I'm 53 years old and I've watched, over my adult years, as the American News Media industry has changed from a Watchdog for The People into a silent lapdog with no apparent care for the Informed Electorate the 1st Amendment Right of a Press free from Government abridgement implies:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Previous eras had Newscasters with
gravitas, whose plain-to-see goal was an
informed electorate:
- Edward R. Murrow
- Walter Cronkite
- Harry Reasoner
- Howard K Smith
- Peter Jennings
- Chet Huntley
- David Brinkley
- John Chancellor
- Tom Brokaw
- Dan Rather
What do current Viewers of the American News Media have?
Chuck Todd, has nearly a decade of work for NBC News/MSNBC:
Chuck Todd is the chief White House correspondent for NBC News, as well as the host of “The Daily Rundown” on msnbc. He became NBC News’ political director in March 2007. He also serves as NBC News’ on-air political analyst for “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams,” “Today,” and msnbc. Todd took over as NBC’s chief White House correspondent in December 2008. He became the new Host of Meet the Press in 2014.
Chuck Todd, NBC News/MSNBC point man (per his biography), is now infamous (at least in certain circles) for:
NBCNews/MSNBC host Chuck Todd said Wednesday that when it comes to misinformation about the new federal health care law, don't expect members of the media to correct the record.
During a segment on "Morning Joe," former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) speculated that most opponents of the Affordable Care Act have been fed erroneous information about the law. Todd said that Republicans "have successfully messaged against it" but he disagrees with those who argue that the media should educate the public on the law. According to Todd, that's President Barack Obama's job.
"But more importantly, it would be stuff that Republicans have successfully messaged against it," Todd told Rendell. "They don't repeat the other stuff because they haven't even heard the Democratic message. What I always love is people say, 'Well, it's you folks' fault in the media.' No, it's the President of the United States' fault for not selling it."
Watch on YouTube
Video courtesy MSNBC & Talking Points Memo
(Embed disabled at their request)
I ask you, as News Consumers, is THAT the best which you should expect from our vaunted
Fourth Estate?
Media as the "Fourth Estate"
Access to information is essential to the health of democracy for at least two reasons. First, it ensures that citizens make responsible, informed choices rather than acting out of ignorance or misinformation. Second, information serves a "checking function" by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them.
In the United States, the media is often called the fourth branch of government (or "fourth estate"). That's because it monitors the political process in order to ensure that political players don't abuse the democratic process.
When the very First Amendment to the Constitution grants freedom from government abridgement to the Press, along with Speech, Religion, Assembly and Petition for Redress of Grievances; it should be understood by both the Press and The People that this Right is one of the critical Rights needed in order to maintain a Democracy.
But as in all cases, the silent Duty which comes with that Right is also critical in order to maintain a Democracy. In the case of the (Free) Press, the silent Duty is to maintain an Informed Electorate...
According to Thomas Jefferson, an illuminated (informed) population is the "most effectual means" to prevent tyranny.:
... experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large...
From the
The National Constitution Center on Ben Franklin and an Informed Electorate:
There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.
I know there is a long-time Kossack who frequently posts comments regarding the
Free Press, and how it's actually NOT free, because it is merely an arm of the Corporate, for-profit Media of the 21st century. That user implies it is unreasonable and illogical to expect actual News without corporate influence under this paradigm.
Perhaps it is, under the current paradigm.
But what if our 21st century Congress and President decided that an Informed Electorate was still a backbone to our democratic Republic - and went out of their way to ensure that the (Free) Press and the Media at large required MORE of the corporate Media, when it comes to News? Is that even possible?
I say it is.
It cannot merely be News Consumers calling for better News - some of us have done that for years, to no effect. That cry is not nearly loud enough to attract or hold the attention of those who walk the Halls of Power in Washington D.C. It will have to be those whose shoes tred those hallowed halls, who take up the baton handed down to them by luminaries such as Jefferson and Franklin, who will use their Power and Authority to ensure that the corporate entities who now own the News Media are required to Provide for the general Welfare, insofar as the Public Airwaves are concerned.
It's time for some Congressional Legislation regarding the Public Airwaves AND any program which labels itself as a News show.
On-air utterances which are found to be false, by a non-partisan 5 member board which is chosen by the Chair of the F.C.C (no more than two members of each of the two main political parties), after a public complaint filed via a website maintained by the F.C.C, which contains:
Date of on-air event
Name of program it occurred on
Name of broadcast network which carried it
Name of person who made statement/claim
Source of proof the statement/claim is false or misleading
Would require, by the broadcasting entity which hosts the program, to air at the beginning of the next airing of that same program a short bit, no more than two minutes long nor less than 30 seconds long, which references the source of the proof of the lie or misstatement previously aired. This board would also post the information on their website in a manner easy for anyone to locate via an internal search function.
Would this be an end to the modern 21st century Media tendency to push every issue as "he said, she said", implying that every issue has Two Sides - when oftentimes there is no side at all to an issue, but merely facts or scientific data? Probably not, but at least it would be a step in a better direction.
One in which News consumers could watch a News show and garner actual information from the program, instead of pseudo-facts or gossip writ large or any manner of double-speak or opinion-disguised as News; or a viewer with the knowledge to hear such faux news and recognize it as such could file a report to the F.C.C Board's website regarding it.
You know, as a Public Service to the rest of us.
So that our understanding of what is happening in our world is based on the events of the day - and not merely the personal interpretation of the events of the day by some Television or Radio host. Because facts matter to all of us, even the ones who haven't seen or heard an actual fact in years.