|
November 30, 2011
It is obvious that the media consists of both a serious press that operates, broadly, in the public interest and a popular press with an agenda that is based around human interest (celebrity) or infotainment. Broadsheet and tabloid is the name we often used to describe this difference, and the standard case for ensuring press freedom usually refers to the serious press (liberal) whilst regulation refers to the curbing of the "toxic", bullying culture of the popular tabloid press (conservative). Yet press freedom also refers to the regulation-free, market-driven, anything-goes tabloid morality.
This distinction does not just apply to the press though. The same distinctions can be, and are, made about television--eg., the ABC and Channel 9's celebrity gossip come to mind. What often drives, and reinforces, the difference is the need to attract as many readers as possible to secure advertising----the commercial imperative to maximise sales with cheap content so as to make a profit.
So it is economically logical for the tabloid hacks in the press and television to produce stories that are often inaccurate, sensationalist and plagiarised. These are not motivated by truth seeking, a desire for accuracy, or a concern for democracy.
Yet the press is allowed to be self-regulated whilst TV is regulated, even though it is widely known that the press has little interest in self-regulation. Self-regulation by the Press Council was designed with the interests of the newspapers in mind.
The media, when they defend self-regulation in absolute terms of the checks and balances against untrammelled state authority, say little about the media's accountability; how people can get remedy for the smears, lies, abuse and intimidate by the feral beasts; or even the concentration of media ownership.
The distinction between a serious press that operates, broadly, in the public interest and a popular press are too black and white . Reporters rewrite press releases, churn the publicity industry's spin and are compliant to authority to ensure continued access. Their conception of press freedom is a freedom to lie and conception of the public interest is little no more than the sheer number of copies they can sell.
|
I like that analogy. The freedom of the press is the freedom to lie. Sums it up.
I dont think it will change because those that care will remain a minority. Infotainment is where its at. Wikileaks is a good example. Once they ran out of sensationalised truth the people got bored and stopped sending money.
The good thing still remains with the rag media is that you can still get your favourite one on saturday for 2 bucks and you only have to read the parts you beleive. The bits you dont like get the pages turned. Cheap entertainment.