**
•-
. * . . . ” . .4
www
2
THE MEDIA:
Who’s Watching the Watchers?
cartoonist Tim Hodgson
ARE YOUR HANDS CLEAN?
If partisan politics makes Quayle’s treatment
by the media acceptable to some, remember:
Failure to publicize with equal weight the facts
in the candidate's favor as well as those in his
disfavor is not only a blatant assault upon one
person’s political aspirations, but is also an
assault upon democracy as well. By downplaying
or suppressing certain information, the media
acts, not as guardians of the public’s right to
know, but as manipulators of public opinion.
Certainly, I do not wish to diminish the
media’s genuine concern about the character
of public officials. The subject is appropriate
for it is important to know that those in whom
we place our trust are worthy of the charge. My
point here is twofold. First, that the "feeding
frenzy" which has overtaken the industry, has
led to some questionable practices; and
second, that given the track record amoung
journalists, which include violations running
from plagiarism to false reports, we wonder
what qualifies these reporters to be gatekeepers
of public morality? And to whom, besides their
editors, should they be accountable? After all,
as one writer observes, "these men and
women of the media have been elected by no
one, and despite their protests to the contrary,
are not reflective of the general population.” 1
Despite this lack of franchise, however,
these ARE the men and women who "both in
print and on television, have assumed the
power to set expectations according to their
intuitive response (s).. .” 2 That they are aware
of the ethical standards set forth by the Society
of Professional Journalists and the American
Society of Newspapers is of minimal comfort
for, given the reality of the market place and
its highly competitive nature, one wonders if
such ideals can long survive in so hostile
an environment.
The question is significant because there is
little redress once a breach of ethics has
occurred. The industry has so vehemently
opposed outside interference, and has so
successfully identified its interests with the
protections of the First Amendment, that even
the courts seems powerless. Laws, promoted
by the industry make the burden of proof too
great. A public figure, for example, must show
that the media acted with reckless disregard of
the truth or falsity of its statement, a standard
so rigorous that it almost amounts to getting
into someone’s head to prove intent. Because
of the difficulty of making such a case, few
individuals are willing to risk the costs, the loss
of privacy and the humiliation of being tried in
the press before the courts have ruled.
We, the people, through the power invested
in our Constitution, have given the media the
greatest protection that can be afforded,
believing that a free press is essential to our
democratic way of life But, given the concentra­
tion of that power in the hands of a few, largely
nameless, faceless entrepreneurs, we must
1. Christopher Celests. Inventing Reality the Media Measures Character;" Reasonable Doubt.
Winter 1988. p. 4 )
2 Ibid. p. 4.
consider whether or not this vast, unchecked
industry could ever endanger the freedom we
have charged them to protect. This brings us to
our second question, "Who is making the
choices that shape what we know, when we
know it and how much we know?"
\Ne must realize that a symbiotic relation­
ship exists between the media and the power
structure. By "power structure" I refer not only
to those in government but to the corporate
structure as well. The degree of interests these
entities have in common is of concern to many
observers, and should be to the public at large,
for the quality of the information received is
likely to be affected by these relationships.
Robert Sahr, assistant political science professor
at Oregon State University has recently written
of the danger. He notes, for example, that
reporters assigned to beats need access to
information upon which their professional
successes, if not their livelihoods, depend . To
be cut off from these sources is to risk failure.
In fact, a certain amount of nurturing of these
sources is critical, so much so that, as Sahr
points out, journalists are at least willing to
give, . .the benefit of the doubt to those who
are important sources and may be willing to
criticize those who are not important sources.” 3
We must realize that a
symbiotic relationship
exists between the media
and the power structure.
That this symbiotic relationship between
the media and the power structure exists, does
not surprise us. What could be more predic­
table? Each player has something the other
wants. For the media, the relationship means
inside information, lucrative advertising, a
chance to outdo or at least stay even with the
competition. For those in political or corporate
power, it may mean getting advance warning
about something potentially dangerous, having
a ready ear to mold public pinion or to pro­
mote a project. Regrettably, for the public, the
effect of these relationships is that what we
know, when we know it and how much we
know is subject to influence.
What role, if any, influence played in the
media's unqualified support for Portland's
convention center makes an interesting ques­
tion, for example. Certainly, many key leaders
supported the measure. And certainly, there
3. Shar, Robert, "News Media Locked into Established. Rigid Stucuture," Forum Section, The
Oregonian, October 31,1988, B7