The Media's Fault?

"This whole thing is only a big deal because the media made it so!" How many times have you seen a similar post on social media in the last few weeks? I spent some 40 years working in the media, I teach college Mass Comm. And I have a few thoughts on this notion.

First of all, who would prefer to not have the modern media? Who would prefer to have the media report only the stories that you would want them to report? I'm hoping both responses would be "Not me".

Secondly, ask yourself something. When you hear someone refer to the media, what comes to your mind? Network news organizations like NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and CNN? Local news stations? Do you include social media? How about newspapers and their websites and their social outreach? In a world with the internet, the definition of "the media" is ever-changing. It means different things to different people. For the sake of this essay, let's talk about the major television network news organizations.

Some of the complaints I see would indicate there's a general notion that the media acts in concert...that they collude on the way they will approach a subject and treat whatever that subject might be in the same way. Why would they do that if they want to separate themselves from their competitors?

Then others seem to think that one political party, or unidentified supreme leader somewhere, is directing the media to act in a certain way and report only what that entity wants reported...and how to report it. To that notion I say..."Poppycock!" Just ask the President. He doesn't believe that for a second. Our country's elected-leader makes no secret that he doesn't have that sort of control. I suppose he may believe somebody else does. If that's true, then there's somebody more powerful than the President calling the shots. Just who would that be?

The media, collectively not individually, in our constitutionally-guided government, are not controlled by anyone, or any political philosophy. Rather they are focused on the drive for profit. They have legal guidelines to live by. But freedom of the press is still in effect. Challenging the way the government operates, no matter who's in charge, is a constitutional protection for all of us. Thank goodness that keeping an eye on governmental and societal subjects is still done for a profit by the television networks. That incentive seems to be disappearing at the local market level. Organizational approaches to making a profit are varied with some depending on a certain political slant. Most of us are savvy enough to know that.

Additionally, the media, and how they operate, are possibly one of the least-organized major forces in our modern world. We have multiple companies, not as many as before the Telecommunications Act of 1996...but still multiple, operating with a myriad of philosophies on how to make their platform profitable. Some of the major network operations, and to some extent local news departments, could be accused of being copycats; but to say they conspire to present stories in a certain way would be giving them far too much credit. These companies don't have the time or inclination to share their expertise with competitors. And if they were to be caught doing so, I'm sure the FTC and/or FCC would be having some hearings on it.

Regarding the coronavirus reportage we have seen at the network and local-market levels, for the most part, we have seen a serious attempt to report a public-safety story that has major life-and-death consequences for many of us. What could be questioned is the way it has been reported. The networks seized an opportunity presented to them to increase ratings by a bit of sensationalizing. No doubt about that. At the same time, would anyone have preferred that the networks back page a story like this? What if someone in government had told, no ordered, the networks to soft-pedal the coronavirus spread until it came to the United States for fear of causing panic...and they actually obeyed? That could happen in some countries. The virus would have been much more of a threat to kill millions...just like the Spanish flu did in 1918 when the country wasn't served by the instant mass and social media of today. This pandemic could have sneaked up on the populace like thousands of Jack-the-Rippers. Give that some thought.

If one needs convincing about how disorganized, politically-diverse, unfocused, and often superficial, a television network news operation can be, the recent hit movie Bombshell could give some insight. The 2019 drama, a faux-documentary, provides a behind-the-scenes account of the goings on at the Fox network during the Roger Ailes sexual-harassment episode. If the script is anywhere close to reality, you will come away with the notion that there are multiple personal agendas at cross-purposes operating at the major networks at all times. This would seem reasonable considering the egos at play at that level and the big dollars over which the players are wrestling. Agreeing on how to treat a major news story, even internally, sometimes takes a back seat on the bus. Saying that these companies are in cahoots as to what stories they cover and how they're presented doesn't take into account their chaotic inner-workings. Journalism often is only as good as the journalist whose momentarily in charge.

Next time someone thinks the media is to blame for a societal problem, that person should give some thought to how their great-grandparents managed to survive without the services of the mass media we have today. Many of us are darn lucky to be alive considering that.