Critical Review of The Problem of the Media by Robert McChesney and Bad News by Tom Fenton

The importance of systematic analysis of the media cannot be stressed enough. In any global society, the media system is essential to political power, but whether that power is wielded by or over the people depends highly upon the institutional structure of the system itself. In contemporary American capitalist democracy, the media system is essential to the economy and therefore the entire political process. However, this centrality to our current way of life and government should not allow the media to escape criticism; rather, the magnitude and significance of the media insists that we continuously and even unsympathetically assess and rewrite our media policy in order to consistently demand our government to serve its constituents to their fullest potential. Two texts, The Problem of the Media by Robert McChesney and Bad News by Tom Fenton undertake this enormous task and attempt to enlighten the American public of the weaknesses in our current news media system, and to provide the tools necessary for productive critique and analysis of our own society. Like its human counterparts, in order to be healthy a democracy must be continually examined, its deficiencies corrected accordingly based upon new emerging technologies and theories. In light of events of the past decades, American democracy must be reevaluated and possibly amended or modified. The policies currently in place need to be questioned and tested, and anything found to be detrimental to the greater good of society as a whole (and not just its upper echelons) must be discarded in favor of more equitable guidelines. The general public believes that a system based upon capitalism is a given, and the only possible way for an affluent civilization to operate. Yet this overriding force which guides our lives is, in the grand scheme of things, only a modern phenomenon, albeit a deeply ingrained and dominant one. Both McChesney and Fenton find grievous faults with the current system of market-based media and ask their audience not to accept this as standard practice for a healthy democracy which enables the utmost amount of equality.

Robert McChesney views the rise of the commercial media sector "as part and parcel of the rise of modern corporate-based capitalism in the United States" (21); the two are inextricable. The American media system receives immense benefits from the capitalist system, and vice verse. But today's global media corporations that revolve around garnering huge profits were not the intention of the Founding Fathers who designed our civilization based on democratic principles. Why is the media so important to the discourse of democracy? Because in a democracy, the press is charged with exposing inequalities and corrupt practices in order to strengthen democracy and ensure that all citizens can benefit from it. Tom Fenton discusses the roles and responsibilities of the media and journalistic press in depth. He focuses on the fact that journalists are in a position of power, with much more information and knowledge than the general population and claims that "as an industry our most important job is to see what's coming down the road and to alert the public to the risks we find there" (Fenton 1-2). Those in the news business, particularly television broadcasters, must assume a watchdog role, especially during crises and in times of war. It is essential that the news media awaken the sleeping government and pick up the slack when the administration fails to protect its citizens. Fenton lists ten specific duties of the press during wartime, including "Monitor the government's performance in the service of our safety"; "Make sure that the public knows what the government does abroad in our name"; "Do not be intimidated by censorship disguised as patriotism"; "Do not shy away from educating the public in the historical and geographical contexts behind the news"; and, emphatically, "Never allow the parent corporation's interests to prevail over the public's" (43). These responsibilities are integral to the field of journalism, and may even seem obvious, yet Fenton gives endless examples of transgressions of these commandments all in the name of cost-efficiency.

Fenton claims that the events of September 11, 2001 revealed a dismal failure of the news media; clues and threats were not followed up on, stories were buried, interviews with foreign terrorists, including even the notorious Osama bin Laden were rejected, all on account of their potential cost to the network. By not informing the general public, the news media leaves the average citizen in the dark and fuels an environment of national social apathy. Because executives allow ratings to determine content, foreign news reports have been reduced by seventy to eighty percent within the past few decades (Fenton 17), despite the fact that no hard data exists to establish a connection between international news and low ratings. The people who control the airwaves underestimate the American public's intelligence and interest in the global community by cutting down on foreign news, but in doing so create a self-fulfilling prophecy: generations of Americans oblivious to world geography, context of international conflicts, and historical basis for interpretations of current events. McChesney agrees that "arguably the weakest feature of U.S. professional journalism has been its coverage of the nation's role in the world, especially when military action is involved…most major U.S. wars over the past century have been sold to the public on dubious claims if not outright lies, yet professional journalism has generally failed to warn the public" (74). These failures demand to be taken seriously, as our entire national as well as personal security is at stake. Sadly, this is not the case, even in a nation supposedly obsessed with terrorism. Because executives close foreign news bureaus in order to save money and increase profits, broadcast journalists must turn to "packaging", a twenty-first century substitute for reporting. This not only distances the networks and the public from actual facts and truth, but removes important context. Fenton states the danger of this lapse in accountability of journalists: "In short, on the eve of our Armageddon, the evening news was a mirror image of a nation eager for titillation and fascinated with its own navel" (4).

