Unfortunately, the MSMs deterioration is a side-effect of corporate consolidation, which is a side-effect of monopoly capital and de-regulation.
So the solution is simple, just get rid of capitalism! (jk)
The problem here as with so many things is too-big-ness. For a free press to work, you need multiple voices with multiple viewpoints. When we in the US had smaller, more localized journalism, we got this for free. Reports from California and Alabama and Iowa were automatically going to bring different viewpoints into the discussion. But since it’s now axiomatic that the growth of business must be in no way inhibited by the public (i.e. regulation. Ooo scary!) and that anything a corporation does is protected free speech, we’re very unlikely to be able to realize a solution.
Which might be as simple as breaking up the monopolies in media via regulation limiting the size of companies that can own media outlets. Those outlets could say whatever they wanted (1stA FTW!) but the companies that owned them could not be collected like trading cards by billionaires. The solution to the ills of monoculture is almost always diversity.
I do not think current corporate MSM oulets have greater market share than the big networks did before cable and the internet.
I do not think any newspaper has greater market share than it did before TV news, cable news, and the internet.
Before when we had smaller local outlets, we got outlets with much greater variety in local coverage. Unless they were big enough to have someone stationed in Washington or the state house etc., they were going to be relying on others, like the AP, to get access to a lot of the facts and stories they needed.
Today I have access to way greater variety and depth in data, accuracy, and range of focus areas than any prior generation, any time I want. Most people don’t seem to want that - they want a single source, and choose the one they find most digestible.
An end to media being funded from number of eyeballs.
As long as engagement maximization is what determines their income and winners are selected by capitalism, the core financial problem remains unchanged. But there is no reason that web income has to be based on engagement, and there is no reason we have to bind oursleves to unregulated capitalism either.
That’s true. That mostly leaves donations from rich people and foundations, or state funding, or amateur efforts, all of which also exist, with mixed results. I’d definitely agree it would be better to have more of all the options.
That said, at some level, without the eyeballs, the media isn’t reaching people, and in that case what is it accomplishing?
Besides finding alternatives to an advertising-based revenue model, a couple of possibilities for major outlets might help.
Limit the ownership stakes of any single individual, family, or corporate entity to 10% maximum of total shares in any major outlet (e.g. in the U.S., any one with 5-million-plus regular audience members). Companies of that size and influence should always be public. This would eliminate the malign (e.g. Murdoch) or feckless (e.g. Sulzberger) or psychopathic (e.g. any large corporation) influence of wealthy owners on editorial coverage. If the outlet is to be run at a loss, the losses can also be spread around to others who see it less as a tax write-off and more as a way to support a liberal-democratic institution.
A required open general statement of bias and intended audience, to be issued every year. The British press – as @Mungrul describes – is horrible, but those outlets don’t pretend they’re unbiased or objective like American ones do. Going one step further and having the bias clearly announced would likely temper the mercenary impulse we see in UK journalists.
While both solutions aren’t 100% cures and while both would doubtless make Libertarians cry or shed crocodile tears, they would help eliminate the Bothsidesism we currently see in major American outlets.
There’s also the model The Guardian uses: a trust (now basically a venture capital fund) that exists to support the news outlet.
In addition, the outlet solicits donations from readers and is considered as one of the innovators in finding other ways to fund on-line journalism.
That’s not to say that the Grauniad doesn’t have its problems. They still publish op-eds from TERFs and Putin appeasers who are chummy with the senior editors (a disease that infects many British institutions). But they’re open about their generally liberal outlook and aren’t beholden to advertisers or a clickbait engagement model.
I don’t think anyone could argue successfully that the legal justification for the Fairness Doctrine, which is a restriction on first amendment rights, still holds. Channels and airwaves are no longer a limited resource, and no one needs an FCC license to broadcast to the whole world. That was actually the reason for ending it in the 1980s in the first place, because of cable and satellite TV, and the internet makes it even more true. Not gonna happen without a constitutional amendment or a very different Supreme Court.
So let people broadcast whatever, but don’t let them falsely advertise it as journalism, and definitely don’t give them special access to press events.
Deregulation is always about some people being allowed to be enriched at the expense of the rest of us. Always. Every time. Reagan’s buddies in the media pushed for it, for ideological reasons, not because they gave two shits about the first amendment. Let’s not forget Reagan’s role in the black list, an actual violation of the first amendment… unlike the fairness doctrine.
There is a legitimate public interest in regulating the airwaves. The fact that a fascist movement has gained so much traction is evidence of that. Fascism is not in the public interest. There is a direct connection between the end of the fairness doctrine and Trump, in other words.
Oh, and content on cable was never covered by the fairness doctrine, while over the air radio/TV broadcasts were.
Correct. If they had cared about the First Amendment, they would have sued the government over the Fairness Doctrine and gotten a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that it violated the First Amendment. They did not do that. In fact, a broadcaster did sue the FCC over the Fairness Doctrine back in the 1960s, and in 1969, the Supreme Court upheld it as Constitutional. Would today’s Court reach the same conclusion? I don’t know, probably not, but with Thomas, Alito, et al on the Court, I don’t really put much stock in how they would decide things. Assuming Harris wins in November, I think we’ll start heading down a road where a lot of the current Court’s decisions will get overturned over the next 5-15 years. I hope, anyway. I will say, because, as you pointed out, the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable networks, it probably wouldn’t have much impact if it were still in place today. That being said, we have to find some way to prevent disinformation from being so freely propagated. And keep in mind, the ring wing media sphere we live with today began with talk radio in the 1980s, after the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned. And that doctrine absolutely applied to radio. Rush Limbaugh could not have become what he did in a world with the Fairness Doctrine in place. We have to find a way to prevent disinformation. I don’t know how, but right now, it’s way too easy to intentionally spread false information as if it is news, and way too many people have no idea how to tell the falsehoods apart from the truth. So they pick a side and choose to believe that. I think there must be a way to do this without violating the First Amendment, and I think the path to do that involves this being a really critical public interest. You can’t make it illegal to lie, but maybe we can enact a law that says if you are marketing yourself as news, either in explicit words or in how people perceive your content, you are bound to something like the Fairness Doctrine. So even though Fox News says, “Oh, we’re news entertainment so no reasonable person would think what our hosts like Sean Hannity are saying is factual news,” the FCC could say, “No, it’s right there in the name of your network: Fox News. You are putting yourself out there as news. So 85% of your content must be impartial news, with equal time given to opposing views, and the remaining 15% must be clearly and unambiguously identified as opinion, and the opinion of the host, not the network.” And the same goes for CNN, MSNBC, NewsMax, etc. And another agency could enact similar rules for podcasts and social media content creators.
