Monopolistic Tendencies

"There should be no limit to diversity."

Rupert Murdoch

Without free speech there can be no accurate news: people generally do not wantto air dirty little secrets about their dangerous, immoral, corrupt or vilepractices, and if they have the power to censor any unflattering dirt that canhurt their reputation, bragging rights or careers, they will do it. Why facescorn, punishment or accountability when a sunny press release touting yourlatest pseudo-achievement works more in your favor? Human nature craves secrecyand self-preservation, but society's preservation depends on transparency andthe freedom to expose and express.

Personal or collective inconvenience can put a damper on a person's aura, yetthose self-serving reasons aren't enough to justify the blacking out ofinformation. If a government obstructs the press from investigating an army'satrocities or a politician's illegal and corrupt dealings, then news is reducedto propaganda, carny tactics, lies, delusions and advertising—all of which maybe perfectly useful to those who are scamming the public, but are useless tothose who are being fleeced.

People need unfiltered and accurate information to navigate through and make theright decisions in their lives. Without knowing the real story, the public islulled into believing that everything is all right with their world, even as allthe subtle, muted signs are desperately screaming that a cataclysm is fastapproaching. Lies hurt both individuals and society in the longrun; that'sprecisely why journalists are supposed to tell their audience exactly what'shappening around them. Anything less can do irreparable harm to bothjournalistic credibility and the audience's quality of life.

For a profession that prides itself on being objective, truthful, accurate,unbiased, fair and balanced, journalism is shamelessly careless and vague withits terms and definitions. Exactly what does objectivity mean? What is definedas a credible source? Precisely how many facts are supposed to be included inany news report? Who can be considered a qualified reporter?

The answer to all these questions is simple: it depends on who you ask and atwhat time of the day you ask them. Though journalism is supposed to rely on hardfacts, it is often muddled with qualifiers, speculations, vague terms andwaffling. Objectivity means being fair and balanced for some journalists, butnot for others. Some believe in objectivity; others renounce it, but both mayhave vastly differently ideas of what it means.

The realm of journalistic ethics is also a quagmire of ifs, buts and maybes. Isit ever all right to interview close colleagues? What are the rules ofdisclosure? When is it ethical to interview parents of murdered children? Is itmoral to name an alleged rape victim? Should obituaries dredge up past sins?Should ethics and morals even be a consideration?

In other words, the purveyors of precise data have never had the discipline towork within well-defined and precise boundaries.

The American model of journalism has been both one of the most liberating andmost confining paradigms for the profession. This model is based on the honorsystem and the fundamental belief that a free market, lax regulation, freedom ofexpression and a strong commitment to objectivity will all inevitably lead toreporters producing reliable and credible information. Both journalists andtheir employers will work together in harmony: the first group free todisseminate information, the second free to make as much profit as they can andregular citizens free to use their products without suspicion. Just leavereporters and news owners on their own to do their jobs, and they will becompelled to report the Truth.

But neither how that truth will be uncovered and presented, nor whetherjournalists and media owners will have clashing interests, has ever beenadequately addressed by the American model of reporting. In fact, the economicrealities of the news business never come into play in the theory of howjournalists are supposed to do their jobs. Economics is economics and journalismis journalism, and the two schools are kept separate. The focus on the editorialside of the business was key to the American model. The paradigm was supposed togive journalists the freedom to report the news as it happens—the way ithappens. Truth and transparency were the reporter's main worries, not the profitmargins, branding fancies or the consolidation aspirations of their employers.What the news consumer ultimately read in the paper or saw on the newscast wasthe unvarnished truth. Journalism focused on the reporters, producers andeditors who were uncovering and processing the news, not the ones who owned thenews.

Except that reporters and editors aren't the ones who have the ultimate say inhow they deliver information; they are hired by others to deliver theinformation. Audiences almost never point an accusatory finger at mediaconglomerates when a journalist goes astray; they blame the reporter, hiseditors and perhaps the individual outlet itself. Few news consumers cast a waryeye on the people who issue the reporter's paycheck—they write abusive e-mailsto journalists, not to the Chairman of the Board. Theorists never envisioned amedia landscape where only a handful of companies controlled the flow and slantof stories. Somehow, in all of the various debates as to how journalists shoulddo their jobs, no one remembered to think about the biggest constraint andobstacle reporters contend with: their own employers.

Journalism theories have a tendency to assume a reporter's biggest oppressor isthe government—whether the oppression takes the form of censorship, deniedaccess to classified information, stifling laws or the promiscuous misuse ofslander and libel suits. But governments are not the only ones who have thepower of oppression, censorship and intimidation. A corporation that pulls inbillions and employs thousands of people has comparative powers to a government:it can not only discredit, banish and exile the heretics, but it can alsopropagandize, sanitize, demonize, bureaucratize and do just about any otherizeit feels is warranted.

But in a country of many mini-nations, oppression doesn't have to necessarilycome from the media conglomerate: it can be attacked by another corporate statethat feels threatened. Sometimes the oppression comes...