In light of our "war on terror," the news media are showing increasing signs of self-censorship. But why are they doing it--and does this threaten democracy?
On all the news programs and websites, our current conflict dominates--the CNN website especially, which is no longer headed "CNN News," but the special report "America Strikes Back," regardless of the negative pop-cultural implications (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is Darth Vader?). Throughout the media, stories not related to our "new war" have practically vanished.
The most striking example: the 2000 presidential balloting in Florida. That story, the single biggest of last year, was historic: The presidency was won by George W. Bush by a solitary electoral vote, but only if Florida's 25 votes were lost by Al Gore. Democrat Gore's attempt to get selective recounts done in counties where ballots were confusing was upheld by the (majority Democratic) Florida Supreme Court. But that count was blocked by the (normally states'-rights) Republican majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, giving the presidency to the Republican Bush. It was a great story: the most powerful elected office in the world, conniving on both sides, clear conflicts of interest all over the place and a willful disregard for precedent up and down the judiciary. It was a mess and high drama.
In the aftermath, several major media outlets (The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN and others) decided to contract with the highly reputable, non-partisan National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to analyze exhaustively the ballots from Florida.
Last Saturday, a tiny article buried in our local newspaper revealed that the analysis is now done--and the news organizations involved "put the whole project on hold." A seven-figure budget and months of research have just stopped. The findings will not be released.
Perhaps this is a vast conspiracy, designed to shield us from the truth at this tumultuous time, to avoid undercutting President Bush's authority?
Could be.
But Bush is president (if for no other reason than that Gore had to concede). The analysis could help to bolster Bush's standing, or at least help us to remedy flaws in our system. Coverage of the most important story of last year could be a good thing. So, more likely, the media decision to kill that story is about money.
The media are a microcosm of the strengths and weaknesses of our capitalist economic system: A powerful innovation (breaking news) can be rapidly disseminated throughout society by quick recruitment of resources to exploit the profit associated with the new(s). And then the market becomes saturated: Too many profit-seekers flood the market with oversupply, margins of the initial providers are driven down, and to re-enlarge those margins, a novel new(s) product must be created. The cycle begins again.
The result is an endless series of incentives (or treadmills) for business, and waves of innovation and cost-reduction (or endless planned obsolescence). This is true whether it's in high-tech (Apple innovates, Microsoft and Dell drive down costs), or politics (a maverick presidential candidate runs as a reformer, and as he takes off in the polls, the establishment rival suddenly christens himself a "reformer with results").
In the news media, a story breaks, and coverage expands. To keep consumers' attention, novelty must continuously be re-introduced, either as breaking news, or as background, analysis or prediction. The media cannot let up, especially as rapidly developing stories get momentum that compels both more interest and more coverage. This means continuous pressure on the media to produce new information, no matter how sketchy or misleading or biased, as long as those shortcomings are somehow defensible ("sources say," "unconfirmed reports," "we believe").
So the evident self-censorship in the media may not in fact be due to any deliberate conspiracy, right-wing or otherwise. It may simply be the result of market pressures, forcing the media to focus on the current meal-ticket.
But this corporate, bottom-line imperative holds a real threat, both to an informed public and to democracy.
There are two reasons for this: One, the big "news corps" of the world now control more of the media than ever before, and their choice of stories to cover influences not only the informing of the public, but also what issues the public views as important.
And two, capitalism doesn't always drive social systems to greater freedom; it can drive them to greater repression. In Weimar Germany, the biggest financial boosters of Nazism were industrialists, who liked the anti-communism, social order and lucrative government contracts that the Nazi regime promised--and delivered.
The Nazis also delivered an abusive government that killed and imprisoned millions in pursuit of illusory goals. That system was supported by capitalists, and based on mass propaganda.
It was not a system we should aspire to emulate, even slightly.
Edward Benson is a Durham resident.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.