3
THE MEDIA:
IFJio’s Watching the Watchers?
was little reported about the financial troubles
plaguing, not only Seattle’s fledgling venture,
but established sites as well. Though one
cannot draw with ease a causal connection
between the establishment's support for the
measure and the media’s silence on some
issues, the synchroneity does invite speculation.
One fact is clear, however. Having taken the role
of convention center advocate, the industry
failed to give the public a complete picture of
the risks.
In sum, the symbiotic relationship between
the media and the power structure is real and
as Shar remarks Is, "likely to limit and color
the information available to us."1 If the interests
of those being served are benevolent, or at
least benign, the media, may console itself that
it does no harm; but we, as members of a free
society must object. Democracy cannot survive
if we are to be the targets of hidden persuaders.
Vital to our way of life is the assurance that
what passes for news is not merely based upon
fact but that the selection of those facts is
balanced. At the moment, we cannot be certain
this is the case.
But, how are we to bring this powerful
giant-the-m edia to heel? As an industry, it
has grown so bold that it shuns its role as mere
chronicler, performing instead as a player-one
that, by the peddling of influence, which passes
for news, dares to determine who shall succeed
or fail in politics.2 And, more importantly, if we
should embark upon a course of correction,
would the "ill” cured, be greater or less than
the one we might create in trying to impose
standards upon a free press? In sum, dare we
tamper with an industry so inextricably linked to
one of our highest values-free speech?
Several attempts have been made to hold
the media accountable, most of them unsuc­
cessful because the industry, grown accustomed
to noninterference, has been hostile to them.
There has been one notable exception, however,
Democracy cannot survive
if we are to be the targets
of hidden persuaders
not in this country but in England. In 1953, the
Parliament, after putting much political pressure
on the industry to participate, created the
British Press Council. This is an independent
body which serves as a conduit between the
media and the public. It receives complaints of
unfair or deficient performance and investigates
them. Its powers are not punitive, but merely
those of making Its findings public. Such review,
however, seems to have a salutary effect. A
report on the effectiveness of the Council draws
the following conclusions.
In Britain, the Press Council seems to have
served a constructive purpose. Despite imperfec­
tions, it has become a forum, reasonably accep­
table to the public and press, in which grievances
against the press can be aired. Only a few of its
findings have not been published by the media
adversely judged, and important actions receive
enough publicity to have impact. (Twentieth
Century Fund, "A Free and Responsive Press,”
P- 57.)
The reason why the British Press Council
has worked while similar efforts in the United
States have died are varied. For one, public
concern about the media's lack of standards
was wide spread and growing in England. For
another, the Parliament, while not engaging
itself directly in the reform, did join the public
outcry and passed enabling legislation. Finally,
and importantly, many representative of the
industry were willing to participate in the experi­
ment and to exert influence on their reluctant
members. That influence was possible since
Britain’s press corps is fairly homogeneous,
comprised of 110 newspapers, including
nationals and weeklies, and has a limited
broadcasting enterprise.
Press Councils have been tried in the
United States, but for the most part has been
met with strong media resistance. The gist of
the argument against is that the system is
doomed to fail because those who would
become involved are those least in need of
reform. In a sense, the Council would be
preaching to the converted. Financial support
for the venture also is a problem. A National
Press Council was begun in the 1970s but
died in the 80s when private foundation
funds evaporated.
Two regional councils met with more
success, one in Hawaii and the other in
Minnesota. The Hawaii council was born out of
a bitter feud in 1969 between Mayor Frank Fasi
and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. It grew so
rancorous that Fasi wouldn’t allow city employees
to be interviewed and barred reporters from
setting foot in his office. Fasi defended his posi­
tion by saying he hoped the outcome of the
dispute would "be an answer to the question:
Can a medium throw scruples and ethics out
the window and still have the right to cry viola­
tion of freedom of the press?” 3
1 Shar, Robert, "News Media Locked into Established, Rigid Stucuture, ' Forum Section, The
Oregonian, October 31,1988, B7.
2. (For a discussions of the media’s view of it's power to "break" a politician, see Media's
Election Role Widens, Writers say” by Bryan K. Houson, Oregonian, 6/5/88, editorial section)
As a precursor to these two regional
Councils, smaller experiments dealing with local
press were begun in 1967. Lowell Mellett, the
first editor of the Washington Daily News left the
American Newspaper Guild a sum of money to
encourage responsible performance by the
media without infringing upon the First Amend­
ment rights. From this resource, city press
councils were formed in Bend, Oregon; Redwood
City, California; Sparta and Cairo Illinois.
Press Councils have been
tried in the United States,
but for the most part have
been met with strong
media resistance.
As a result of these regional and local
experiments enough has been gleaned to
warrant revisiting press councils and the
following recommendations have been offered
by experts4:
► First, sufficient public support for the
council must be created so that the
industry is encouraged to participate.
► Second, the councils must defend the
rights of the media as well as monitor
them.
► Third, the censured paper, radio or televi­
sion station must agree to publish the
adjudication against itself.
► Fourth, funds for the establishment of such
councils must be from varied and indepen­
dent sources.
► Five, membership on the councils should
represent intellectual leaders in a number
of fields, members of the media and
interested citizens, including students.
► Six, these councils should have regularly
established meeting schedules.
► Seven, the council should be of modest
size, although the Hawaiian council
works well with 31.
3 Rivers, William, Blankenburg, et al Canfield Press. Backtalk Press Councils ol America,
1972, p. 121)
4 Murray, George, The Press and the Public, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
II., p. 174.
(continued next page)