Please read the article linked below:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/community/20questions/6002/robert_mcchesney_and_john_nichols/
Respond to the following questions by 6 p.m., Sunday, Sept. 12:
1) What do McChesney and Nicols see as the causes for the current crisis in journalism?
2) What do they propose as a solution?
3) What do you think of their proposal? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
McChesney and Nichols believe that the cause for the absurd amount of layoffs in the journalism department and newsroom bureaus closing down is actually a few things. The Internet has played an enormous role in the shutting down of major newspapers, as has the growing number of smaller markets which don’t cost any money, but in the end can take down some of the most powerful newsrooms and make more money than them. McChesney says how this epidemic started way before the web and all the electronic forms of information, but I think that the majority of this downfall began with the Internet. Without it, the “conglomerate corporate chain ownerships and non-competitive markets” would still put a huge dent into the journalism field, but the reality is most people turn to the internet for news rather than the newsstands lately.
In order to protect the integrity of journalism, and keep it from disappearing all together, McChesney suggests tax-supported government programs to keep journalists working. I found it interesting, the comment he made about the First Amendment. It was stated in the First Amendment that the “first duty of the government is to make sure you have the independent, credible fourth estate, otherwise the Constitution can’t work.” We do in fact need journalism in order for our society to survive with the same freedoms we have now. If our newspapers and reporters are taken away, we will be stuck with strictly opinionated pieces written about “fluff”. Stories about Britney Spears and other celebrities are fine in small dosages right now, but if we stay on the road we’re on, there won’t even be a glimmer of any political coverage of any sort.
I think that the government should step in, I just don’t know to what extent. I think that forcing the people of America to pay taxes for something that we’ve had for so long seems strange. The people who are buying into the sensationalized news off the newsstands are the ones ruining us, and they need to be educated on the matter and hopefully come to their senses. I believe that even those people would lose out if our journalism disappeared, they just don’t know it yet because they haven’t experienced any time without having even a sliver of real news peak through all the gossip they’re reading.
McChesney and Nichols pose an interesting view in my eyes, something most people don't think of at first glance of the crisis in journalism. Instead of blaming the internet for the fall of media, they blame money. As Kasey noted in her comment, massive media conglomerate corporate chain ownership that creates non-competitive markets, as well as mass layoffs, contributed to the fall. It is also good to note that the article mentions the financial crisis of 2008 as a point in this financial inability to keep up. Yes, the internet poses a problem for media, however the problem is always thought to be how to make money. Everything stems back to revenue.
The solutions proposed by McChesney and Nichols are non-traditional. Most people would suggest pay walls on the internet to bring back a substantial, reliable press and instead, they suggest the government. As they go on to explain that simply because media is government subsidized does not mean that we will end up under a Stalinist regime. They explain that in the first amendment it states that the government must facilitate the fourth party of the press or else the checks and balances system would not work. They also note that countries on par with us politically and financially that have government funded media are amongst those considered to be the most democratic in the world.
I think that we as Americans really need to step back and de-stigmatize government funding of the press. McChesney and Nichols propose a thorough argument for their proposal and though it is a drastic once, the solution makes far more sense than simply putting up a pay wall and crossing fingers, hoping it will work. Personally, I believe that something needs to be done to remedy the situation at hand and this certainly is a viable solution. Experience and history know best how to move forward and MCChesney and Nichols understand both. Nichols also demonstrates much passion in defense of journalists' jobs, explaining that if he felt this would hinder a journalist from doing their job, he "would lead the opposition to it...passionately."
In response to number one, McChesney and Nicols have a few different reasons for the cause of the current crisis. But the centralized theme between all those causes is money. The old ways that newspapers used to make money do not work anymore because many of the newspapers services can be done online for free. Once the newsrooms start losing money, people have to be laid off, and other cuts have to be made in order to keep the newsroom alive. But then all you have left are a bunch of amateurs writing your news, bringing down the integrity of the entire paper.
I like the idea of tax supporting the papers, but I feel that would bias the newspapers against the government, which is what the "news" is supposed to keep in check. I believe that the conflict of interest would create something very 1984.
I think that newspapers online should be subscription based. As i mentioned in the beginning, money is the main issue. So, if you are able to remove the money from the equation, you can go back to having a newspaper of integrity. Also, with a subscription based online publication, you have a guaranteed readership and you do not need to have all of those attention grabbing fluff stories. The online newspaper can again go back to reporting just news. It has been shown time and time again that people are willing to pay for quality services, and I feel that people paying for news is no different.
