Who Monitors the Birds?
Ten years ago there was a pretty cool sci-fi show on television called Space: Above and Beyond. One episode featured a very interesting, and poignant question... Who monitors the birds? At a time when everything one did was monitored for efficiency, productivity, obedience and acceptability, one young man asks his monitor, 'Who monitors the birds?' ...which come and go as they please, needing no ones permission to rest in a tree, or to fly away. They were free, whereas the young man was not. The same question could be applied to the Free Press-- Who watches the watchers, who polices the police?
Over the last two and a quarter centuries the press has gone from agents free to say or print whatever ideas they wished to disseminate, to self-appointed guardians of the public trust. No one knighted this institution. No one issued a proclamation declaring Media the official watchdog of truth and justice. But that is exactly what Media has become.
The First Amendment gives media a lot of power, and media uses this power to destroy, build up, and marginalize individual lives each and every day. And they are largely accountable to no one. Competition used to exist among different agencies... once upon a time. Now, the 'breaking' of a story is the only real competition that still exists. The press now works hand in hand with each other, and because of this solidarity of purpose, media has become a giant and a force to be reckoned with. The only real threat is the occasional judge who orders a reporter thrown into jail, but Media as a larger entity can pretty much do and say whatever it wants... not the individuals; they're still subject to the law as are we all, but the institution... Who watches these self-proclaimed watchdogs? Who will hold them to task, and chastise them when they step out of line?
You? Me?
A word of caution here: Don't get too uppity, 'cause big media will crush you like a bug; ruin your name... and the watching world will believe everything it's told. After all, they're the Media!... Why would THEY lie? And why should the world take your word over theirs?
Dan Rather was just a melanoma that had the misfortune of drawing too much attention to itself. The pajama media spoke up and the doctors pulled the big chair out from under him. He was allowed to leave gracefully; and honestly, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with, however, is the continual defense of him by all the other big names in media. But it only goes to show that where there's one patch of cancerous growth, there are bound to be others.
Despite the brave face it wears, Media is nonetheless concerned by the growing trend of intelligent opposition in the ranks of 'Ordinary Citizenry.' They're lately having to be far more diligent in crossing their 't's and dotting their 'i's. And I'm sure it worries them that they no longer have a strangle-hold on news and information-- Circulation and viewership is not as high as it once was. But this is not necessarily the product of a more enlightened public. Instead, it's probably more reasonable to say this trend is the product of exponentially increasing technology coupled with our rapidly diminishing moments of 'free' time; minutes and hours each day once devoted to lending media an eager ear-- News can now be gotten anywhere. Anywhere.
Who monitors the media? We do... If we speak out. Who monitors the media? No one... If we keep our silence. For it's certain that media feels it their duty to monitor us, and they are not especially forgiving.
Who, then, monitors the birds? Media does, unless we refuse to be caged.
Over the last two and a quarter centuries the press has gone from agents free to say or print whatever ideas they wished to disseminate, to self-appointed guardians of the public trust. No one knighted this institution. No one issued a proclamation declaring Media the official watchdog of truth and justice. But that is exactly what Media has become.
The First Amendment gives media a lot of power, and media uses this power to destroy, build up, and marginalize individual lives each and every day. And they are largely accountable to no one. Competition used to exist among different agencies... once upon a time. Now, the 'breaking' of a story is the only real competition that still exists. The press now works hand in hand with each other, and because of this solidarity of purpose, media has become a giant and a force to be reckoned with. The only real threat is the occasional judge who orders a reporter thrown into jail, but Media as a larger entity can pretty much do and say whatever it wants... not the individuals; they're still subject to the law as are we all, but the institution... Who watches these self-proclaimed watchdogs? Who will hold them to task, and chastise them when they step out of line?
You? Me?
A word of caution here: Don't get too uppity, 'cause big media will crush you like a bug; ruin your name... and the watching world will believe everything it's told. After all, they're the Media!... Why would THEY lie? And why should the world take your word over theirs?
Dan Rather was just a melanoma that had the misfortune of drawing too much attention to itself. The pajama media spoke up and the doctors pulled the big chair out from under him. He was allowed to leave gracefully; and honestly, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with, however, is the continual defense of him by all the other big names in media. But it only goes to show that where there's one patch of cancerous growth, there are bound to be others.
Despite the brave face it wears, Media is nonetheless concerned by the growing trend of intelligent opposition in the ranks of 'Ordinary Citizenry.' They're lately having to be far more diligent in crossing their 't's and dotting their 'i's. And I'm sure it worries them that they no longer have a strangle-hold on news and information-- Circulation and viewership is not as high as it once was. But this is not necessarily the product of a more enlightened public. Instead, it's probably more reasonable to say this trend is the product of exponentially increasing technology coupled with our rapidly diminishing moments of 'free' time; minutes and hours each day once devoted to lending media an eager ear-- News can now be gotten anywhere. Anywhere.
Who monitors the media? We do... If we speak out. Who monitors the media? No one... If we keep our silence. For it's certain that media feels it their duty to monitor us, and they are not especially forgiving.
Who, then, monitors the birds? Media does, unless we refuse to be caged.
from the mind of... Eric | 9:38 PM
4 Comments:
You dismiss the true keepers of the MSM: readers, viewers and consumers. A news organization that loses its credibility goes down. Show me one.
You likewise overestimate the potential power of the New Media. I mean, it has a certain amount of power, and it exercises it, and the MSM responds when it should.
Some MSM will go by the wayside -- the ones that can't find a way to wed emerging technologies with emerging expectations. But not many. Trust me. I am part of both worlds, as a practitioner of the MSM as well as a blogger. MSM are adapting. There will be many more successful ones than failures.
