| Media homepage | Lester B Pearson College | IB Theory of Knowledge | Active Citizenship |
| Finding News | Evaluating News Critically | Considering Ethical Issues | Taking Action |
|
TAKING ACTION |
|||
1. How to improve press coverage
2. How to use media ethically and effectively for social causes
3. How to defend human rights: freedom of speech and the press
The two authors quoted below argue for the importance of actively informing oneself and contacting media representatives directly to seek a broad range of coverage and viewpoints.
Media Activism: So What Can We Do About It?
Below are excerpts from an interview with the founder of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), a media watchdog. The entire interview is worth reading, so you may wish to note the book title and library reference. Be aware that the interview was conducted prior to the book's first publication in 1990, and ask yourself whether circumstances have change since then. You might check FAIR's website.
An Interview with Jeff Cohen, "A Call to Media Activism," in Martin Lee and Norman Solomon, Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media. Carol Publishing Group. New York, 1991.(340 ff)
. . . . Many individuals and organizations are already engaged in media activism. One of these is the media watch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting). We asked Jeff Cohen, FAIR's founder and executive director, to discuss what active citizens can do to promote media pluralism.
Q. In the face of concentrated media power, what can an individual do to make changes or improvements in the media?
A. The first thing to do is to snap out of the mode of passive media consumer. When you watch TV or read a newpaper, be alert and skeptical. In other words, don't take the media lying down. Be conscious of who the sponsors and advertisers are. Remember when you're watcdhing NBC, you're watching the network owned by GE. Remember that the other broadcast networks and mass publications are owned by big business. And remember who doesn't own or sponsor the news. When you see a report about a labor/management dispute, for example, be conscious that no unions own any daily papers or TV stations.
If you're informed about the impact of media ownership, pass on your knowledge to fiends, family, co-workers -- because it's not the kind of information they'll readily pick up from Newsweek or Nightline.
Besides watching and reading the news in an alert fashion, take action. Become an active citizen who speaks up. Write letters and make calls to the media, both local and national. If, for example, you see a news story on any NBC station involving General Electric, contact the station or the network to ask why the viewers were not informed that GE owns NBC. The question can be phrased simply: "Our society demands that politicians and government officials disclose their financial involvements; why shouldn't the media disclose theirs?"
If you support equality for women and you regularly watch a TV news panel show which rarely includes women as panelists, contact the program's producers to ask why they're having so much trouble finding women experts. Ask the editors of opinion pages why there are so few women writing political columns. Opponents of racism should be asking similar questions of media forums which typically exclude racial minorities. Individuals concerned about the environment, consume rights or other causes should be complaining directly to media outlets which exclude their advocates. Tlhe media always tell us what a great pluralistic society we have. We won't see this wonderful diversity reflected in the new media until they begin to hear from an aroused public. Until then, the viewpoints of conservative elites will continue to dominate the news. . . . .
Q. What's the evidence the media will listen to an aroused public?
A. There's evidence the media listen quite closely. Many of those who work in the media see themselves as "majoritarians" -- offering the stories and opinion that most viewers or readers want. Media owners and journalists are aware that media outlets are businesses selling access to their viewers or readers. More than news and entertainment, what they're selling is advertising time or space to corporations seeking customers. It is very important for them to attract and keep viewers and readers so that advertises will buy ads.
But the media have not heard enough from thoughtful individuals demanding tough journalism and wide-ranging discussions of the issues. Instead, they've heard thunderous clamor from well-organized right-wing and religious fringe groups. With a few thousand letter-writers, these groups have sought to convince the media that the public is dominated by conservatives who want censorship and conformity. . . . .
Q. How can people who want to lodge complaints with the media distinguish themselves from the organized right-wing fringe?
A. That's easy. First, contact the media only about stories or programs or issues you're actually familiar with. Second, don't join the right wing in calling for censorship of viewpoints you disagree with. At FAIR, we advocate for the inclusion of new, balancing viewpoints, not the exclusion of old, conservative ones. In other words, don't ask that TV networks of op-ed pages censor the voices of hard-line conservatives . . . . Instead ask them to open their pages and airwaves to the balancing voices of outspoken, unapologetic progressives. Fighting to get new voices into the media, fighting for free speech and an invigorated First Amendment, is exhilarating; working to silence someone is censorial and depressing. . . .