According to McChesney and Nicols, there are a few factors responsible for the current crisis in journalism. Firstly, the economic downfall of 2008 has put a lot of industries in crisis. Secondly, chain ownership of many publications has eliminated competition which in turn has affected the quality of the industry. The fact that advertising is a major financial supporter of an entire industry has not been beneficial to journalism. The Internet has also affected journalism. The Internet supplies such a broad range of information and many people use it because it is free.
As far as solutions to the journalism crisis go, the Internet could affect journalism positively if online newspapers charge a fee for the information they supply. McChesney and Nicols also talk about “government supported media” or tax supported media that everyone would pay for.
I think that McChesney and Nicols made a few interesting proposals. The way the internet is now seems so unstable to me. There are so many people out there who have no idea what they are talking about, posting information right along side journalists who are getting paid to do what they do. If the press is supposed to be the forth estate, then I think it needs to be run as best as possible. If we need to pay taxes for it, well a lot of people probably won’t be happy about that. But if you think about it, the press is suppose to exist for the people, so maybe we should be the major funding behind it.
McChesney and Nicols both agree that the internet and recent technological advancements are not the reason for the current crisis in journalism. McChesney states that the problem can be "attributed to increasing conglomerate corporate chain ownership and non-competitive markets, which made it very profitable to gut newsrooms and make more money by lowering your costs and gut any consequences in the marketplace." Until recently, these companies were doing very well making a lot of profit so the public wasn't aware of what was really going on. Nicols argues that the rise of the internet combined with our recent economic crisis has only helped put the big corporations into their crisis. These businesses took so much debt to buy newspapers and other outlets and are now struggling to stay afloat. Since these companies can't afford to sustain their debt, instead of accepting their bad business decision, it has been a general consensus to get rid of journalism all together.
As a solution to this ongoing problem, McChesney and Nicols suggest responding with government subsidies or tax-supported government programs to make sure journalists keep working and more are hired. They note that many countries have huge press and public media subsidies compared to the United States. For the countries with the largest press subsidies, national government subsidies to support journalism or public media and have the most flourishing, uncensored private media in the world. I think their proposal has potential. They say that they would rather have the government involved than just the corporations. The government is supposed to be shaped by the people and an extension of us. Having the government be involved in the situation at this point, hopefully can only make it better.
1) What do McChesney and Nichols see as the causes for the current crisis in journalism?
People are not reading the newspaper anymore. More and more small towns are adapting without newspapers and without real reporting.
According to McChesney the causes of the current crisis in journalism is dated back in the 70s when major conglomerate corporations bought out newsrooms and rid competition from the marketplace. He also says that the era of commercial driven journalism, in which journalism receives its revenue from advertisements, is declining.
Nichols explains that these corporations are not taking responsibility for all the debt that they amounted from buying institutions, newspapers or outlets. The big businesses instead are ridding journalism so they can save money because they cannot sustain their debt for the bad decisions they’ve made.
2) What do they propose as a solution?
They both purpose a solution with government subsidies and tax supported government programs to make sure journalists keep working and get more hired.
3) What do you think of their proposal? Why?
I think they have an intelligent and smart proposal for a solution. Getting money from the government to subsidize the press and public media would be a great idea because as they add grants and money from the government has always been the basis of our U.S. democracy and most countries with similar economies and politics as the U.S. incorporates a subsidize for the journalists and public media. It’s a good approach because the money is not being taken from the people but the government that could b used to help add jobs and make people more informed about the world. Hopefully a solution as this will bring back a need for the newspaper, a printed written document that someone can hold in their hand instead of scrolling down a page and looking at a computer screen.
McChesney and Nicols see the business models put forth giant media conglomerates who are solely in it to make a profit as the biggest cause of the current crisis in journalism. While downsizing has led to increased profit margins as these companies saw their profits dip because of advances in technology and the proliferation of the Internet, they are not good at providing the public with the information that it needs to know. In order to combat the "bad journalism" that exists, they propose government funded journalism outlets because the First Amendment calls for a credible fourth estate.
I think that their proposal is sound. The key thing to remember is that the government is technically not paying for these newspapers or websites, the people are. That is why I think that government bias would not be an issue. In a perfect world, a proposal like that could go through and in turn it would generate a considerable amount of jobs and help the country as a whole.
The crisis in Journalism today is caused by the fact that no one wants to invest in journalism today. McChesney and Nichols argue that if Americans wanted journalism to survive then they are going to have to financially support it.
Some suggest that everything someday will come together or that pay walls be put in place but then that would have a bias against those who are willing to pay for information or even access the Internet. Another way around this would be to use government subsidies to help fund journalism and it would be more equal and not favor one side over the other.
