I was honored to be the guest speaker at the Rotary Club of Milwaukee this week. They asked me to discuss the future of the media industry.
In 20 minutes? I did my best. I began with the following tale of two hypothetical, composite characters.
I'd like to introduce you to Bob & Alice. Twenty years ago, both Bob and Alice watched one of three nightly network television newscasts, because that's all there was. They read one of two newspapers, either the Milwaukee Sentinel that came in the morning or The Milwaukee Journal that came in the afternoon. They each subscribed to a magazine or two on the side … Maybe it was Time magazine. Maybe it was Sports Illustrated. Maybe it was Reader's Digest. Maybe it was TV Guide. Maybe it was Better Home and Gardens. But by and large, Bob and Alice shared a common culture, they were served by common messengers and their reference points for making sense of the world were homogenous.
Now, let's look at these same two people today.
Today, Bob, wakes up in the morning, and he reads The Wall Street Journal with his first cup of coffee. Columnist Charles Krauthamer is his favorite. On his way to work, Bob listens to conservative talk radio. Over lunch, he glances online at blogs written by Ann Coulterer and Michelle Malkin. On the way to his afternoon sales call, he listens to Rush Limbaugh. On his way home he listens to local conservative talk radio. Once at home, he watches Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. These commentators have told him in recent months that President Barack Obama is a socialist, a racist, a Muslim and may not really be a legal citizen of the United States.
Today, Alice's media routine also is quite different than it was 20 years ago. Her alarm goes off on the local National Public Radio station. She reads the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel op-ed page over her first cup of coffee. Over lunch, she logs on to Air America radio online, and she reads the latest blogs at the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. Once at home, she turns on MSNBC, where hosts Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have told her that former President George W. Bush was not very smart and former vice president Dick Cheney is evil.
Fair and balanced? No. They report and you decide? That's a joke.
Bob and Alice are inhabiting the same earth, spinning on the same axis, but they are living and seeing very, very different worlds today. We all are. Over the course of the day, we all are peppered with news online, on the radio, in our cell phones, on our television. We no longer share the same culture. We no longer share the same messengers. We no longer share the same reference points.
My point is that in today's cluttered, non-stop, 24-hour news cycle, the messenger matters. It's long been said that you are what you eat. I dare say that from the standpoints of news and critical thought, your thoughts are framed by the messages you receive, and those messages often depend upon the media outlets you choose to monitor.
So many media outlets begin their day with preconceived political notions about the world, and then they take the real world and twist it to best fit their beliefs, their dogma. It is not real critical analysis.
It is not honest pursuit of the truth. And it sure is not news. It is little more than propaganda.
Whether you learn to the left or the right, do yourself a favor. Allow your brain to honestly consider conflicting points of view and accept the notion that neither side has all the answers, no matter what the partisan pundits tell you.
Steve Jagler is executive editor of BizTimes Milwaukee.
9 Comments
This is more a reflection of the left losing control of the media. Steve Jagler specifically failed to mention the mainstream media. Any bias there? News sources like the NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, the news section of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, and nearly all the major newspapers still claim to be unbiased but are not. These news sources falsely claim they are above the fray, but the public is not buying it anymore -hence, declining subscriptions and viewership. Cases in point - the Bush national guard story on CBS News and the front page election story in the NY Times about rumors of a McCain extra-marital affair. I can't think of any large stories that the mainstream media, assuming Fox is not mainstream, that have been biased against liberals- can anyone?
Editorializing by omission by the mainstream media is the most insidious of transgressions- Cases in point- Non-reporting of the John Edwards affair, non-reporting of the ACORN story, and most recently, non-reporting of Climategate.
Don't blindly trust the messenger, no matter which one it is. Caveat emptor!
PS-Jagler mentions National Public Radio as an example of biased media. Why are we still using taxpayer money to fund a known biased media source? Or as Jagler stated- a source of "propaganda". Wasn't the press suppose to be separate from the government?
I spent a number of years dating a man who was in many ways my opposite in terms of religious and political beliefs, although we shared many core values. The time was rich in learning and made me better understand what you are so wisely talking about in this blog posting. The Institute for the Future argues that our future will be more and more characterized by tribes whose members share identical views, but whose views are far different from those of other tribes. These tribes used to be largely defined by geography, but will now be defined by issues, activities, events and even digital platforms. Leaders will need to build bridges between groups. To build the skills to do this, start listening to different perspectives respectfully.
