I love a panelist not afraid to insult his co-panelist’s employer. In a Tuesday panel entitled FOX in the Henhouse: Corporate-owned Media, that’s exactly what Jurek Martin, of the Financial Times, did when he slammed both the BBC World Service (TV) and CNN International for producing boring and repetitive newscasts that fail to adequately inform viewers about the day’s most important events. James Schiffman, chief copy editor at CNN International, took the criticism in stride, and his employer was quickly defended by the third panelist, Bruce Dold of the Chicago Tribune.
The panelists lamented the consolidation of corporate-owned media, but all three, and especially the newspaper men, seemed more concerned about the economic pressures being put on the traditional news models. Jurek Martin cited an “appalling lack” of international coverage in American newspapers and fumed over the decision of some large newspapers to scale back, or cut entirely, their foreign news bureaus. James Schiffman agreed, saying that in the era of globalization of economies, cultures and societies, and at a time when America is at war in the Middle East, it is more important than ever for Americans to be informed about world events.
The panelists seemed resigned to the reality of corporate consolidation in media ownership. Yes, yes, it is certainly alarming that a handful of mega-rich corporations own our favorite newspapers and TV channels, decreasing the diversity of viewpoints presented and boxing out dissenting voices. But what can a couple seasoned journalists and a copy editor do about it? The men on the panel seemed less concerned about their news agency’s owner and more concerned about maintaining the objective newsgathering and presentation that they've valued throughout their careers. But how can we retain objectivity when news agencies are limited in what they can cover for fear of offending the corporate bosses? How can the public trust journalists who represent a media company that is ultimately just interested in ratings and the bottom line?
In reference to the growing number of opinionated pundits like Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly with their own shows on news networks like FOX and CNN, Bruce Dold of the Tribune said something I found quite interesting. Dold commented that American might be headed back to a 19th century model of news. Back in those days, there were many newspapers, each with a distinct viewpoint, and it was up to the reader to sift through the opinion and find the fact - if there was any to be found. Once newspapers saw they could do better financially by attracting a broader audience, the concept of objective reporting took root. Dold believes we may be headed back in the direction of a fragmented media with each news outlet pushing its own agenda. The days of objective reporting in the front sections and subjective opinion on the editorial pages may be waning as more news outlets abandon objectivity in favor of advocacy and agenda-setting.
