the media perform." [6] Agenda-setting theory was propounded by McCombs and Shaw in the 1970s, and suggests that the public agenda is dictated by the media agenda.
[edit] Agenda-setting in domestic politics
In a commercialised media context, the media can often not afford to ignore an important issue which another television station, newspaper, or radio station is willing to pick up. The media may be able to create new issues by reporting what should be taken seriously, but it is not so obvious how they can suppress issues by reporting that they should not be taken seriously. If people are affected by high crime rates, or unemployment, for instance, the media can reduce the time they report on such problems in comparison to other issues, but they cannot reduce the direct effects of these problems on the lives of the public. The media cannot make the problem go away by ignoring it, but the public can go away to another media source, so it is in the media interest to try to find an agenda which corresponds as closely as possible to peoples’ lives. They may not be entirely successful, but the agenda-setting potential of the media is considerably limited by the commercial competition for viewers, readers and listeners. It is difficult to see, for instance, how an issue which is a major story to one television station could be ignored by other television stations.
Different US media sources tend to identify the same major stories in domestic politics, which strongly implies that the media are prioritising issues according to an exogenous set of criteria.
[edit] Agenda-setting in foreign policy
The only way in which the media can be expected to be able to set the agenda is if it is in an area in which very few Americans have direct experience of the issues. This applies to foreign policy. When American military personnel are involved, the media needs to report, because the personnel are related to the American public. The media is also likely to have an interest in reporting issues with major direct effects on American workers, such as major trade agreements with Mexico. In other cases, it is difficult to see how the media can be prevented from setting the foreign policy agenda.
In practice, the American media appears to "set" the foreign policy agenda by ignoring foreign policy as much as possible, if the US is not very heavily involved. McKay lists as one of the three main distortions of information by the media "Placing high priority on American news to the detriment of foreign news. And when the US is engaged in military action abroad, this 'foreign news' crowds out other foreign news". [7]
[edit] US media coverage of Iraq
Concerns have been raised of insufficiently critical coverage of the activities of US forces in Iraq. However, the argument has also been made that coverage has been unfair to US forces, and has failed to send a message adequately supportive of US forces.
[edit] Suggestions of insufficiently critical media coverage
Some critics suggest that the US news media is extremely reluctant to criticise the conduct of American soldiers, for fear of upsetting their viewers and thus losing profits. This could hypothetically keep certain concerns over soldiers' conduct off the US political agenda.
Thus it has been often reported in European media, including countries involved in operations in Iraq, that a large minority of American soldiers and marines in Iraq have been able to behave irresponsibly in Iraq, causing unnecessary deaths of civilians. At the same time, many believe that US forces have come under little US media scrutiny, except in the most extreme cases.
Even in the most extreme cases, such as the Haditha massacre, US media coverage has been considerably less than in European countries such as the United Kingdom. This is especially the case during the early stage when the massacre was a rumour. At this early point, the rumour was rejected by the US media.
The killing of Nicola Calipari by an American soldier, which Italian prosecutors are now classifying murder, received US media coverage because the victim was an Italian Major-General. However the killing fits a pattern of widespread unprovoked fatal incidents which has been suggested by most of the mainstream European media for some time (e.g. among many others, in the British Guardian newspaper and French Le Monde newspaper).
Another example of such a killing is the killing of British reporter Terry Lloyd, who was (according to the report of the British coroner hearing the inquest into his death) unlawfully killed by US marines in Iraq.
[edit] Suggestions of too critical media coverage
Some critics believe that, on the contrary, the US media have been too critical of US forces. Rick Mullen, a former journalist, Vietnam veteran, and US Marine Corps reserve officer, has suggested that US media coverage has been unfair, and has failed to send a message adequately supportive of US forces. Mullen calls for a lesser reporting of transgressions by US forces (condemning "American media pouncing on evey transgression"), and a more extensive reporting of US forces' positive actions, which Mullen feels are inadequately reported (condemning the media for "ignoring the legions of good and noble deeds by US and coalition forces"). Mullen compares critical media reports to the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
"I have got used to our American media pouncing on every transgression by US Forces while ignoring the legions of good and noble deeds performed by US and coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan... This sort of thing is akin to the evening news focusing on the few bad things that happen in Los Angeles or London and ignoring the millions of good news items each day... I am sure that you are aware that it is not the enemy's objective to defeat us on the battlefield but to defeat our national will to prevail. That battle is fought in the living rooms of America and England and the medium used is the TV news and newspapers. The enemy is not stupid. As on 9/11, they plan to use our "systems" against us, the news media being the most important "system" in their pursuit to break our national will." [Rick Mullen, Letter to The Times, June 5 2006] [8]
[edit] Arguments in defense of highly commercialized news media
If the media are trying to dumb down news in order to increase viewers, and are trying to provide adequate news to a large audience rather than quality news to a smaller audience, the media are, undoubtedly, responding to popular demand. When most people watch lower quality television news rather than reading high quality papers, most people will receive a lower quality of news information.
The overwhelming majority of Americans do have access to high quality news publications, and choose instead to get information through lower quality news media.
The media is not necessarily creating a situation where news is trivial but perhaps, at least in part, responding to the existence of that situation. It is extremely difficult to ascertain to what extent the demand for lower quality news comes from the public a priori, and to what extent the media are themselves conditioning people to demand such news.
In a country such as the United States, people have the freedom to demand whatever type of information they want.
Some critics suggest that it is ultimately not the responsibility of enterprises to address any problems in the provision of information that the market mechanism might produce.
[edit] References
- ^ Kathleen Jamieson, The interplay of influence, (Belmont, London, Wadsworth, 2000)
- ^ Hudson, American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future (Washington, D.C., CQ Press, 2004)
- ^ Hudson, American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future (Washington, D.C., CQ Press, 2004) pp 195-6
- ^ Internet News Takes Off, The Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press, http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=88
- ^ Internet News Takes Off, The Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press, http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=88
- ^ Wasserman, Basics of American Politics (London, Longman, 2003) p. 234
- ^ McKay, American Politics & Society (Oxford, Blackwell, 2005) pg 144
- ^ This source can also be found online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2210973.html