Fenton gives an excellent account of the malfunction of broadcast journalism, but one weakness of his text is his failure to delve into the events and issues behind the rise of commercialism in U.S. media systems. Furthermore, he blames the news media for American ignorance almost singularly, without taking into account other social institutions. As powerful as the communications industry is, Althusser would criticize Fenton for ignoring other ideological state apparatuses such as the family, religion, and the educational system. Virtually the only time he even mentions education is when he quotes Walter Cronkite that it "is not the journalist's role to educate… [but] to inform in such a way that the educators can have the raw material to teach" (Fenton 149). McChesney offers a much deeper understanding of the rise of capitalism and its influence on creating a profit-centered press system. In layman's terms, the current situation can be understood as simply the press lobbyists in bed with the policy makers, leaving the public out of the metaphoric and literal action. The original intentions of the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights have been increasingly interpreted as in favor of commercial speech and protective of corporate interests.

As one can conclude from these two texts, American media policy is in desperate need of reform; the question is, are Americans up to the task? Although not entirely informed, society does seem to grasp the basic design flaws of the system. McChesney cites a 2000 survey which shows that 50% of Americans are highly concerned with increasing media mergers, and that they recognize that this is not necessarily a good thing (255). While McChesney claims that media reform activism has increased in the late 1990's and early twenty-first century, it has not reached nearly the level seen in the Progressive Era. Furthermore, instead of encompassing a diverse slice of the country's population, the reform movement exists almost wholly outside of the mainstream, undetectable to the commercial news media. Any progress has thus been tenuous, such as the battle for low-power FM radio stations, which ultimately was scaled back but revealed that "organizing around tangible reform proposals could actually generate popular support and sustained attention on Capitol Hill… Organized people were challenging organized money" (McChesney 258). Fenton agrees that, with enough organization, change is possible. "For the public to have an impact, it has to be roused and its anger focused; this can be done most effectively when a pressure group steps in to amplify the public demands… for Americans to take on the corporate power elites in charge of networks and new channels, the pressure must build and remain continuous" (Fenton 225). Fenton fails, however, to explain exactly how the lower and middle classes can afford to create a lobby that scrutinizes news content quality. He does, however, pose suggestions for journalists and news professionals on what steps to take once the need for improved foreign news quality and quantity is recognized and changes implemented.

As McChesney explains, policy change is most effective during 'critical junctures' - historical moments when, due to political turmoil, crises in the media system, or new technologies, the future of media policy is variable and has potential for real change. After September 11th a critical juncture was feasible, but that time passed without any systemic reforms. Dan Rather admitted that "We may have missed an opportunity to go at that time with our boldest, most aggressive, most integrity-filled pitch, for rebuilding our international coverage in a significantly dramatic new way" (Fenton 17). Tom Fenton does not address why this juncture passed without a reorganization of media policy, but after reading McChesney one can surmise that the problem lies within the vicious cycle of policy being created behind closed doors, with the ignorant public oblivious to most of the debate and resulting policies. Not all Americans are ignorant, nor does this mean that we are completely lacking in intelligence as a society. However, Americans can sense that they are underinformed, but because access to information is so flawed people feel powerless to react to or shape chain of events. Eric Sorenson, an executive producer of CBS, once told reporters who had brought in a story about Sarajevo that he wouldn't put it on the air because "that whole war over there [is] very depressing" (Fenton 32). This attitude is reflective of the sentiments of the majority of Americans. But this is not an excuse to turn a blind eye to global events, however negative they may be. Perhaps it is only depressing because Americans feel ineffective, without agency or control over their world. In this, the media has failed to present the public with ideas and options that empower, that show how change is still possible.

Time and time again we see that the media does not work effectively when regulated by the market or controlled by capitalism. Fenton complains that "The mega-corporations that have taken over the major American television news companies squeezed the life out of foreign news reporting… Corporate greed and indifference have all but killed the kind of newsgathering ethos that produces results" (11-12). McChesney explains how fundamentally distinctive media markets are from all other types of other commodity markets. Primarily, subjecting ideas, culture, and journalism to the market is challenging. "Concerns about commercializing education, or the sheer revulsion at the idea of commodifying religion, point to the problems attendant to commercializing culture" (189). The profit-driven system simply does not suit the public's best interest when it comes to news media and journalism. Unfortunately, society is deeply entrenched in the commercial market mentality, and governmental barriers prevent the public from having much input into the way media policies are shaped and changed. If there is ever to be a shift in the policy-making process, public intervention is crucial. However, changes at other institutional levels must first occur in order for this to happen. McChesney sums it up by stating "When the public is informed about how policy is created and what options for change are actually available- rather than a limited few the profit-driven media typically herald- a critical juncture may open again that will allow for revelation, debate, and democracy" (56).