Dull thoughts on a shiny, shiny world.
It's a business, not a bleeding heart
Published on January 19, 2006 By cactoblasta In Politics
There seems to be a disconcertingly common tendency amongst certain commentators to blame the media for the products it produces. Not only is this extremely socialist, one might say communist, but it shows a worrying faith in tradition that, were the education system properly functioning, would not happen.

To analyse the position of the media as a business in the 21st century we must consider the changes it underwent in the 20th. At the dawn of the 20th century there was a perception and a belief, even amongst some media specialists, that the creation of newspapers and other products was a sacred trust. That is, the media had a duty, and not merely an opportunity, to report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even going so far as to search out such information.

Of course the propaganda component of war had stripped the validity of such claims since the very birth of modern media forms, and could be said to extend back to Luther's theses and the Catholic backlash, neither of which were willing to let truth get in the way of a good argument. However in my view it was the establishment of modern PR, or public relations, which allowed 20th century models of economic advantage to finally apply to an antique business.

No longer did media organisations need to search out information in order to create products. The products needed merely to be assembled from freely donated materials, which greatly cut down on the workloads of the press in a manner not dissimilar to the benefits of the assembly line in more traditional industries.

The move by most major press organisations towards public corporations and media 'empires' further assisted in dragging down the image of the press as a sacred trust, as media forms began to be more easily seen as the result of clever marketing, engineering and the efficiency of the modern marketplace rather than some gospel-like word of truth.

In today's world this is clearly visible. Practically every successful and influential media product is, apart from petty details such as form and construction, little different in creation than Nike's latest line of shoes or a flavour of cola. A product is thought up, focus groups are interrogated, it is trialed, reconsidered, manufactured and eventually marketed with great care towards a particular key audience or demographic.

Of course truth has a certain influence in maintaining the respectability of the product - certain media organisations have a reputation for good journalism, others for poor journalism - but this is no different to other forms. Porsche, for example, has a reputation for solid engineering and performance, the 'truth' of the automobile market.

Yet most people won't bother seeking out the Porsche, or can't afford it. Journalism is no different. The objective truth has a price and a very small readership, requiring extensive groundwork from experienced and expensive journalists. Whilst perhaps it is provided for in some traditional form somewhere in the world, modern business technique has shown that people are far more interested in a well-told story with a point to make, particularly a point that denigrates the powerful. And so most media product follows this model, from the Daily Sun to New Idea.

It is misguided to blame the media for being left or right in viewpoint. It only serves up what has been identified as desirable by its focus groups. The customers may complain, but they continue to purchase product, and so their discontent is unimportant. It is only when profit drastically drops that it becomes necessary for a re-think of viewpoint. And from the bottom lines of most media corporations, that day is a long way from now.

All this is a result of economic and political systems which favour corporate organisation of the media. In states with national media organisations you see a different approach to the creation of product, but in general the markets rule. So unless you wish to overthrow capitalism, it seems to me to be pointless to complain about a necessary evil of a capitalist economy.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 19, 2006
'It is misguided to blame the media for being left or right in viewpoint. It only serves up what has been identified as desirable by its focus groups'
Summary of this line (and the entire article): The public gets what the public wants. Hmm.
on Jan 19, 2006
Summary of this line (and the entire article): The public gets what the public wants. Hmm.


More or less, yes. But more accurately - the public gets what the media thinks they want, and the public don't complain much at all so that's what they keep getting.
on Jan 19, 2006
What a bunch of typical liberal, "it's not my fault, blame someone else" crap!

Unfortunately, there is some truth to your crap. ;~D (But only Some).

When Porshe (or any other car company) advertizes a car, it comes with certain expectations from the consumer. 4 wheels, an engine, some kind of steering mechanism, lights, freeway performance standards... etc. There is no reason a person seeking a "car" would expect anything less.

The product of the MSM is information. Not only information. As soon as they put the label "news" on their product, it comes with an expectation.

Like you point out, there are news "Porsches" and news "Pintos", and just like Porsche has the choice of the quality of car it chooses to build and sell... and let the buyer beware.

The thing is, our Porsches have not become Pintos, they have become go carts. Intead of putting out the "all the news fit to print", they are at best copying and pasting wire stories (that come with no validation) and at best, outright lies (and they know it).

If you buy a Porsche, only to find out later that you bought a lemon, do you just throw up your hands and say, "wow, I shouldn't have done that!" Or do you take it back to the dealer and demand satisfaction?