Newspapers adapted when raqdion came, radio adapted when TV came, TV is adapting to the Internet, and users of the 'Net are naturally adapting to delivery systems: phones, Blackberries, PDAs, pods, whatever.
But there are still newspapers, radio, TV, the Internet, etc.
You know, this nifty story about the little guy vs. the elitist "gate keepers" has been going on for quite some time. And it is right in keeping with other populist stories the right likes to tell itself about judges, scientists, teachers, lawyers, and other professionals. And it's getting a little old.
Have a look at this recent op-ed on the Kansas evolution controversy, and you'll see what I mean:
The Culture Crusade of Kansas
By THOMAS FRANK
Published: August 8, 2006
The nation breathed a sigh of relief last week after the conservative majority on the Kansas school board, world famous for its war on the theory of evolution, went down to defeat in Republican primary elections. Conservative candidates for several state government posts foundered as well (but others won). It seemed as though moderation had finally returned to this middlemost of American places. Even better: perhaps the country itself had turned the corner in its long and frustrating war over culture.
I was as pleased as anyone else to hear the news. Could the conservative uprising in my home state finally have run its course? Fourteen years ago, the armies of the right came pouring out of Kansas' evangelical churches to protest abortion and all the other liberal plagues upon the culture, and they've had a big role in the state's Republican Party ever since. But it must be difficult to stay angry that long, especially when the crusade you signed up for is now a hairsplitting fight that your leaders have picked with the biology professors of the entire world. Could the faction's rank and file simply have given up, grown disgusted with the absurdity that their grand cause has become?
Perhaps, but I think it is far too soon to write the obituary for the godly radicals. Their faction may have chosen lousy candidates this time around, and their public appeal may have dissipated thanks to the preposterous issues (evolution, stem-cell research) against which their leaders have lately been hurling themselves, but the movement is deeply ingrained in Kansas culture. The conservatives will undoubtedly be back.
The culture war will remain with us, both in Kansas and in the nation, because it is larger than any of its leaders, larger than its legions of citizen activists, larger even than the particular causes in which these forces are enlisted. Seen from the streets of Wichita, the rightist rebellion of Kansas seems to fulfill that most romantic of American political traditions: the uprising of the little guy.
To the faithful, theirs is a war against "elites," and, with striking regularity, that means a war against the professions. The anti-abortion movement, for example, dwells obsessively on the villainy of the medical establishment. The uproar over the liberal media, a popular delusion going on 40, is a veiled reaction to the professionalization of journalism. The war on judges, now enjoying a new vogue, is a response to an imagined "grab for legislative power" (as one current Kansas campaign mailing puts it) by unelected representatives of the legal profession. And the attack on evolution, the most ill-conceived thrust of them all, is a direct shot at the authority of science and, by extension, at the education system, the very foundation of professional expertise.
Sometimes this is right out in the open. At one point in Kansas' endless slugfest over curriculum, the conservative-dominated school board appointed a state schools chief with virtually no experience in education. Moderates erupted in fury. Returning their fire, one member of the Kansas Senate declared that the mere fact that "the elitists in Kansas today" — meaning, apparently, "education insiders" and prominent suburban lawyers — opposed this fellow made him "the perfect man for this job."
When I caught up with the various Republican personalities, at a candidate forum in Independence, what struck me was the feebleness of the moderate response to this kind of onslaught. Again and again I saw Cons play the populist card — railing against the National Education Association, suggesting their opponents belonged in the wealthy
suburbs of Kansas City, alleging epic voter fraud right here in Kansas — and then heard the Mods, dressed in neat professional attire, simply dismiss the criticism out of hand. C'mon, you know me. Now, let's get out there and put up some yard signs.
That the moderate Republicans succeeded this time around is testimony more to the sheer fatuity of the conservative issues than to the strength of their own message. But the pseudo-populist offensive is hardly going to cease. It is, after all, the prevailing rhetorical mode of the national Republican Party, from the commander in chief down to the lowliest Internet troll. They talk this way because it works. Since its opening shots in the 1960's, the culture war has turned the politics of this country upside down — and with distinctly unpopulist results.
That it has now gone far enough to discomfit Bob Dole Republicans in Kansas as well as liberal Democrats from Massachusetts is merely the price of success. Until the day its opponents learn to confront it directly, we will all bleed with Kansas.
Thomas Frank is the author, most recently, of "What's the Matter with Kansas?”
ER--
I don't dismiss the readers. I thought that was my point all along.
Mike--
What does this have to do with the question posed? How does an anti-Right rant benefit a discussion on my desire to see a greater check on media?
As for what you've hi-lighted... I've seen quite a few Trolls at Huffington Post and The Daily Kos... "Pot, this is kettle. Kettle, meet Pot"
If you want to get into an ideological spitting contest, you'll have to do much better than that.
You want to quote the work of others? Fine. But don't plop an entire article where a link will do... Don't tell us the song is getting old, then resort to someone else's words and ideas, leaving your own tucked safely in your pocket.
I'm not adverse to new ideas. I'm not adverse to old ideas. Just ask ER. He and I disagree on a few things, but I think I've learned how to be fair.
Please take the time to read the "Rules of Engagement" near the top of the sidebar.
I guess you're right, EL! Classic case of seeing the same set of facts and coming away with different interpretations. You see, I think, MSM casting a fearful eye at Everyman, with his blog and other tools, and responding fearfully and reluctantly. I see MSM casting a wary eye at Everyman, with his blog and other tools, and responding warily and wisely.
Post a Comment
<< Home