So everybody realizes that the syndication of media at a national or global level presents a challenge to the role of the media’s ability to hold our elected officials accountable. I have stated 5 issues or challenges surrounding our relationship with the media and media’s relationship with government below. But I want to start by saying what I think can be done about them.

What can we do as individuals?

We can stop patronizing the types of media outlets that pander politically in this way. Bill O’Reily and John Stewart are on the air because we watch. Fox News has the flavor it has because we watch.

When media outlets “push the envelope” past our comfort zone, we can write letters, both to the FCC and to the management of the outlet. We have been slowly coopted by more and more sleaze in media, to the point where we don’t react (except when our 3 year old is in the room), and that should tell you something (about us as well as the media).

We can seek independent media outlets of multiple persuasions (different known biases) to balance our information intake. Does this take time? Yes. Can we seek to understand what political candidates and elected officials are “all about” independently – it’s all on the internet baby. We have the tools. More than ever before, we need less and less of these talking headed clowns. We just need to wake up and pay attention.

What can be done to the system?

Clearly some reform is needed in the relationship between media, government and political campaigns. Some regulation that governs that total amount of time that can be allocated to political ads, per outlet, and managing the cost of those ads so that the total media cost of campaigns can be slashed is important. Because this reduces the need for candidates to be beholden to large donors (rich people and corporations and special interest groups) to get elected.

I also think some tax reform around campaign donations and lobbying is required. When corporations and wealthy individuals choose to spend money lobbying for their advantage, when corporations chose to spend money donating to campaign funds for candidates that they think will favor their interests in policy decisions, they are taking money away from stock holders and from employee salaries to do so. There should be some tax penalty for taking money that could be pumped into economic development, and putting it into influencing the government. This is even more true of non-profit groups. They take tax sheltered dollars and use it to persuade government officials – maybe I have this wrong, but furthering a political agenda should not be a tax exempt activity, regardless of who you are and how you are structured. Making this money elegible for some taxation would also give some visibility and accountablility for it – that is, our government would be suddenly incented to keep track of how the money was spent. Hmm – instant accountability? and tax revenue to boot.

Conclusion:
Perhaps this tax reform, the accountability, and the tax revenue would do something to equalize the influence of the 99% and the 1%. The rest is up to us, in
the way we pursue information, the way we subsidize media outlets with our viewing habits and in the way we communicate directly with media outlets, political candidates and elected officials about what is important to us.

Here are my descriptions of issues or challenges…

Issue 1: the cost of national campaigns

The cost of campaign for statewide or national office has become so high, that normal citizens are prohibited from entry. We have constructed a system where the cost of running a campaign is beyond the personal means of 99.99% of the population. The politcal party is thus essential, if only for their support in fundraising. Is this new? No. Is this different than our founders intended? Probably not. The founders recognized that it was not likely to be working class citizens that made up the government, but landed gentry or merchant class individuals. Those that could afford to be away from their day job to run a government without worrying that their family would starve. These men already traveled broadly. The men who declared independence and who ratified the constitution were not compensated for this work. They believed in self-sacrifice on behalf of the nation. I ask you to find me one person in public office who believes in that today.

So how does this indict the media as a problem? Much of the cost of mounting a campaign is television advertising. I would love to see what percentage of campaign funds spent are spent on this one media. The interesting thing is that most of the campaign ads you see on TV are not providing information, they are swaying opinion. Interestingly enough, they are not trying to persuade me that the causes and beliefs of the candidate paying for the ad are correct or beneficial, but that he actually holds these positions, and that he has integrity. Or worse, that his opponent is a dirty rotten so and so…

Issue 2: regulation of media vs. the first amendment

Our constitution (in the bill of rights) as part of the first amendment provides for the freedom of the press. This means that there is no limitations that can be put on independent media outlets, beyond those implied by or inferred from the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us all as citizens. The implications of this are that there should be no censorship of reporting of acts and events of government officials beyond what would be considered slanderous (telling lies in print).