I think their proposal would help the journalism industry a lot as long as they do not make changes to the media. It does not put a burden on each individual like pay walls would and keeps information accessible to the masses.
McChesney and Nicols see a multitude of things that have caused/are causing the current crisis in American journalism. In their interview with inthesetimes.com they stress that economic and corporate turmoil coupled with financial trouble have brought the American news media to its knees.
According to McChesney, “increasing conglomerate corporate chain ownership and non-competitive markets,” made it more profitable to, “gut newsrooms and make more money by lowering your costs.” Conglomerate takeover of the vast majority of trusted news media has turned the companies into just that, companies. If a company isn’t making money, the logical next step is to either fix it or down size. However, a service like news reporting needs time and research, which can simply not happen in a downsized newsroom.
The lack of competition in American news media has also caused the quality of reporter’s work to suffer. Like any business in a free market the best product is achieved through direct competition with rival companies to create a superior product. In journalism, this is no different. Two reporters working in direct competition are going to create two superior stories to that of a reporter working unopposed because they will constantly try to scoop and dig deeper than each other to uncover things that would never have been reported by someone who doesn’t have to fight for the story.
McChesney and Nicols do, however, see solutions to this problem facing American news media. They agree that government subsidies and tax-supported government programs to ensure that journalists keep working like they’re supposed to. They go on to point out that this is not a new idea. According to McChesney, at the beginning of the 20th century, “we [America] instituted enormous press subsidies… which our entire press system was built upon, it gave us this very rich, diverse set of voices that wouldn’t have existed otherwise.” He goes on to cite the US Supreme Court as reaching several decisions, which he sums us as, “the first duty of the government is to make sure you have the independent, credible fourth estate, otherwise the Constitution can’t work.” This government involvement in news media raises the question, is this a government take over, do they have the right? Nichols sees this question differently saying, “Anybody who’s been paying attention knows that their lives are shaped far more today by corporations than they are by government.” He goes on to say that he would rather have officials that the people voted for subsidizing the news media than what he calls a, “fantasy of a free market solution.”
I find it hard to believe that the government can swoop in and make all the problems in the news media go away. As we have seen with the recent debates on health-care, the vast majority of US citizens are scared shitless of a, “government takeover.” I feel like if a Presidential or Congressional regime tried to tackle the problems in the news media it would be health-care all over again, death counsels and all.
I do believe, though, that time is running out. As of now, the future of American news media looks very bleak. No one knows where the answer is going to come from, prophets have come forth speaking of magic tablet solutions, pay walls and government subsidizing of the news media, but nothing seems to be realistic. My only hope is that some sort of viable solution is reached before McChesney and Nicols’ vision of a news media divided between the elite and the politically illiterate come to fruition.
McChesney and Nicols see multiple causes for the current crisis in journalism. They do not believe that there is only one cause but rather a multitude of underlying problems that have lead up to the crisis we face today. McChesney and Nicols are not quick to simply blame the internet. Yes, the internet did in fact have a huge impact on the decline of journalism however there were other problems before this. The economic downturn in 2008 affected business across the board. Journalism especially had a downfall because along with layoffs of journalists and such, they also had to deal with advertisers losing interest in print media. Today, advertisers are more inclined to advertise via television, radio, and the internet. The loss of revenue from advertisers, as well as consumers took a serious toll on print media. The loss of competition between companies also played a major role in the loss of money.
McChesney and Nicols propose government subsidies and taxes to ensure the continuity of print media in the form of newspapers. Government subsidies would replace the money needed to hire journalists and keep them working.
I found the ratio of public relations people to journalists frightening. I think that the proposal provided by Mc Chesney and Nicols would allow companies to hire real journalists who will present newsworthy pieces free from bias and opinions. I think it is a great idea but think that a lot of people would not be happy about it as well because they may think the government has too much control. However, in order to maintain print news (which is really important because it keeps people from all classes informed rather than just the privileged) this seems like a last resort. The government will have to provide the funds until print media becomes popular again.
To the two authors, the cause for journalism's decline is mostly financial, but due to the fact of our declining social and cultural values. Instead of putting the blame on the internet, or television, they blame it on the fact that there are no actual journalists working in the newsrooms. Public relations have exceeded the need for journalists and the prediction of an 8:1 ratio seems meek.
Their solution, both ideal but necessary, is to have journalism funded by the government to ensure that qualified employers are in charge. They make the statement that a democratic government can not succeed without a proper working fourth estate (or the media as a watchdog), and he compares European countries that use government subsidies to prove that it works, but financially and culturally.