Q. What specific requests or demands can an individual make in the interests of media pluralism?
A. That answer is as varied and diverse as the American public. It depends on what issues concern the individual. Women and minorities should be demanding greater representation at every level of the media -- from hosts and panelists on news talkshows, to expert sources quoted in news stories, to reporters and columnists. If white men had a lock on wisdom, our country wouldn't have the problems it does. There is no more democratic demand than the one calling for new and diverse voices to be heard in the media. . . .
Why are there numerous national TV talkshows on business, and not one on labor? . . . These same questions about the predominance of pro-business columnists, business sections in newspapers and business programs on TV, can be raised by those concerned about the environment or consumer rights. Media managers are very big on studying demographics; yet they have largely ignored polls showing protection of the environment to be among the biggest concerns Americans have. It's not a fringe issue. why isn't there a single weekly show on national TV devoted to the environmental agenda? . . . It's questions of balance like these that we should be asking. . . . .
Q. Which raises the question of the tone of one's communications with the media.
A. Whenever possible, try to offer constructive criticism. If you contact a media outlet to complain about the narrow range of sources or viewpoints which it present, give the names of individuals or groups whose views you want to see reflected in that media.
If you're involved in the peace movement and you see a foreign policy story in a local newspaper or on a TV station based exclusively on official U.S. sources, contact the reporters -- even if it means calling Washington -- and ask if they are aware that a leading academic or peace spokespeson is located in their hometown ready to offer a differing view. Suggest that the next time they do a story heavily based on official sources, they seek out this policy critic for a balancing perspective.
When you criticize reporters or news editors, do so on the basis that they've fallen short of their professed standards of neutrality, balance and independence from the state -- not that they have lousy politics. You're not trying to convince them to adopt your advocacy position but to consult and quote experts with these perspectives as sources in their reporting. . . . .
Q. Do letters-to-the-editor really matter?
A. Informed, non-hysterical letters can matter, and they need not be published to have impact. Sometimes your letter will be passed on to the relevant journalists at a media outlet even if it's not published. If you take the time to write a letter, send copies of it to two or three places within that media outlet -- perhaps to the reporter, his or her immediate editor, as well as the letters-to-the-editor department.
If media outlets get letters from a dozen people raising the same issue, they may tend to publish one or two of them. If, instead, they receive only one or two total, they may just toss them in the trash, figuring, "No big issue here." So even if your letter doesn't get into print, it may help another one with a similar point-of-view get published. Surveys of newspaper readers show that the letters page is among the most closely-read parts of the paper. . . .
Q. What if well-documented criticism, even ridicule, doesn't work in bringing change?
A. Treat the media like you would any other political institution -- whether it be City Hall or a company polluting your neighborhood. If dialogue doesn’t work, there are many lawful, nonviolent ways of escalating one's tactics. Public demonstrations often focus attention on a problem. In Los Angeles, FAIR set up a picket line outside KABC to protest its lineup which feature the views of a righ-wing commentator unbalance by a partisan of the left. Picketers carried signs: "You can't fly a plane with just a right wing." KABC savaged the protest, but the newspapers gave it major coverage, and we were invited to debate the issue on the talkshows.
Q. How optimistic are you?
A. In an era when largely nonviolent movements have brought down corrupt governments throughout Eastern Europe and elsewhere, there are real grounds for optimism. Ironically, the same U.S. media pundits who are breathless supporters of democracy movements in Eastern Europe would be petrified at the prospect of a pro-democracy movement challenging eleite structures here in the United States. Let's not forget that in courntry afte country -- whether Czechoslovakia, Romania or the Philippines -- movements to trow aside corupt elites have targeted much of their efforts against media outlets associated with the old rulers, sometimes engaging in physical confrontations in order to seize TV or radio stations. My point is that if a pro-democracy movement emerges in the United States against entrenched concentrations of power, the battle over the media will be center stage.
Mort Rosenblum, Who Stole the News?: Why We Can't Keep Up with What Happens in the World and What We Can Do About It. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Toronto, 1993.
What makes it into the news?
160-161
The biggest news stories mostly move at an imperceptible pace: the environment, economic shifts, ethnic hostility, hunger. Each [editorial] desk must decide what to do about them; most wait until they cannot be ignored.
This old pattern will be slow to change. Hardly any of the major crises of recent times surprised editors who had read what crossed their desks. But a lot of their readers were caught unwarned. "One of my greatest failures as a foreign correspondent was trying to get even the editors interested in Yugoslavia after Tito," said Dan Fisher at the L.A. Times. "I was a total failure at persuading this paper. No one else did much better."
