May 13, 2024

Krugman on the Media

Krugman strikes again. The following is ridiculous on various levels:

A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view-something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."

First, the percentage of persons in the US who sought out the BBC for news of the war had to have been minuscule at best (and I likely overestimate). Second, I try of this ongoing tirade of many on the left who give bemoaning the lack of media diversity and especially the shrill, and empirically ridiculous, claim that because of big business, we in the US have less access to mass media.

I keep hearing this argument: that big corporate ownership of broadcast media is squelching voices and cutting down on our news options. This is utter poppycock. Let us take a quick trip down memory lane, shall we? When I was in elementary school in the 1970s, there were only the Big Three broadcast networks for TV news, and the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour. By the time I was in the middle school through to early grad school (the 1980s through to the mid-to-late 1990s) there were the Big Three, The New Hour with Jim Lehrer, and CNN. Just about the time I earned my doctorate (in 96), Fox News, CNBC and MSNBC either premiered or became widely available on cable systems. Not to mention that at the same time the explosion of the internet (that allows me to easily and conveniently read, and be annoyed by, Krugam’s column) provided a plethora of information options.

There is also, the great “Clear Channel Bugaboo” thesis that argues that talk radio is monolithically conservative because of corporate bias, and that in some mythic past there was more diversity on the radio. More nonsense: I have been an avid “information radio” listener since at least 4th grade, where the only news radio of any kind, beyond simple headlines was NPR. Indeed, in the late 1970s AM radio was in its final death-throes for music as FM had fully established itself, but AM had not yet gone the newtalk route en masse. In the 1980s in the Los Angeles market, AM talk-radio was either the 24-hour headline variety or local talk radio shows-and there weren’t a lot of options-even when I moved back to Texas in 1990, the local radio scene was fairly limited. The death of the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-80s, and the success of Rush Limbaugh, especially in the very late 80s and early 90s, led to an explosion of talk radio programs. There is far more on the radio to listen to today in the talk-genre than there was even ten years ago, and twenty years ago there wasn’t much at all. And the reason that conservative shows dominate is because they garner the ratings-plain and simple. I doubt Clear Channel, or any other media corporation gives a rat’s rear end as to the ideological predilections of the hosts, so long as they make money for the corp-which is why the durn things exist in the first place. Indeed, talk radio demonstrates the power of the market and of profit. Ditto (if you will pardon the term) cable tv news.

In short (ok, not so short), where is all this lack of news option that so many on the left seem to be concerned about?

And if Krugman thinks that major media in the US kowtow to the government, he hasn’t been watching the same stuff I have been watching.

Posted by Steven at May 13, 2024 08:06 AM | TrackBack
Comments

So, out of curiosity, what have you been watching? I think Krugman is right; when I wanted a broader, less hyperbolic perspective on the war, I turned to foreign news sources, mostly via the Internet. Not just the BBC, but the various Arab news sources, as well as Japan, Singapore and India. Again, that's the Internet. Our local NPR station also broadcast a BBC radio newshow after 10pm. On television, C-Span offered a BBC morning show for awhile.

But you misunderstand Krugman and other liberal critics of media. For one thing, they are talking mostly about television, where most Americans get their news. Yet even when talking about radio, they have a point. Saying that conservative voices dominate radio because they are more popular elides certain trends of the not-so-free market: mass production of a sure-thing generates more of the same (Rush begets all the rest); the simpler and more conflict-oriented, the more entertaining; they're cheap and easy; this particular market has a dedicated, fervent audience. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. But not very reliable sources of information or informed perspective. Mostly just sound and fury.

Similar dynamics are at work on television. Consult the recent New Yorker pieces by Nancy Franklin (while reviewing a PBS documentary series she discusses the problem with American war coverage—pictures and fury, if you will) and Ken Auletta's profile of Roger Ailes (not available online, but here is a Q&A with Auletta for further perspective). Auletta covers the monkey see-monkey do effect of FOXNews on the other cable news channels, especially MSNBC, which is currently trying to outFOX FOX; but even stodgy CNN is not immune, incorporating dumbed down swoosh effects and simplified news coverage. Meanwhile the old network news broadcasts offer only 22 minutes every evening, not enough time to cover issues in-depth, or the patronizing, idiotized magazine shows like Dateline. So there may be more choices, but, frankly, the choices suck.

Like Eric Alterman, I don't have a problem with FOXNews being a conservative news resource. In fact, I think it's great that it is so strident. It would be nice if other political perspectives were so stridently and unapologetically represented.

Posted by: Kevin Moore at May 25, 2024 01:18 PM

Oh, and: Nice site, by the way. I'll keep checking back. :)

Posted by: Kevin Moore at May 25, 2024 01:19 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?