Well, where you are right in your article is, we (the consumer) have been blindly accepting our "news" as fact for so long, we have forgotten that (just like we can take the car back to the dealer), we can reject the MSMs lies and go to the competition for information.

If a car dealership puts out trash, we treat the people associated with that dealership like trash, why? because they are trash.


If the media is putting out crap, that is their fault (not ours), if we continue to accept their crap, that is our fault. One doesn't excuse the other.


Since our MSM has chosen to put out trash, and no one in the MSM seems to be holding their colleagues to ANY standard of excellent, we should treat them all like the trash they have accepted of themselves.
on Jan 19, 2006
What a bunch of typical liberal, "it's not my fault, blame someone else" crap!


Well it isn't my fault! I have nothing to do with the media and I happen to rate opinionated news stories rather more highly than ones which claim to be unbiased, because you don't have to work as hard to find the inevitable bias.

The product of the MSM is information. Not only information. As soon as they put the label "news" on their product, it comes with an expectation.


That kind of opinion is so 1899! Why is it, if such a thing is true, that the largest sections of most popular newspapers are the opinion and 'lifestyle' sections? They're hardly focussed on information; much of what they have to say is either advertising or opinion, not just information. People want to be entertained as much if not more so than informed - you can see that through the decline of traditional 'nothing but the truth' models like the Times in the UK. In readership it ranks dismally when compared to the new 'all the news that's fit to print and then a few things that aren't true but which will sell papers' style.

The thing is, our Porsches have not become Pintos, they have become go carts. Intead of putting out the "all the news fit to print", they are at best copying and pasting wire stories (that come with no validation) and at best, outright lies (and they know it).


At least wire stories are researched to a certain extent. There's nothing I find more ironic than picking up a newspaper and reading a press release from the government rehashed. Anyway, it's a necessary part of media efficiency. Without such collaboration on stories the media would be unprofitable, especially with today's margins.

People don't seem to care too much about it either, or at least subscriber numbers or audience numbers don't reflect that, so why shouldn't a media company use that kind of journalism?

If the consumers want quality journalism they can fork out the extra dinars for a quality paper/news program/site like Quadrant or others of its ilk, with Porsche-like lovingly-hand-crafted from original research.

The rest can have the Pinto-like mass-produced and slightly dubious products.

Since our MSM has chosen to put out trash, and no one in the MSM seems to be holding their colleagues to ANY standard of excellent, we should treat them all like the trash they have accepted of themselves.


That's what I'm saying. You can't blame the media for being a business in an increasingly competitive environment. If you feel a particular product isn't up to standard, don't buy it. It's the only way that business is going to improve itself or another business that's more likely of respect is going to move in.
on Jan 19, 2006

That may be true down under, but it is not true here.  Indeed, since the media is the only 'business' mentioned in the Constitution, it has a moral imperative to be unbiased, and report the truth.  And they are failing.  Yes it is a business, but you will not find any other private enterprise mentioned in the Constitution.  So they have been given a lot of power. And with that power comes responsibilty.

Your other premise of "the customer gets what they want" is partially correct.  And that is why Fox News, the most unbiased (note I did not say commentary and news) is the most popular now.  CNN is dying, MSNBC is dead, and dailies are on life support.  Why?  because they are NOT giving the public what it wants.  The Truth.

on Jan 19, 2006
I have personally believed that newspapers and TV news, and radio news for that matter, have always given what they think people want to hear. It's all about the Benjamins. Their not in it for the story, their in it for the money.

I agree with Dr Guy that they have a responsability to tell the truth whether it's profitable or not. If people want to be entertained they can buy a magazine or watch Comedy Central, in th mean time give me the truth.
on Jan 19, 2006
People tend to accuse the media of being biased if they don't like the news being reported. Recently there have been numerous reports of corruption in congress, primarily involving republicans. The republican sheep immediately accuse the MSM of having a liberal bias, even though they have no basis to dispute the stories. MSM reports stories they think will be popular, whether it’s the missing white girl of the week, someone in a life threatening situation, or a government scandal. Fox news is a different entity in that it rarely reports stories that put republicans in a bad light, or if the do report it, they’ll sit on it for a few days until interest fades and it can’t do any real damage. To say that MSM has a leftwing bias is ludicrous, considering MSM kept all the trivial little scandals during the Clinton administration in the headlines (some now proven to have been fabricated) and helped the republicans impeach Clinton over a blowjob.
on Jan 19, 2006
People tend to accuse the media of being biased if they don't like the news being reported. Recently there have been numerous reports of corruption in congress, primarily involving republicans. The republican sheep immediately accuse the MSM of having a liberal bias, even though they have no basis to dispute the stories


