Robert McChesneys reply to my article brings to mind a caller to a radio talk show not long ago whom I heard say that Detroit should build the safest cars possible. Is this apparently simple objective really a good idea? Think about it. The safest cars possible. This might involve building cars (like tanks) out of heavy steel plate, limiting their engine size to reduce speed, and widely deploying air bags to eliminate personal injury for their occupants.
But what might be the consequences? Heavy cars would consume far more fuel and increase pollution, while mobility would be reduced and the cost to owners greatly increased. They might be even more unsafe to pedestrians and property than at present.
Thus, automobiles as they exist at present are a product of compromise. Any measure to make them safer must be weighed against cost, comfort, efficiency and external factors like road wear. It is a balancing act along a continuum where we can disagree about the middle twenty per cent from the mean, but realistically cannot move to either end point.
Robert McChesney wants to build the best media system possible. Like automobiles, there is room for improvement. But he seems to advocate an absolutist end game, attendant consequences be damned.
Where is the evidence?
I have no interest in engaging tit-for-tat in McChesneys response to my article. We are like two blind men, touching different parts of an elephant and describing what the animal must be like from very different perspectives. Maybe its worse: were each touching different animals and trying to explain what the jungle must be like!
Our differences are fundamental and strategic. My starting point is an acceptance of democratic capitalism as the core method for allocating resources and making choices. McChesneys arguments follow from an academic viewpoint that has been labelled critical studies. (Whether McChesney chooses to wear that label is his choice). Critical studies, for those who dont follow academia, is a PR spin from those who used to call themselves Marxists. The key statement in McChesneys rebuttal is this: Our media system operates to serve the needs of owners, not those of citizens. That is, even if there are indeed more distinct owners providing television programming today than ever before, that is meaningless. They are, McChesney is saying, all cut from the same capitalist cloth so it really does not matter. If you are working under the profit motive you are suspect.
McChesney offers no empirical evidence that supports any assertion he makes. By contrast, my Who Owns the Media? documents a wealth of research that speaks favourably about corporate ownership. As just one example, there is reliable evidence that corporate-owned newspapers may provide better products than family-owned ones. I say may because, like building a safer car, there are value judgements involved. Corporate (that is, large chain-owned) newspapers devote more space to editorial material than small firm-owned papers. They have more articles. On the other hand, the articles they run are shorter. What is better may be a matter of values: are more and shorter articles and a bigger newshole better than fewer and longer articles? What makes a better newspaper?
McChesney rails on about declining international news, but cites no evidence that this is a fact. In what heyday of the media 1890s? 1920s? 1950s? did the newspapers, radio, TV, cable and press services combined have more coverage, coming from more sources than today? Were the conditions of sub-Saharan Africa covered better in the newspapers of 1920? Were the poorly paid and educated reporters of the early twentieth century better? What is the basis for McChesneys claims?
His proof is a suggestion that I speak with former CNN executive Rick Kaplan. But this is like the prosecution calling on an expert witness at a trial. The defence can find as good an expert to contradict. All Mr. Kaplan could say is that his experience, in the context of his values, has led him to make some judgements about corporate decision-making. I suppose I could in turn invite the head of Fox News, Roger Ailes, and we would get a very different viewpoint. (Im only guessing, as I dont know Mr. Ailes). But I doubt anything that Mr. Ailes could say in my support would win over Robert McChesney, any more than the latters case would be proved by trotting out Mr. Kaplan.
But the reason why complete data is apparently not important to McChesney is that ultimately it does not matter to his position. Our media system operates to serve the needs of owners, not those of citizens, is his bottom line. End of story. The capitalists only work for themselves, not the citizens (which includes whom, exactly? Everyone who does not own stock, or ?) Its not how much coverage, not the number of owners, but the structure of ownership that is the root of McChesneys gripe. In short capitalism.
What would the best look like?
Whereas I revel in the choices the media provides, he seems to want it only one way the best media system possible. I argue that while the media should sometimes lead, they must more often listen to the people: their audiences.
A case in point. A few summers ago I went to a local megaplex to see the movie, Theres Something About Mary. It had gotten some good reviews and some of my friends said they laughed all through it. I found it coarse, sophomoric, in poor taste. Need I add adjectives? Feeling cheated, I took advantage of the multiple screens and went to see Saving Private Ryan. My afternoon was redeemed. And talk about contrasts! Both came from Hollywood studios. Yet in subject, tone and respect for the audience they were night and day. The riskier venture and budget was Ryan. It turned out to be both a critical and financial success, though Mary may well have been more profitable. Who should determine if the public should be offered more Marys or more Ryans? I cannot imagine any system of media control that would or should keep Mary from being produced. But, absent media control in some Taliban-like way that only high-minded, high quality (by someones standards) content was permitted, then at 8:00 pm the mass audience is going to remain more interested in The Simpsons than in the BBC World Service.
Complaining is easy for any of us. The greater challenge is describing what can be done to change the system. As I clearly believe that the current system of private enterprise in a context of antitrust and modest regulation can work and has worked, then it is up to McChesney to suggest what he recommends by way of change. How would he build the safest car er, media system possible? And how would he ensure that it is better than the one weve got?
So what I would really like to do is challenge McChesney if he is up for another round to tell us with some detail what he proposes as a media system. What would he want it to do, and how would he guarantee that his system provides it? I would set only one parameter that it be in the context of the US Constitution, in particular the First Amendment stricture on free speech and press, and the interpretation that has been placed on it by US courts.
Robert McChesney wants the best media system possible for democracy. How would he build it?