Honestly, I like their whole outlook, especially the point they made about the pessimist who believes that American society is doomed. Their solution of using tax money to pay for journalism seems unlikely based on our current economic situation, but I believe that if we had the means, and when the necessity is dire, than that change may very well happen. The facts, however, do not lie, and the working democracies and social happiness that occur in countries which make sure that actual journalists are protected, work. It seems that America has to stop being so stubborn and look elsewhere for a solution, especially one that undoubtedly works.
Nichols and McChesney believe that the 'current' crisis in journalism is actually one that has been ongoing for 30+ years and has only been accelerated by the rise of the digital age and the recent economic turbulence our country has experienced. In their opinion, the real reasons for the current state of journalism center around corporate ownership of all of the news and media outlets. With major corporations, all of whom have their own vested interests to look after, controlling most media outlets it's not at all surprising to see less and less attention paid to actual journalism and reporting and much, much more effort and resources put into entertainment and attention grabbing behavior that ensures the profits keep rolling in. Laying off real journalists and closing down newsrooms to cut costs in an area that is not profitable is logical for these large corporations.
Nichols and McChesney suggest that rather than continue down this path where corporations own (and control) the media our government must subsidize the world of journalism in order to ensure that the profession survives and that real news reporting is always available. They contend that solutions such as setting up paywalls for online news sites are dramatically short sighted and exclude nearly 40% of the population from the get go and that waiting for a resurgence in advertising revenues is little more than wishful thinking. They even go so far as to propose that existing supreme court rulings have already set the precedent for the government to provide funding (themselves or through tax money) to keep journalism alive. Additionally, they provide numerous compelling examples of instances where countries including our own have provided financial support to the journalism industry in an effort to prove that government 'intervention' does not have to equate to a totalitarian or communist state.
Unfortunately, I think the minute people hear "government subsidized journalism" they immediately will show a knee-jerk "but that's not democratic! that's not American!" reaction. I believe McChesney and Nichols proposal is a good one and would not at all mind seeing it implemented, but they are clearly of a more logical and aware breed than the majority in America seem to be and despite their assertions that corporations controlling the media is far more dangerous than government subsidization (I agree) I don't think modern day Americans would be ready to accept such a proposal as they would incorrectly assume it was a step towards a police state. In reality, I feel that corporate interests shape even the political sector of our country more than any other influence and that having major corporations hold ownership of the media is the worst case scenario, but as soon as that business model is disbanded in favor of a media supported by government funding a large portion of our population will cry foul.
According to McChesney and Nichols there are various factors resulting in the current crisis in journalism. They start out by saying how one of the main causes is the current financial crisis of 2008 which accelerated to the end of the newspaper industry. This resulted in layoffs and a “steady death” of newsrooms. More than just the financial crisis having an impact on journalism, the creation of new technologies, such as the internet, has also triggered a major crisis. Because today’s generation is all about technology many people would rather go on the internet to attain information. Its cheap, faster, and easier than going out and buying a newspaper. In addition, McChesney and Nichols say how the rise of the internet in combination with a serious turn of the economy has resulted in big business corporations suffering debt. They cannot afford to support their debt, and rather than taking the blame for it they are blaming the internet and the economy. Besides the internet the idea of money has a lot to do with the crisis in journalism. Businesses can’t pay back their debts, which results in layoffs of journalists, and then less information being released, let alone bought. Lastly, rather than only seeing the economic side to the problem McChesney and Nichols also say how the crisis of journalism isn’t just a financial and economic crisis, but also a cultural one. Because people don’t value journalism anymore, it results in them not wanting to pay for it.
As a solution to this problem McChesney and Nichols propose the idea of government supported media. By allowing the government to tax the media it will allow for programs to make sure journalists keep working and are hired more. Because the free market is not protecting journalists anymore it is now the governments job to make sure everybody has access to information and that it remains existent.
Overall I agree with McChesney and Nichols' idea of government involvement. I believe that it is the governments responsibility to step in and help when needed in the right amount. Too much involvement may lead to something that was never wanted, but the perfect amount will help get journalists back on their feet, even if it may take a little time. Journalism, portrayed as the watchdog role, functions in a way that society values. Even if society doesn’t consume every article, every day, journalism overall serves as a public good and is necessary for many reasons.
According to McChesney and Nicols, the very idea of having a few large corporations controlling journalism is at the crux of the problem. This is a problem that has been around since before the Internet, so the Internet itself isn't solely to blame. The Internet and the poor economy are merely accelerators of the bigger problem, which is non-competitive markets.
