Media insiders love to speak of news as a "business" which produces a news product, until such time as that you apply the same standards of product quality reviews that consumers' organizations do for washing machines and DVD players -- at which point they tend to abandon the consumer commodity product model.

See, if it really were a commodity product, they couldn't excuse the crappiness and shoddiness of their product by blathering about their manufacturing process.

No one cares why a DVD or washing machine turns out crappy, except product or business historians.

But in the news business, crappy and shoddy products are fine, because what really, really is important is their insider accounts of the fascinating ways in which they work, in other words, the manufacturing process.

Once you take them seriously and evaluate the actual quality of their output like you do with any product, then they suddenly turn and see you as some sort of perfection-seeking idealist who doesn't understand the hard world of blah blah blah.

I'm not sure that the average American consciously considers a strong media essential to a healthy democracy. Most probably would if they were fully aware of it but beyond freedom of speech I think the philosophy of a strong and liberal press is really understood to people in the field.

One thing seems unarguably clear: when the media are controlled by a few voices - directly or indirectly by the government in power - political freedom is gone or nearly so.

In an earlier-day the pamphlet (samidaz), and now the internet, is a alternative but still weak means of overcoming government/corp media control. We shouldn't trust that the net will save us from totalitarianism (because it is subvertible or possibly controllable as well (see China).

Vastly stricter anti-trust action directed at the media empires is critically needed. But who among us thinks that is a likely outcome in this decade or next? Even expansion of PBS/NPR is probably unthinkable given our financial stresses and implacable oppositiion from the corporations and the GOP.

The sky has already fallen.

Daniel, I have to disagree. The amount of criticism American's heap on the Chinese press as evidence of no freedoms in China is incredible.

I think what the average American (and the rest of the West) fails to understand is the influences on our media and our media biases.

We tend to take it for granted that we have a "free press" without actually stopping to check just how free our media actually is.

They aren't turning away to see better news. They are turning away to watch American Idol, TMZ and Britney Spears.

No, you're wrong. News is a commodity. Once it fails to get ratings and advertisers, it's over.

Ezra, you're leaving out the FCC and the fact that the airwaves are not owned by the networks. They're to be used for the public good, which clearly is not the case. That's what the news should fall under.

But either the way, the bottom line should be that if it turns out that responsible news reporting isn't profitable, then we should sacrifice the profitability, not the responsible news reporting.

Uh, who gets to decide what's "responsible?"

--------------------

Christian--

...you're leaving out the FCC and the fact that the airwaves are not owned by the networks. They're to be used for the public good, which clearly is not the case.

The airwaves are not used by the networks and the FCC has no jurisdiction to regulate network content. The airwaves are used by local stations, some of which broadcast network content and therefore assume the responsibility that the content be in the public interest. Networks aren't regulated by the FCC, except to the extent that some corporations that own and operate networks also happen to own and operate a few local stations. I've heard your argument about a zillion times and it's still incorrect.

This is an example of why I dropped Ezra's feed - too many opinions fundamentally flawed by lack of understanding of a market economy. Too much that we have in the modern world taken for granted.

Ezra should be more aware of his limitations - he obviously doesn't really get "business" - and avoid analysis of areas such as this. Kevin Drum, for instance, is pretty self-aware in this respect and refrains from spouting pure nonsense, on the whole.

When in history was there a greater diversity of views, or better news reporting, than today? You don't have to look far to find it.

But if you want in-depth Frontline-esque reporting from tweety then I don't know what to tell you.

...exhibit one: the Daily Show. Seriously.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/did_you_see_the_daily_show_last_night

That's right Ezra. If people don't want to watch boring news, tax them and force them to pay for it anyway. That way even though no one will watch it, it will be there to 'save democracy.'

When in history was there a greater diversity of views...

Yeah, you can find every view from the fact that Saddam had WMDs, to the view that evolution is an unproven "theory", to the view that vaccines cause autism, to the view that Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate! Woo hoo!

The airwaves are only used by
"local stations, some of which broadcast network content"...

Really? What local stations around DON'T broadcast network content anymore? FOX and co gobbled up the local stations which do not reflect community standards but network standards. I love your deceiving line about networks only owning "a few stations." They just raised the 35 percent cap and they want more.

Your argument also ignores the huge amount of research showing exactly how networks strangle and trivialize local stations, reducing them to an adjunct of their empty programming.

But nice try.

Christian--

You've missed my point completely. You asserted that networks have a responsiblity, per federal communications law, to use the airwaves in the public interest. They don't, because they don't use the portion of the airwaves allocated for broadcast media (i.e. those airwaves that must be used in the public interest).

As for the networks "gobbling up" local TV stations, ABC owns 10 out of about 200 affiliate stations, NBC owns 10 out of about 200 affiliates, CBS owns 14 out of about 200 affiliates, and Fox owns 35 out of 175 affiliates. In all cases, networks separate their owned-and-operated stations into a separate division from their broadcast operations.

Finally, my argument has nothing to do with how much networks influence the content that local stations provide. It had to do with your assertion that networks had an obligation to act in the public interest, which, from a regulatory and legal standpoint, simply isn't true.

There are plenty of criticisms you can make about network content in general and network news in particular. I'm guessing that you and I would agree on a large number of them (although I think that Ezra's implication that the government should monitor or even subsidize news quality is simply insane). However, the "public interest" argument you're making is factually incorrect and weakens your overall argument by making you look uninformed.