Thursday, September 27, 2007

Hutchins Commission

I thought many of the ideas you put forward in class today for reforming the press were intriguing. Of course, recommending government regulation of the media, even in the interest of social responsibility, flies in the face of longstanding libertarian principles. It was, after all, the fear of government censorship and control that led to the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and press in our Constitution. Thus to invite the government to regulate the press if it doesn't or can't regulate itself represents a sharp break with tradition. Yet the Hutchins Commission recommended something very much like that. Commission members also recommended:

1) Non-profit, government-subsided media to supplement the news and entertainment fare of the commercial media, which the commission found to be often shallow and trivial. PBS and NPR are outgrowths or reflections of this recommendation.

2) Better professional training for journalists. The growth in journalism schools and professional development workshops -- for example, those offered to working journalists by the Poynter Institute -- are part of the legacy of that recommendation.

3) A national press council to which complaints about inadequate or unfair press coverage would be brought and by which they would be arbitrated. This was attempted, but never took hold.

4) Self-criticism in the form of press ombudsmen who would cover newspapers and other the media the way they cover government or entertainment or sports. Columbia Journalism Review and American Journalism Review, as well as Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post and similar media critics, fulfill this function today.

Although it's not required, feel free to comment on these recommendations. I'd be interested in reading what you think.

7 comments:

Gina Davison said...

It is tough with the regulations issue- we never want to go too far and give a group/someone too much power, so, the more people and more groups that are regulating something, the better?
I like the 4th suggestion. I feel like this is what Postman said was the impossible option, and is what the Daily Show and Colbert Report function as.
However, how far removed will we have to get before the press is properly regulated (inotherwords, what happens when the press once removed becomes corrupt? we create a press covering the press covering the press?)?

Gina Davison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Howie Good said...

The way it's been classically posed is, Who's watching the watchdog? Or, to put it another way, while we were worried about the government interfering with the free marketplace of ideas, the press itself was becoming a threat to freedom and dialog as its ownership became consolidated in fewer and fewer hands and those hands were busy raiding the till.

Anonymous said...

I really like suggestion number two. Why is it only now that after being in college for two years am I learning about the specific press involvement in the news? Much like science and math is required almost every year in school, I think something press or media related should be included too. At least an elective class can be offered! Something!

I think what we are learning now should be taught to everyone, not just students who would like to work in media related fields.

Then again, this could be a touchy subject for some because this topic isn't necessarily objective.

Nick Hall said...

The non-profit organizations we have in place do a great job. The problem is that they don't have a very good reach, and the great job they do is limited to those whom just want to escape the other media.I wouldn't mind seeing a American BBC equivalent. I find the BBC does a better job of covering our news than we do.

In regards to the professional training, it's a good idea with a problem. It doesn't matter how professional you are when nobody will hire you because you put your professionalism and ethics above their will to make more money.

It may just be because I'm a child of my time, but I think the third, if implemented would only create political fighting and inaction that would be reported as entertainment, like our current government. Keeping it objective- i just can't see that, judges and juries tend to have political agendas.

In regards to the last, I know postman has mapped out where it went, but I would love to see where it goes. Parts of the internet fall into this category in some way, and we don't know where that is going.

kt said...

While all of these ideas are substantial and could possibly work, what is the degree to which they will actually be able to combat mass media? What's more, will they be able to actually get the public involved?

Again, I think these ideas do have a chance of working, but I think the most important aspect of turning the press around is spreading awareness to the public. In most cases, America is barely aware of what is actually happening, and if to get through to them we(we as the aware journalist population) have to resort to disguising reformations through satire like the Colbert Report and Daily show, then so be it. I don't see this as "stooping down" to mass America's level more so than I see it as working within the system to create change. We could get more people involved by first catching their attention, then educate them by showing them why it was actually bad to have caught it. Maybe if we combine working within the system with the ideas laid out by the Commission, the results would ultimately be more effective.

Christal said...

I know there would have to be a huge societal and economical change to do any of these major reforms like non-profit media. I like the idea of community news stations, channels, papers, etc.. The problem with that is the internet connects everyone. So the next reform that I take great interest in is the media literacy. I never knew that existed until the other day in class. I think if everyone was able to view media a certain way that would be great. However, for every pos. there's going to be a neg.