Bill: Is your comment for real, or are you being sarcastic? Are you kidding me? The media has covered the heck out of John Edwards affair, the ACORN story the controversy over global warming. The "mainstream media" is the codeword the conservatives use for any media that doesn't pledge blind allegiance to the right. It's a marketing tool for Fox News and conservative talk radio. It's a self-created reason for them to exist. It's a scam. You either are so gullible so as to believe it, or you are too stupid to realize how you are being duped like a sheep. If you think the "mainstream media" is so protective of the left, tell that to Jimmy Carter. Tell that to Bill Clinton. Tell that to Hillary Clinton. Tell that to John Edwards. If the real media gets a good news story that casts anyone on the left in a bad light, they run it EVERY time. Are you kidding me? They don't care who they nail to the cross. And that's the way it should be. You think anyone that is self-avowed right-wing must be part of your big conspiracy. Get a clue.
To Marty's point, regarding Fox News ... There can be no "Us" unless they make sure they create a "Them." And the "Them" is everyone else. It is a marketing scam by Fox. They create a false market demand for their own existence. It is just incredible how people don't see through it all and just take it at face value. Any mainstream media outlet that had a confirmed story about a scandal in the Obama administration would run it in a heartbeat. They would do so because they are compettive and would want to be first and exclusive with the story. They wouldn't hold back to appease the left. Just ask the Clintons. And then there's Rush ... His listeners self-proclaim they are "Dittoheads." They just want to say, "Ditto." They just take everything he says at face value. They never once question the messenger. They don't want the truth. They only want what they want to hear from the messengers they want to listen to. Period. They can't handle the truth. They want to be sheep. And they are.
Fox Noise is not news. It is propaganda for stupid people. For the rest of us, it's hilarious entertainment!
In a 24/7 attack-the-enemy world, is it any wonder people seek like minds, then close ranks? To Kay's point, when was the last time listening was taught as part of a critical thinking skill? If we are serious about building bridges to greater understanding, we will start with self-discipline and modeling the behavior(s) we want to see regardless of what "they" are doing. Susan Marshall
The issue with all media is that there is no analysis of truth. One side makes a claim, and it is presented as fact. Another group makes a counterclaim and it is presented as "an alternative view".
Which side gets presented as fact is where the bias comes in. Media wants to cover all sides as opinions, when there is only one set of facts. Look at the coverage of the health care bill as an example. We hear the CBO's estimates of costs presented as facts, when they are really guesses with a historically bad track record, manipulated for one side.
So media bias is often in lack of analysis. The media simply reports what it hears, and does not analyze the truthfulness or factual basis behind what it hears. Media that does analyze for truth is considered biased by the side that opposes the actual facts. Presenting both sides equally without regard for the facts is stupid.
Media that actually helps put news into context for their audience by examining news and statements for facts is clearly more desired, than media that proportedly presents both sides as simply differences of opinion.
Media that produces factual content with analysis of why it is factual will be the content provider of the future.
Marty- I have been reading the NY Times since I was 13 and the Milwaukee Journal since I was 10, I have been reading the WSJ since I was 18- I'm a news junkie- I know what I speak of. Apparently you are so deep down the rabbit hole you don't know which way is up.
The mainstream media spiked the Edwards story when he was running for president and only let it out after the campaign (look it up). The mainstream media in the US did not report on the ACORN scandal or the Climategate scandal until it became universally known through other news sources, primarily in other countries. If these stories were not pounded in the alternative media, the mainstream media would have completely ignored them. Prove me wrong- please site the NY Times or Milwaukee Journal article that directly reports on Climategate - it didn't happen, if at all, until weeks after the story broke. While you are at it, which negative stories about conservatives has the mainstream media spiked?
Specifically what stories about Carter and the Clintons were BIASED against them? You mean the media was biased for reporting on the lousy Carter economy or his ineffective Iran hostage fiasco, or on the Clinton-Lewinski affair that was disclosed in a sexual harassment court case against the president where he committed perjury? Please be specific as to which false stories about Carter or the Clintons were prominently reported in the mainstream media similar to the Bush and McCain stories I noted earlier.
Well said Steve...especially this part..."Whether you learn to the left or the right, do yourself a favor. Allow your brain to honestly consider conflicting points of view and accept the notion that neither side has all the answers, no matter what the partisan pundits tell you." If I'm talking to a constituent, a friend, or even family for that matter, I don't enter into the conversation consciously thinking I have all the answers. Its amazing how many great ideas come from both sides of the political aisle. I'm tired of the waste of time that passes for television news programming...they've muddied the waters so much the viewer has little or no chance to determine what is fact and what's not..As a state and a country we need to find a way to enhance the political discourse to a point where we can actually trust what our representative's tell us.