We have also regulated publications based on standards of “decency”, meaning that profanity and pornography subject to community standards are not permitted. We have a whole federal agency regulating this industry, the Federal Communication Commission. I think what gets me the most worked up, is that the industry has figured out that pandering to our baser instincts sells better than raising our consciousness.

It seems that they expend a lot of energy and resources convincing our government officials that they should be allowed to continue to evolve down this path of providing us with cheaper and cheaper thrills, while their information content is continually diminishing.

It appears to me to be a viscious cycle – campaigns pay them millions and millions of dollars every year to help elect officials, that the media companies spend lobbying those same officials to support their causes. Meanwhile, we somehow expect this same industry to watch over our elected officials and provide us information that will help us hold them accountable… Does anyone else see a conflict of interest?

Issue 3: media as a monopoly or interest group

While there are many media companies competing for our attention it seems to me that they all want the same consideration from government. As such, they can lobby those officials as a block. They want greater freedom of expression – less censorship and regulation. Why – because they believe this will allow them to be more profitable.

This represents a common thread in the complex relationship between business and government. Corporations and businesses have a desire to be more profitable, they find ways to convince government officials to create policy that will allow this. When that industry also has government as a customer (government officials, and government agencies use the products or services of that industry) there is an apparent conflict of interest. Citizens pay taxes that are used by governtment agencies to pay these corporations for goods and services, corporations who work to influence government officials to sponsor and approve policies that make it possible for them to make more profits.

Issue 4: media pundit as celebrity

In the good old U.S. of A. we currently have a culture where celebrity is an “idol”. We worship celebrities, and the ability to be a celebrity is sought after. The “15 minutes of fame” is a common theme. Anyone who finds themselves in the public eye becomes a celebrity at some level. Media figures (journalists) themselves have become celebrities – why? Not necessarily for anything they have done – other than invade our living room night after night – Al Roker. Actors, Broadcast journalists, sports figures, musicians and comedians – essentially all entertainers. We have confused celebrities and entertainers with our information resources.

Why do we care what Tom Brocaw or Peter Jennings thinks about the news? They are an information resource. Why on earth would we care what Tom Cruise or Barbara Striesand says about President Obama? Why do we care what Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill Maher, or John Stewart think about President Obama. These are entertainers and celebrities. Why do we care what George Carlin or Sting think about President Obama?

We have created a whole industry of people who are celebrity pundits. Someone once referred to this media genre as “Infotainment”. People who sit on the sidelines and tell what is wrong with the team. I want facts and information. I want analysis. What I get more than anything else is speculation and opinion. And we love these people – why? Because they are celebrities and we “follow” them. They speak to our “tribe”. Their opinions reinforce and deepen our own. These people present some limited information in a way that supports the conclusions that they believe their audience already wants to make.

The problem here is “us”. Why we seek to have our opinions validated by some celebrity is beyond me. Why we prefer this to unbiased information, so that we can decide on our own whether the solutions proposed are valid, or whether the problems raised are important. Most of us have so delegated our own thinking through issues and answers to tribalism we have forgotten how to think independently.

Issue 5: media creates controversy

Media companies have long recognized that controversy sells. This in and of itself is not news. However, we now have the media trying to manufacture controversy where does not really exist. Where a balanced thoughtful reporting of information would allow us to decide, they continuously report in ways that cry wolf, and they follow politicans like papparazzi following movie stars, looking for them to step out of line so that they can “report” something newsworthy.

Sensationalization is not a new technique – something bad happened, and the media “milk” it for all it is worth. In the political realm, it is the zealous search for any possible “dirt” that can be used to create controversy that is so heinous. It is heinous when political candidates do it to each other, but they are at least in the ring boxing. It is so much more heinous when the media does it, because they have nothing at stake but profit. Just to be clear, I am not talking about genuine misconduct, or unethical behavior patterns – as that can be good investigative reporting, preventing real sleaze from occupying public office. However, the prying into family background and ancient history as if it is somehow relevant. Whether Rick Santorum smoked pot in college is not very relevant compared to his current credentials, ideas, or worldview that he will bring to office as president.