. . . . This, again, is where the readers come in. What nearly all ranking editos agree on is that their feedback is sparse. A few people call in to complain. Fewer write. Even the Los Angeles Times' editors get only a handful of letters a week, crank mail excepted, on how foreign news is treated. And most suspect this is because people who might otherwise write fear it is a waste of time.
"Any serious letter certainly get my attention, and it could be enough to trigger a policy change," Jim Yuenger, at the Chicago Tribune, observed. In fact, he was so impressed with one woman's letter that he called her up and stayed on the phone long enough to get some ideas he put into practice. Like Yuenger, most editors are old-time reporters, trained to trust the mysterious elements of feel over a bunch of expensive numbers from readership surveys. One voice doesn not make a majority, but it can lead to a new line of questioning. A lot of voices can be stuffed together in a file folder to be brandished at the new budget meeting.
When I wrote Coups and Earthquakes, I interviewed editors around the country and determined that only six letters a week from concerned readers, addressed personally to an executive or managing editor, were enough to influence the mix in news columns. It was an arbitrary number. Shortly afterward, I was running my own paper, the Tribune in Paris, which reached 160 countries and drew a whole lot of mail. I realized I had made a mistake. A better number would have been four letters a week. If pushed, the gate can move with surprising ease.
What can readers do to improve the coverage?
287-289
. . . readers and viewers face the biggest challenge. If the suppliers have not done better, it is because consumers have not demanded it. . . .
Get involved. Learn about local newspapers and broadcasters. Try out larger papers from somewhere else. Or magazines that pomise something different. Switch on NPR and BBC, if you can fin it. Shp around for the best network news, and then let all three know why you made you made your final choice. Watch CNN but don't believe the hype. Make your own decisions and then write Atlanta. Write letters to individuals. Get your friends and clubs to do the same. Complain. Lobby. Explain.
When something impresses you, say so. Most likely, a gleeful editor will clutch your letter and race up to the publisher's office with it. You think I'm joking. Subscribe to newspapers and give them a chance. If they disappoint you, drop them and tell the editor why. . . .
Letters to a specific editor make an impact; editors' names are on the masthead. "Personal" on the envelope helps move it along. The more thoughtful and specific the argument, the deeper it will penetrate. Station managers and network executives are used to numbers, percentages, focus group reports, so any serious communication from real human beings cannot help but make an impact. They are harder to reach than newspaper editors. But each of them lives and dies on the ability to read public mood.
Interested groups can write collective letters, or organize letter-writing campaigns so different points of view get across. In communities, editors can be invited to speak to organizations. During the questions that follow, they learn from their audience. Consumer advocates know how little it can take to convince corporate executives to alter course. It is often easy in the news business. Pressure tactics are less effective, and cank letters go in the gabage. What works is anything that sounds to the gatekeepers [editors] like the legitimate voice of the people they are already trying their best to reach.
If there is no change, consumers can do what they do when there aren't enough nuts in the Hershey bar. Readers who don't like one paper can subscribe to another. Television viewers only have to switch the channel. If there is a groundswell, it will be felt.
I takes some effort to make the most of the good reporting already out there. But there is plenty. Get to know bylines of correspondents and columnists. Not what they say in February and check it against July. Or the following February. You will find the ones who get things right.
When you read a newspaper, examine the sources. Who is named and why? I someone is not named, is there a good reason? Do facts back up the assertions? Soon enough, you'll be able to separate good reporting with protected sources from shortcut reporting where the correspondent did too little legwork.
. . . . Finally, there are those two tools, as useful as fire and the wheel: suspended belief and triangulation. Don’t' believe anyone's copy without conditions. Register it. React if it says a nuclear warhead is headed to a neighborhood near you. But check it. Reporters always seek a second source. So should readers. Triangulation is the extension of this process. Find another source but also look for pictures and more background. By looking a little harder, you'll find out why you should be interested.
Readers, correspondents and editors all have the same goal. We need a daily running record of human events, back up by fuller briefings for people who want more. Whether they watch, listen or read, Americans have to depend on news organizations for guidance on what is really important. We need solid news judgement, not a carnival barker's flair for what appeals. . . . The point is not whether to give people what they want or what they need. It is helping them see why what they need is also what they want.
BACK TO HOMEPAGE I NDEX