Where have all the journalists gone?

Why is it so difficult to get access to independent media and news in this country? There are several reasons. One is the fact that money is the primary determining factor when it comes time to decisions about who gets airtime and who doesn’t. It follows that the largest and most influential media organizations are often targeted and offered gratuitous sums of money and contracts by governments and private institutions so they can use the media’s effect on public opinion to serve their own interests. This results in an ever-shrinking pool of media outlets and broadcasting companies from which the public can choose to get their information — leading to consolidation, commercialization, and collusion with the powers that be. This is an ongoing process, and it’s not a new phenomenon. In fact, this has been going on for decades. But the true depth of the problem is evidenced by taking a look at the relationship between the media, the government, and even academia throughout history.

The Fourth Branch

At the end of the 1970s, several major US media organizations, government agencies, and large corporate interests were in damage-control mode after the Senate Intelligence Investigation that took place at the end of the previous decade. When the Church Committee released its findings in 1977, the American public was finally made aware of just how close the power elite and the media had become over the last several years. As it turned out, the CIA had created a top-secret network of agents selected from among America’s most trusted journalists and prominent academic figures. These agents worked with the CIA to cover up massive domestic spying programs and acted as mouthpieces for the agency itself. The major counterinsurgency program (COINTELPRO) and many of its missions were carried out within the United States.

The Senate investigation showed that “more than 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA” over the course of the Operation Mockingbird. That same year, an investigation by the New York Times revealed that the CIA’s roster had “included more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals,” all of whom had been working undercover and carrying out clandestine assignments — both in the US and abroad. Even more troubling was the fact that these revelations couldn’t just be attributed to a ‘few bad apples.’ The list of CIA puppets included “the top managers of the leading news organizations.” As details of the massive collusion between the CIA and the media continued to emerge, the reports revealed that the scope of these clandestine operations was much broader and more pervasive than the public expected.

As shocking as they were, the revelations about the agency’s vast COINTELPRO operations did not stop coming. The CIA had indeed been able to infiltrate and co-opt scores of prestigious broadcasting organizations and respected journalists, but they didn’t stop there. Hundreds of academics across America and the world had also been secretly co-opted into working with and providing information to the CIA. In fact, the CIA seemed to have little trouble procuring reliable assets from the nation’s top universities, colleges, and publishers. These professors-turned-propagandists were willing to help the agency spy on American citizens by feeding and disseminating information at the behest of their handlers. In its final report, the Church Committee noted:

“The Central Intelligence Agency is now using several hundred American academics, who in addition to providing leads and, on occasion, making introductions for intelligence purposes, occasionally write books and other material to be used for propaganda purposes abroad. Beyond these, an additional few score are used in an unwitting manor for minor activities. These academics are located in over 100 American colleges, universities, and related institutes. At the majority of institutions, no one other than the individual concerned is aware of the CIA link. At the others, at least one university official is aware of the operational use made of academics on his campus. In addition, there are several academics abroad who serve operational purposes, primarily the collection of intelligence.”

The problem, however, is not limited to the realm of academia and foreign policy. The commercialization and commodification of the media has led to a whole host of additional problems. For instance, in the 1980s, “some fifty media conglomerates dominated all media outlets, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, music, publishing, and film.” The scary part is that that was over three decades ago.

A Collaborative Effort

By the year 2000, the number of major networks had dropped to just six. Today, the level of consolidation is unprecedented. Over the years, these massive conglomerates have managed to acquire “all the world’s major film studios, TV networks, and music companies, and a sizable fraction of the most important cable channels, cable systems, magazines, major-market TV stations, and book publishers.” The problems is not that there is a shortage of people tuned in to the news these days, and there is certainly no shortage of news that needs reporting. The problem is, “corporate media outlets in the U.S. are legally responsible to their shareholders to maximize profits,” instead of their viewers and the people of the world who are affected most by current events.

Luckily, the problem can be fixed. But to say that the path will be ‘difficult’ would be an understatement. Over the last 23 years, “the wave of massive deals and rapid globalization have left the media industry further centralized in nine transnational conglomerates–Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viacom (owner of CBS), News Corporation, Bertelsmann, General Electric (owner of NBC), Sony, AT&T–Liberty Media, and Vivendi Universal.” Among the many advantages associated with increasing consolidation and government contracts , these massive media corporations have almost unlimited access to private and government funding, logistics support, and personnel, among other resources. They also boast vast communications networks and an entrenched public relations task force — which has been hard at work for decades. In fact, in 2002, Herman and Chomsky revealed that “there are 20,000 more public relations agents working to doctor the news today than there are journalists writing it.”

Individual network employees, however, are not the source of the problem. But the number of incentives for journalists to stick to the status quo is constantly growing. Robert McChesney warns that even without direct editorial supervision by political and economic elites, “corporate/commercial pressure on news often takes place indirectly, and is therefore less likely to be recognised as such by journalists or the public.” The effects range from the international to the individual. Likewise, the problem is not limited to traditional media — the Internet is at risk as well.

All Your Base Are Belong to Us

In fact, over the last several years, the Internet has been increasingly targeted by the major newspapers, media corporations, and publishers, “all fearful of being outflanked by small pioneer users of the new technology, and willing (and able) to accept losses for years while testing out these new waters.” These new acquisitions and compromises aren’t just a threat to smaller publishers and media platforms — they are a threat to the integrity and character of the news itself. Recently, Amazon decided to purchase ownership of the Washington Post newspaper.