No, people accuse the media of bias because the MSM make a "big" deal of a republican doing something wrong. But let a democrat do something wrong even if it's the same thing the republican did, and it's either down-played or ignored entirely!
on Jan 19, 2006
Indeed, since the media is the only 'business' mentioned in the Constitution, it has a moral imperative to be unbiased, and report the truth. And they are failing. Yes it is a business, but you will not find any other private enterprise mentioned in the Constitution. So they have been given a lot of power. And with that power comes responsibilty


Morals have nothing to do with the modern business world. Increasing profit is the only true moral, the rest must be followed only so far as they prevent the alienation of potential customers. Perhaps the media does have a special mention in the constitution that requires them to say the truth, but it's not enforced. A law that isn't enforced is no law at all.

Oh and the power-responsibility thing? You and I both know that nothing is less likely to occur than someone with great power to act responsibly all the time. The media is still made up of people.

And that is why Fox News, the most unbiased (note I did not say commentary and news) is the most popular now. CNN is dying, MSNBC is dead, and dailies are on life support. Why? because they are NOT giving the public what it wants. The Truth.


Strangely enough in my country Fox News is treated by many as almost like a comedy channel, a spoof of real news. All those flashing images, the loud noises, the extremely patriotic stances it seems to take, the near total lack of foreign news - in comparison to Australian newstainment it's a carnival made silver tape. Perhaps it deals only in the truth, but it's a strange, insular kind of truth when compared to, say, Australia's SBS News, with its 40 minutes of foreign news and 20 minutes of local. I would argue that it's the sheer shininess and reassuringly positive spin that Fox puts on events that makes it popular. It's an undeniably shiny news network. But then again all we have in Australia is the Murdoch press, the Packer press, 2 government networks and Fairfax, so it's hardly a huge market.

I agree with Dr Guy that they have a responsability to tell the truth whether it's profitable or not. If people want to be entertained they can buy a magazine or watch Comedy Central, in th mean time give me the truth.


The problem is very few others want to watch news that gives only the truth without spin or a bit of pomp and circumstance. Newstainment is the way of the future! You shouldn't be so proscriptive towards the desires of others - it's very anti-democratic of you.

People tend to accuse the media of being biased if they don't like the news being reported


That's often true, but not in every case. For example there's Chomsky and Herman's great work 'Manufacturing Consent' which suggests there was a serious pro-government (presumably right-wing) tendency in the US during the 1980s. It's not unheard of for news networks to be biased as a whole - the Murdoch press for example was as a bloc in support of the war in Iraq, without a single editorial dissension.
on Jan 19, 2006
I blame the media for this entire debate.
on Jan 19, 2006
I blame the media for this entire debate


hehehe. I blame the media for covering up the fact Elvis is alive and working in a burger joint in Des Moines.
on Jan 19, 2006
Recently there have been numerous reports of corruption in congress, primarily involving republicans. The republican sheep immediately accuse the MSM of having a liberal bias, even though they have no basis to dispute the stories.


The first part is right, the last part is just a long 6 degrees of separation attempt. Conservatives (note, not republicans) have been complaining about it for YEARS. They did not start just because some over eager prosecutors are about to get their butt whipped.

But let me ask YOU a question. What major investigation ended today? Want to guess?
on Jan 19, 2006
hehehe. I blame the media for covering up the fact Elvis is alive and working in a burger joint in Des Moines.


Nah! We know he just went home (MIB).
on Jan 19, 2006
Recently there have been numerous reports of corruption in congress, primarily involving republicans. The republican sheep immediately accuse the MSM of having a liberal bias, even though they have no basis to dispute the stories.


The first part is right, the last part is just a long 6 degrees of separation attempt. Conservatives (note, not republicans) have been complaining about it for YEARS. They did not start just because some over eager prosecutors are about to get their butt whipped.

But let me ask YOU a question. What major investigation ended today? Want to guess?


To quote a movie.... (Men in Black) Elvis isn't dead, he just went home! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
on Jan 19, 2006
hehehe. I blame the media for covering up the fact Elvis is alive and working in a burger joint in Des Moines.


Nah! We know he just went home (MIB).


Sorry I posted before I saw this.
2 Pages1 2