If they cannot be held accountable legally for most of their performances, they should be subject to reasoned ethical criticism based on what, as facilitators of an informed citizenry, they SHOULD do.
The Media Research Center of Alaska voiced concern about how Alaska media (particularly the Anchorage Daily News as the dominant news medium in the state) should perform for the public well-being. In particular, the Center questioned media fairness on issues of public importance (political campaigns, public interest issues, etc.). As a result of interviews and observations in Anchorage for in Spring, 1999 the ethics of media performance was evaluated.
Two anecdotes, selected from several resulting from this relatively brief examination of the media environment in Alaska, were typical of a number of instances that raise questions about the stance of the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) and other Alaska media in cementing the power of those already in power in the state.
For all its strengths as a dominant, successful daily newspaper serving virtually an entire state, one major area of questionable systematic ADN ethical policy tended to apply in all the cases examined, and in discussions with others in the state: Alaska media favor entrenched power at the inevitable expense of the powerless. Analysis of the cases suggests a systemic affinity for power effectively forecloses most challenges. Such policies in the media reduce full community discussion of important issues and result in a narrowly informed electorate.
Power and its use is important because a primary media responsibility is as an institution well placed to empower the powerless while, because of their relative independence, challenging entrenched power. Some with activist inclinations in any community who have strong feelings about the way their community is functioning, may develop a sense of powerlessness and frustration as they attempt to make an impact on their environment. And the Alaska study shows that worthy, significant causes were ignored by the media. Feelings of powerlessness are compounded when options for actions, such as receptive media, are not available, denying them access to the large audiences needed for social change.
In the two cases described here, those seeking to change the system found themselves blocked from media access, although in one instance, citizens did bypass the media to gain their goals.
The cases involved a citizens group seeking greater representation in a member-owned electric power cooperative, a case in which millions of dollars in power fees was involved, and two political candidates challenging incumbents.
The electric coop
Chugach Electric Association (CEA) is one of more than 800 ratepayer-owned electrical cooperatives in the United States, serving more than 67,000 retail hookups, mostly in the Anchorage area, as well as selling wholesale power to other distributors. It is a coop that does a nearly $150 million annual business.
Beginning in the 1980s, active independent rate payers (customers of CEA) felt that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) had, through encouraging its own candidates to run and a general ratepayer apathy (or lack of organization) in board elections, dominated the CEA board of directors, allowing union-favored board members to, among other things, control bargaining negotiations with the IBEW. This, according to the independents, resulted in inflated worker income, paid for by higher power rates. Projected power rate increases to pay these salaries and other expenses would have nearly doubled the national average power rate for cooperatives.
Alaska media, which viewed the struggle between a dues-supported union and a volunteer citizen’s group as an equal contest, generally ignored a significant story. The citizens group through mailings and other contacts that bypassed the media gained seats on the board over several elections between 1992 and 1999 to finally control the board. The media even ignored a civil suit involving the IBEW and a non-union contractor which would essentially decide key unionization issues in the state. Daily trial summaries, faxed to the media and prominent citizens, resulted in a scattering of stories in various media and a short story in ADN on the court’s decision favoring the contractor.
The political campaigns
In two political campaigns in successive elections, a Republican challenger to U.S. Senator Ted Stevens and a Republican challenger to Democratic governor Tony Knowles were met with ridicule in news stories and columns and an acceleration of coverage for Sen. Stevens. The senator’s opponent accused the Stevens campaign of misuse of campaign funds. The question was whether the media dismissed more serious allegations (misuse of Federal funds to pay campaign salaries) on the basis of a minor error on a less serious accusation (misuse of campaign funds in buying and renting vehicles).
It also appeared that benign coverage of Sen. Stevens increased during the primary campaign, with the number of stories, photos and column inches increasing during the primary campaign season in comparison to the previous year. The Republican candidate running against Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles, had a trouble-filled campaign in which media coverage was dominated by questions about funding sources for his campaign. His troubles were compounded by a mid-campaign civil suit filed by ADN to collect on a sizable debt the candidate owed the newspaper.
Since his campaign was dogged by these questions throughout the General Election campaign, the question was raised about why the same questions, and the civil suit, were not introduced into public discussion during the primaries. Had these happened, it likely would have allowed a stronger Republican candidate to challenge the incumbent Democratic governor, and reduced the effect of extraneous issues (such as financing and debts) on the campaign, allowing for coverage of more substantive issues during the general election period.
The cases outlined here are but a small sampling of examples of frustration felt by those outside the power circles in Alaska, and apparently illustrate a cogent truth that power (in this case, the media) tends to support power. It seems not to be an ideological, partisan question, but one of maintaining the status quo.
That media may select their own course in these matters, under First Amendment protection, compounds activist frustration.
The problem may more be one of omission, rather than of commission, as well as one of the magnetic attraction of power. Evidence is that neither the reviewable media (newspapers) nor accusations suggest that newspapers either purposely or inadvertently lied. The central moral question, then, is whether the media failed to provide sufficient information for audiences and through those deficiencies directed audience decisions in favor of existing power; a condition which would tend to lock outsiders from power circles. The Alaska cases appeared to have little to do with ideology or politics, but a great deal to do with perceptions of the effectiveness (which perceptions may either be selfish [he is doing a lot of good for us] or altruistic [he is good for everyone]) of the powerful.
Media policies on criticism and investigation (even subconscious ones) may contain a strong, and understandable, element of wariness of existing power (Sen. Stevens and the IBEW, for example), but are difficult to defend journalistically because a basic assumption about journalism is that it will be a last bastion in assailing and redistributing power. No formal action may be taken against the media, which in return are expect to act as watchdog. Media should succeed in stimulating public dialogue where even government and special interest groups fail.
Yet, as the Chugach Electric volunteers demonstrated, some conditions can obtain in which effective civic action and change can be accomplished without use of media, though those conditions are narrow and restrictive. However, media fulfilling their obligations to the powerless is a much more morally desirable goal.
1 comment:
Nicely done
Post a Comment