Amazon’s acquisition of the Post — long considered the most revered news organization in D.C. — was a complete surprise to most of the nation’s journalists and publishers. But it should come as no surprise to those of us who have been keeping an eye on these trends as they’ve been developing over the last decade or so. For example, many of the nation’s most prominent news sources, such as “the Boston Globe (a subsidiary of the New York Times) and the Washington Post are offering E-commerce goods and services.”

Offering the latest and most efficient services, however, is not a problem in and of itself. The problem arises when the benefits of rapid access and mass appeal being to supplant quality journalism and critical perspective. As James Ledbetter point out, “it’s troubling that none of the newspaper portals feel that quality journalism is at the center of strategy . . . because journalism doesn’t help you sell things.” In an effort to minimize their losses, “and with advertisers leery of the value of spending in a medium characterized by excessive audience control and rapid surfing, the large media entrants into the Internet have gravitated to making familiar compromises–more attention to selling goods, cutting back on news, and providing features immediately attracted audiences and advertisers.”

Amazon’s new ownership role could easily tarnish the reputation for hard-hitting investigative journalism that the Post has managed to cultivate over the years. This is especially true in light of the newspaper’s escapades since the late 1990s, acting as an establishment mouthpiece and advocate of US military adventurism and financial exploitation around the world. (Stone 2013) The increasing homogeneity has also contributed to the mounting financial pressure on some of the most trusted names and voices in independent media.

Summer Reese, the executive director of the Pacifica Foundation, tearfully explained the crisis facing WBAI in New York City. “We have barely made our transmitter payments,” she explained. WBAI is owned by Pacifica — the oldest listener-funded radio broadcasting station in the country and the model upon which NPR was founded — and is now facing closure due to their inability to raise enough money to pay for their transmitter at the top of the Empire State Building. The transmitter costs roughly $50,000 a month and, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the station has been unable to compete with other broadcasters in New York City — the most expensive and competitive market for journalism and media in the world.

I could go into detail and list a bunch of statistics and figures showing how the media consistently misrepresents public opinion. I could list the discrepancies between the realities of war, class conflict, racism, and poverty and the way they are distorted by the major media networks. I could go through the endless list of academic studies and scholarly research outlining the flawed nature of profit-driven media and its inevitable effects on the institution and quality of journalism. It’s true, statistics are incredibly useful and helpful to those of us who, by some fortuitous string of circumstances and conditions, have become aware of the need for independent media and inquiry.

For people like you and me, statistics are a concrete way to put a numerical face on what we as a nation inevitably feel when we find ourselves staring down the quagmire of perpetual war. But statistics are only part of the argument. Indeed, many people seem to be able to tap into these patterns intuitively. Usually, they do so either through some type of personal experience with war, or by examining independent sources of information that aren’t beholden to the official narrative. In these situations and others like them, independent media is an extremely powerful organizing tool for the people to use against their oppressors — or when their government fails them.

Agents of Change

A high-level CIA official once told Carl Bernstein, “One journalist is worth twenty agents.” He was being interviewed in 1977 for Rolling Stone magazine. What he said may well be true. But the pendulum swings both ways. Anyone who has been paying attention recently will attest to the fact that the people have they own agents — some much more effective than a mere twenty agents. The revelations that have emerged as a result of the recent leaks by people like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and a whole host of other whistleblowers and investigative journalists have shocked the nation and the world at large. Reminiscent of the days of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (not to mention the Church Committee Reports), they have exposed some of the most secretive and deceptive practices of governments and their agencies, providing insight into the darkest corners of the clandestine world. But, at the same time, they should also provide us with a sense of hope for the future of information sharing and transparency in an age of rapidly decreasing privacy and autonomy.

But what if one day we lose independent and reliable sources of information through which we can facilitate critical perspective and promote rational thought? What is to be said for the unsuspecting children of empire? What about the children born into the midst of its imperial conquests who are catapulted from birth into a world where conflict and suffering are the norm? The sons and daughters of each side, lacking an alternative perspective, inevitably grow up only to answer their leaders’ calls to war, and take up arms to fight against the political enemy of the day. We still have a few diamonds left amongst the rough — but they are well-hidden. The daily independent broadcast by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! is of the brightest examples we have today of independent media at work. Undoubtedly, it is “Democracy Now!’s attentiveness to counter-hegemonic struggles that contributes to its success as the nation’s largest public media collaboration.” But Amy Goodman and others like her cannot do it by themselves. There is too much at stake and the opposition is too strong.

What we need is to return to the basics — the fundamental principles of ethical and independent media communication. Journalism is no longer a commercially viable undertaking in the United States. As long as advertising provides the revenue needed to maintain operating costs, we will never be exposed to the truth unless they can make a profit from selling it to us. If we want to fix that, we need alternative models for journalism.

We need new platforms and new means of cooperation between people at the grassroots level. We need to push for subsidies that help make publishing cheaper for journalists, authors, consumers, and publishers. We need to open up the airwaves to independent television and radio programming. We need institutions and individuals that put people before profits, and have a sense of integrity and duty when it comes to the public good.

We need journalists and the media organizations that support them to provide the public with the information they need — not whatever brings in the most money.