U.S. media sees Sept. 11 as turning point

Ati Nurbaiti, Staff Writer, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

It is eerie that journalists in the U.S. are referring to -- almost hailing -- the Sept. 11 tragedy as a turning point toward better and "serious" journalism. Embarrassed by coverage of the Clinton sex scandal and so much trivia in the press, journalists and media observers say now the public is turning its attention to coverage of public affairs, foreign news and also to newspapers.

Skepticism is raised as to how long this will last -- given the seemingly entrenched culture of "infotainment", the belief that news must be "dumbed down" to maintain people's attention span, and hence, the major emphasis on maintaining advertiser loyalty and profit.

Nowadays, "people are reading more," says Virginia Hamill of The Washington Post. Good examples abound in the media, yet senior journalists and media professors shared recently with visiting Indonesian journalists their concern over the more dominant shallow media content.

Readership had declined to the alarming level of 55 percent of the adult population by 2000, compared with 81 percent in 1964. Senior television anchors testify to shorter and shorter news programs, with lesser foreign news over the years, for fear of losing viewers. The desperate scramble for audience attention, and thus advertisers, has led to journalism products that not all their practitioners are proud of.

The factors blamed so far include a public bent on (or attraction toward) consumerism (one form of "relaxation" after the Vietnam War, journalists Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser write), and a feeling that not much was important on the foreign news agenda after the end of the Cold War. The result was a culture of "amusing ourselves to death," wrote social critic Neil Postman.

He wondered whether Americans preferred to be entertained rather than informed -- which explains the shouting, screaming and applauding on the likes of the Jerry Springer show.

Another factor is the shift from family to corporate ownership of media companies, resulting in editors forever seeking efficiency in the newsroom -- even to reach higher profits than nonmedia industries. While General Motors would be content with a 5 percent profit margin on total revenue, Downie and Kaiser of The Washington Post write, a nationwide owner of newspapers and television stations, the Tribune Company of Chicago, wants 30 percent.

Particularly in television, Downie and Kaiser describe how substance gives way to dramatic footage, and how owners willingly invest huge amounts of money in the technology that enables dramatic, on-site coverage -- while saving on reporters who must rush from one story to another.

And consultants were proved right: Ratings were high for programs with dramatic footage regardless of the quality of the reporting, so the few experiments by TV stations to maintain quality were dropped, the journalists wrote in their book subtitled American journalism in peril.

The U.S. public has had a wide choice of media since the arrival of cable television. Independent radio channels, periodicals and nonprofit broadcasting stations also abound. The C-Span (City span) channel airs unedited Congress hearings; local channels also air city hall and city council meetings.

But even nonprofit media have been forced into the direction of commercialization, researchers say. However, the ads on public broadcasting stations, insists Peggy Scott Laborde of the New Orleans-based, are not "in your face" commercials -- none of them says "Buy now!". Laborde was in the middle of preparing auctions, one of the station's regular fund-raising activities.

The need for funding led to dependence, so powerful patrons were spared controversial coverage. Such signs were revealed in an earlier study on the U.S. media, first published in 1988 by linguist Noam Chomsky and finance expert Edward S. Herman.

Senior journalists lament a "shrinking diversity" of views, given increased concentration of ownership. In 1988 there were 24 media companies (down from 50 large firms in 1983); by 2002 media industries were centralized within nine conglomerates.

Because broadcasting is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the body has been lambasted for having relaxed its rules regarding public service content, which must be provided apart from entertainment.

We hear repeated warnings of what might happen if few companies controlled the media. Says advocate for democratizing the media Martha L. Allen, "those few corporations have economic interest and have a stake in international and local policy." Allen leads the Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press in Washington D.C.

The Internet and cable have great potential to produce a more democratic press, Allen noted, as they are beyond the control of those with power over the flow of information. But regarding cable, she added, instead of allowing election candidates to pay millions of dollars for airtime, much more airtime must be for free for public dialog, because "it is the people who own the airwaves" through the FCC.

Critics say that the flourishing community media in the U.S. does not guarantee adequately diverse views on national issues -- such coverage is dominated by the few media giants.

Allen's concern is more strongly articulated by Chomsky and Herman, who say the media practices propaganda (though not always intentionally). In the book Manufacturing Consent, they refute the argument underlying the trend of global media business since the 1980s to open up the market of media ownership -- to provide a wider choice for the public.

It is advertisers, they say, that determine the preferred media, which led to the closure of, for instance, the labor-owned media in Britain. The preference is for uncontroversial media that will not spoil the "mood to buy," they write.

Their proposed solution was also to make much better use of the nonprofit cable channels, and other independent media, through more self-educating and organizing among the public. As Allen admitted, by the end of the 1980s the ownership of film, publication and broadcasting had consolidated while "we were not organized."

Competition for the media audience, who is more importantly consumers than an information-seeking public, has led business representatives to even join editorial meetings, one media professor says. This may explain the products popping up in the middle of various shows, such as a new Wendy's salad being sampled by host Rosie O'Donnel last month.

Since last year's economic downturn, advertisers have sought unconventional ways to reach potential consumers, who would likely switch to other channels come every commercial break. Advertisers, a marketing consultant told The New York Times in May, are not fooling the "savvy" American public who will most likely accept such approaches in a TV show, whereas advocates for media improvement say such "betrayal" of viewers is unacceptable.

Since Sept. 11 alarm bells have been raised at the dangerous signs that Americans are much more willing to give up precious liberties -- also regarding information.

The Freedom of Information Act passed in 1966 was virtually abandoned via a recent ruling of Attorney General John Ashcroft. This overturned a 1993 ruling of the same office to release all public papers unless government could demonstrate potential for serious harm. Ruth Rosen in the latest issue of the journal, Dissent, wrote that this change regarding one of America's "greatest democratic reforms", was largely ignored by the media.

She added, "Coupled with Bush's Nov. 1 executive order giving power to seal all presidential records since 1980, the crackdown on information is chilling."

In the face of such business and political pressure journalists say they can only try their best ("though we could have been more critical after September", muses one). Encouragement of more good journalism includes the presentation of peer-group awards, monitoring by journalists and media watch groups, training and sharing information within the profession. A day after Sept. 11, the Asian American Journalists Association informed colleagues at websites on Arabs and Muslims to avoid stereotyping in their reports.

As journalists in the U.S. grab the opportunity to prove that their good work can make money, the opportunity in Indonesia is wide open -- given so much public expectation now based on supposedly newly found press freedom.

The above article was produced following the writer's participation in the annual International Visitors' Program of the U.S. government last month. The theme of this year's program was press freedom.