The BBC posted a story yesterday detailing how the BBC Trust's Editorial Standards Committee plans to review the station's news coverage of the Arab Spring in order to "ensure that it maintains the high standard of impartiality and accuracy that audiences expect." According to the article, the review will content analysis, audience research and interviews with interested parties.
My reaction to reading this story was that one of envy. When was the last time there was a serious, substantive review of American news media and the recommendations are actually taken on board? My feeling is that there would be an incredible opportunity to improve the quality of journalism in the United States.
Now before I go too fare down a naive and idealistic path regarding the media, there are obvious differences between the United States and the United Kingdom that would prevent a similar review from happening here. Firstly, the BBC, in spite of a large degree of autonomy, is still a government institution and thus, subject to the rules and regulations the government requires. Secondly, the constitutional right to freedom of the press would present significant governance questions to instituting a similar review process of private news media in the States.
That said, the "outrage" following Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction forced congress to act and consider new legislation governing what is considered appropriate television. Congress is not above mediating the media and has therefore set a precedent in this area. A substantive, unbiased review of national media in the United States is as least as important to the future of American youth as preventing them from seeing Janet Jackson exposed.
What do you all think? Am I wrong? Would this work here in the US?
Interesting topic, Evan. I do think the media here could do well from an internal review and recommendations. However, I don't think any sort of government influence will ever be possible.
ReplyDeleteYou're aware that the BBC is a public media empire, and thus, the government oversees and ensures that the public interest is served -- blah blah blah. I won't bore you, because you know all of this.
But for the U.S., I don't think such a review would ever happen for our media, because of our strict rules with the First Amendment and freedom of the press.
Janet Jackson's "nipplegate" incident caused such an uproar mostly because it occurred on a major television network, during the single-most watched event of the year, during the so-called "Safe Harbor" viewing period. You know, the Safe Harbor... it's that thing when parents should be with their children monitoring what they watch, but instead, they'll allow young children to watch television freely, and expect the FCC to police naughty words and strong innuendo. ;-)
The FCCs main areas of interest are things that utilize the spectrum to deliver to the public, so, things like television and radio are under much tighter regulations than the print media. And now, with the lines becoming blurred between what is "broadcast" news, versus what is "print," it is becoming even harder to regulate content.
The resources needed to do any sort of substantial, worthwhile review of the media are staggering, so I don't think the media will ever take a project like this on board.
In short, for the U.S., a content review and recommendations is a pipe dream.
David R
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. You're absolutely right, the way in which the system is set up, it is wildly unlikely that any sort of government review of the news media could ever happen in the United States.
This addresses a running theme that I've noticed in my posts is a general dissatisfaction with the quality of journalism on television today. Even the journalists that I consider to provide the most thoughtful and well-researched articles. While I agree with you, let me take this conversation a little further for the sake of debate:
The fact is, due to private control of the news media, editors are not looking for these stories, they're looking for the stories that grab the public attention. They need viewers, readers, etc. in order to satisfy their advertisers and so the goal is no longer to provide news, but to provide a product in of itself.
If FOX News received information that they could double their profits with a liberal agenda as opposed to the aggressively conservative one they operate under currently, you can bet that Roger Ailes would be the first one in a "Yes We Can" t-shirt for President Obama's reelection.
In other words, FOX News and the news media in general look at broadcast journalism as a type of market. If considered in this context, then it is reasonable to argue that other markets are regulated reasonably without infringement on constitutional rights, shouldn't the news media?
To a minimal extent, free speech is already regulated. You cannot incite violence or yell "fire" in a crowded cinema for example. This illustrates how speech can be regulated without infringing on individual's rights. An independent body could be tasked with a watchdog role, looking at the quality of the journalism and making recommendations with regard to balanced reporting and demarcation of editorial comment.
The counter arguments to that whole train of thought are obvious, as are the inherent dangers of a 1984 type scenario that could evolve from such a body.
In the end, we all have to take responsibility for the information we consume. The frustration lies in that we cannot be asked to make good decisions with incomplete or inaccurate information.
This all leads me to conclude that this entire response turned into a circular argument that could have easily been summed up in four words: I agree with David.