As "New Media" Proliferate, Does Government Have a Role?

by: Gloria Goodale  |  The Christian Science Monitor

As "New Media" Proliferate, Does Government Have a Role?
(Photo: stephenjohnbryde)

Los Angeles — When former Washington Post reporter Sarah Cohen appeared at a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC), hearing on the role of government in modern journalism, she admits to being nervous.

“I'd never testified at one before and I also didn't know whether they would like what I had to say,” says the Duke University journalism professor.

That tension between government and the so-called fourth estate, or the news media, is at the heart of a mounting war of words in the blogosphere as well as in print and broadcast over when, where, why and how lawmakers should interact – some say meddle – with today's swiftly changing news environment.

As traditional print and broadcast outlets have continued to dwindle at historic rates and so-called “new media” such as blogs and web-only news sites proliferate, the FTC has convened a task force on how government “can help,” with a series of public input meetings, ending June 15. At the same time, in May, Michigan Senator Bruce Patterson introduced a bill to create a state registry for journalists, which he hopes would give the public a means for verifying reporter’s qualifications and credentials.

The outcry over both has been swift and pointed.

Government Involvement a "Chilling Effect'?

“A government agency even having the discussion has a chilling effect,” says Jason Stverak, president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, adding that the foundation of the nation’s democracy rests on the notion of a watchdog press, unregulated by the very institutions it is expected to monitor.

He dubs any official list vouching for a reporter’s “moral character,” as the Michigan law would, nothing less than an attempt to disenfranchise a new class of online citizen journalists who lack official affiliations.

Adds Villanova University media expert, Leonard Shyles, “I’m not interested in having a state board decide who’s accurate. Let the marketplace decide, because I’m going to believe Joe Schmoe after I corroborate his story thru the mosaic of stories that are out there on the Internet now, not because a government agency says I should.”

The pushback disappoints organizers.

“These are nothing more or less than information gathering meetings,” says FTC spokesman Peter Kaplan, who adds that the agency has no current plans other than to publish the hearing results this fall. Beyond that, points out Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, protestations aside, government has played a role in encouraging a healthy press from the dawn of the republic.

“First, we had an ink subsidy and then we had a postal subsidy both of which helped a free press to flourish,” she says.

Anti-Trust and Ensuring Access

There are legitimate roles for government with respect to the media, says Barbara O’Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento. They are primarily in the areas of anti-trust and ensuring access.

“Preventing any one company whether its Viacom or Fox or Steve Jobs from having too much power is a legitimate function of government,” she says adding, “as is ensuring that minorities and rural communities have the same access to the means of communication as others.”

Parsing government’s role in the new media world is not simple, says Harvard University business historian Nancy Koehn.

“I can’t find any period in history to compare to the rate and nature of change we are experiencing today,” she says. The debate itself reveals much about the issues facing the country, she adds.

“It’s in the zeitgeist,” she says, “What we are seeing is a response to unspoken angst about what is passing as well as what is emerging. Who will have influence over the flow of information is regarded as critical to the functioning of democratic society.”

The first FTC hearing took place in December, the second in March, and the third and final hearing will take place June 15 at the National Press Club in Washington. 

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Congress shall make NO law

Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech.



“These are nothing more or

“These are nothing more or less than information gathering meetings,” says FTC spokesman Peter Kaplan, who adds that the agency has no current plans other than to publish the hearing results this fall.

Reminds me of something else once said:

"Germany has no territorial ambitions"
-- Hitler circa 1938

If they are so damned anxious to promote a free press
how about NET NEUTRALITY for starters?

Or anti-trust actions designed to promote competition?

Or resisting media consolidation?

There's plenty for these boobs to do
just keep their fucking hands off the internet
they've already destroyed newspapers, radio and TV
for god's sake, leave us SOMETHING!!!!



Antitrust enforcement: the

Antitrust enforcement:
the government has to do it.
Effective access for all: the government has a role in making sure everyone has EFFECTIVE access.
The financial meltdown and the BP oil crisis
are lessons enough to the effect that the
market , any market, whether
the market for securities or oil or ideas,
does not self-regulate!



This is very dangerous talk

This is very dangerous talk here. It's not hard to see the writing on the wall.



21:43 I know - but in the

21:43
I know - but in the current state of media affairs, do you really think the government aims to regulate a mainstream media who is actually supporting them? Or is it about the internet and alternative media - blacklisting them?



It is a fundamental precept

It is a fundamental precept that a reasonably informed populace or "electorate" is essential to the stable functioning of a democracy. In a functioning Fourth Estate, the public can weigh and balance information and derive reasonable conclusions and may be drawn to action as a result of the watchdog function of a healthy media.
Evidence the sycophantic corporate driven media model we now have and the series of disasters that have arisen in the last two decades as it has developed. 
If there had been a functioning "media" in the US, then it is entirely possible that the government issuance of the permit that allowed Deep Horizon to drill essentially without precautions or regulatory scrutiny might have been disclosed to the public. Speculative, to be sure, but there would at least have been the chance for public outcry. Another example is how the independent media and Blogosphere has pushed the Justice department into announcing a potential criminal probe of BP,
something it was reluctant to do until the public case was made.

Right now, the media is largely a PR machine for corporate interests and an infotainment sideshow. Potential corruption has little to fear from a supposed "free press" these days.

Remember the doctrine of "Separate but equal?" It referred to separate but unequal educational systems. Now we have the same principle operating in the media. Huge differences in economic resources and public access make the "people's press" far inferior to the corporate Rupert Murdock and Fox
giants. 
There is no need or justification for registration of journalists or censorship of content. What is needed is enforcement of laws against predatory economic tactics that exclude independent media from the eyes and ears of the public. Such regulation could serve a public function, primarily to balance the biased sewage that Limbaugh and Beck and FoxNews are spewing at the public.
 



TO: Congress shall make NO

TO: Congress shall make NO law
Sun, 06/06/2010 - 13:40 — Vic Anderson (not verified)
Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech.

I would like to ask you this... What IF Congress and the Executive Branch created a National situation over time (say about 30 years) through Law (or the abolishment of existing Law) and Regulation (or the almost complete lack thereof through obsessive Deregulation) whereby almost ALL Media Enterprises in America (which ARE the major pipelines AND the majority of pipelines for Speech in America) went from being owned and operated by hundreds of separate, different and diverse owner-entities down to where it all became solely owned and operated by.., let's say SIX or SEVEN GLOBAL CORPORATIONS... (and not to mention that they would then also own almost all of the ''FREE'' Press in America too.)...

WOULD SUCH A SITUATION, if it existed, then constitute a Breech of the Law by way of Congress and the Executive having created a situation where most certainly Speech indeed has been 'limited' by having 'limited' the vast majority of public outlets for speech to the almost exclusive ownership and use of a very few GLOBAL Corporations...?

This is very close to reality in America today...

I believe that if WE are to save OUR Democratic Republic from the COMPLETE CONTROL AND DOMION of and by GLOBAL CORPORATIONS--- Congress and the Executive NEED to ACT NOW to begin breaking up the Monopoly-like grip just a few Global Corporations have over almost all Media Enterprises in America and force the sale of such into at least hundreds of little bits and pieces owned by hundreds of separate and diverse entities.

AND-- Bring back a very strong FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IN MEDIA.

AND-- Take ALL but Public Funding out of OUR elections.