The Barking
RINO – debunking the media
As we know from studying the Progressive Era of America’s
governmental development (1880 – 1920), as society moved from an Agrarian based
economy to a more complex industrial economy, abetted largely by a Roman
Catholic immigrant work force, the nature of government evolved to include
unelected agencies which provided the much needed policy expertise in order to
provide a objective foundation for legislative solutions. So government began
to grow, the work force moved off the farm, and cities grew in size and
pluralistic demographics.
After World War II, the economy sees a rise in the “managerial
class” of the business sector, home ownership and the development of suburbs;
including the ubiquitous shopping mall. It is a process of self-segregation
stimulated by leaving the racially, ethnically, economically, and religiously mixed
populations of cities. Despite these meta-trends in population, immigration and
technology continued to fuel, in part, our nation’s prominence in the world:
people wanted to live in the good old U.S.A.
Think about your life today, I know very few who feel they
have a sense of balance and control over how their time is spent. With the challenges
of a global economy workers are under immense pressure to “do more with less”
or face work-place obsolesce. As Robert Putnam finds in his landmark research,
Bowling Alone, (which can be found online for free), between work, family life,
the gym and leisure time; membership in social obligations such as league
bowling, church, the PTA, and civic organizations have been in a steady decline
in America. We are simply too busy to stay on-top of our already busy lives.
Yet today, more than ever it seems to me, American’s want to
engage and participate in party politics and governance issues. It is always a
good idea to pursue the “consent of the governed” in governmental policy
development. Historically, the media has been considered to be the “fourth leg
of government” or the watchdog of government: a fount of news whereby busy
Americans can monitor their government. The eagerness to engage and participate
is an optimistic spark on our political landscape.
So one might enquire, “Does
the media continue to be a reliable source for objective reporting on
governance issues?”
Despite hyperbolic rhetoric, when compared to the multitude
of parties seen in other nations – each with their own agenda and constituency,
our nation’s political spectrum of ideas is quite narrow: generally speaking, there
ain’t much difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Yet a fundamental
tenant of the American governance is the constructive debate between the two
major political voices which, ultimately, leads to compromise and the to-n-fro
of national leadership.
With the advent of cable television and the 24/7 news-cycle,
and then the online explosion of “news sources” coupled with an ease of
availability, competition for ad revenues began to dramatically “make-over” the
media industry. We’ve all seen the change from objective news reporting to the
use of pre-conceived bias in reporting. Regardless of left-wing or right-wing
perspective, the media would not survive if it did not cater to a specific
bias. Media uses bias to attract and keep its audience since, “reach” and “frequency”
are the two methodologies that advertisers use to base their marketing dollars.
In other words, companies have a limited amount of
advertising dollars to spend. Like any wise investor, they want their monies to
be as effective (drive sales) as possible. Ergo, the media vehicles (cable,
print, radio) that reaches the most people, for the longest amount of time, for
the least cost per potential customer, is going to where the ad buy is placed.
To say it even more directly, understandably, the media needs to anchor its
audience in order to sell their ability to reach the audience so that when the
advertisements are aired – there is a maximum value to the company paying for the
advertising.
Here’s the rub…
If the media is using bias in its reporting in order to
anchor and secure its market share, then the media is motivated to offer
programming which is going to be maximizing its audience. Thus, programming is
going to do market research in order to determine what its audience wants – and
(wisely and profitably) “give the people what they want.” BUT WAIT A MINUTE!
Didn’t we establish that we are simply too busy to follow the mechanizations of
government? Yes. So how do we “know” what we want? Oh, by engaging in the
media. Yes, it’s a self-reinforcing echo chamber of sycophantic ideas based
upon…what?
Perhaps the sickest form of media is the confrontation. Like
watching a car wreck in slo-motion, confrontation media is deliciously served
up like Roman bloodbath as our gladiator batters opponents into oblivion and
worse, intellectual scorn. Despite the desperately necessary call for the intellectual
intercourse of ideas, confrontation media quickly applies labels to “their
ideas” in an effort to drown out competing voices, assure market share, and
provide the necessary entertainment value for a coliseum of frothing Romans
citizens.
The wise consumer of the news will recognize that the media
has a vested interest in NOT reporting objective news: that their interests,
and profits, reside in creating false dichotomies, destroying the debate
process and “giving us” what we already think we want to know. And you wonder
why government is such a mess. Really? The problem is that dope in the mirror
who, for fear of being branded, “not a real Republican” (or outsider) lacks the
conviction to demand more from their media, more from their political acquaintances
and, ultimately, more from themselves. The great unknown is in engaging,
respectfully, those who disagree with you because that is where the new ideas
can be found – and possible the solutions that we all seem to clamor…in between
programs on Fox News or MSNBC.