Their solution of government subsidies is a sound one, I think. The myth of the private sector and of the sole power of capitalism is one that has been instilled in American people for decades. But in reality, the best base for democracy is one that offers people the resources to make their voices heard.
McChesney and Nicols have a vastly different view than what i've ever heard. Most people blame the rise of the internet for the current crisis in journalism. On the contrary, McChesney and Nicols go back even further, to the 70's, when large corporations started to envelope their competitors, creating a non-competitive market, and increasing chain ownership.
They explain that layoffs in journalism started a long time ago. According to them, the public didn't know until recently because until recently it was actually profitable. Now, clearly, the profits have dried up. I think this is due to the rise of the internet. While McChesney and Nicols may be correct about when this all started, the Internet has made it extremely difficult to make any revenue.
They suggest something that would initially make most Americans shudder. They suggest having government subsidies or tax-supported government programs to ensure more journalists are hired and can continue working. They point out that many other democratic countries do this. It seems to be a conflict of interests. If the government is essentially paying for journalists to have and keep their jobs then how can the journalists report the way they are supposed to report? However, they make it pretty clear that other countries have successfully done this.
I think it is dangerous water we would be treading in. Theoretically it sounds like something that the country was founded against. Perhaps it could work, but I think that there are more serious problems at work these days. The internet is a major problem now, and seems to have overruled the previous problems. I think that the only way to really solve this is to have some sort of payment for online papers. However, it is very tricky to lock something down on the Internet, which is kind of the whole point of the Internet.
Money drives almost everything and a main problem in journalism today is the obsession with profit instead of caring about the quality and existence of the media. McChesney and Nicols share a lot of concerns about the media while explaining that this isn't such a new crisis. The amount of layoffs in news rooms has been present but increasing since the 70s. It may be true that downsizing these now huge corporate companies will make more money, yet this is not an effective solution to the rapid death of journalism .
I was very surprised and almost enlightened when I heard their proposal to have the government largely involved and responsible for journalism. I would have never really put the two together, government and the media. It appears that our current media system is failing as it is and I wouldn't think to use the government to help. (sadly)
At first I was confused with their proposal because it is quite foreign but when Mchesney and Nicols talked about the top ranking countries and their media systems it started to make more sense and almost give me hope. This interview put the journalism crisis in a completely different light and really made me think.
When asked what I think of their proposal I felt like I was playing the devils advocate with myself over and over. I truly don't know what it would be like to have a government run media system. I think its an innovative, for lack of a better word, way to run the system because then we the people would be taxed ensuring that the people who work in the field of journalism don't become extinct. But then once again there is always the question of, what does the government really do with the money?
Robert McChesney and John Nichols have dissected the problems of America's failing journalism system. To the surprise of many, the Internet is not to blame however it has accelerated the crisis along with our country's economic downturn. McChesney and Nichols claim that this crisis began in the 70s with the corporatizing and commercialization of media. Media chains have created a noncompetitive market and relying on advertising to make up 60 to 100 percent of profits is no longer the status quo. Now that media conglomerates are losing money, they are cutting costs by cutting journalism out of their budgets.
What McChesney and Nichols propose as a solution is to create subsidies or tax supported government programs that allow journalists to keep their jobs and also hires new ones. At first glance it sounds like a government takeover of press however McChesney and Nichols explain that many European and Asian countries with similar political and economic systems as us already use this system and their presses are considered to be some of the most democratic and uncensored presses of the world. The government would not be in charge of media, they would just be making sure it still existed. I am in favor of this proposal because I think it is the best way to keep journalism alive because we can no longer count on the private sector to provide it. If something is not done soon, media conglomerates are going to instill pay walls on their websites which limits who will be able to read news. Having a tax-funded program that keeps journalism alive is a more democratic solution. The article makes mention that many Supreme Court decisions on the first amendment entail statements that suggest that the Constitution can not work without an "independent" and "credible" fourth state. We need the watchdogs to keep tabs on current events. We cannot allow private companies to decide who gets to read news.
According to McChesney and Nicols, the causes for the current crisis in journalism dates back to before the age of the Internet. In the 1970s, large corporations were formed and created non-competitive markets, making it very profitable to cut costs on things such as editors, newsrooms, and editors. Such things are necessary for quality journalism, according to McChesney. He also states that advertising is in a steep decline and therefore the bulk of revenues to support journalism are disappearing. Nicols adds that corporations are wrongfully blaming the Internet and the economy for this current crisis and in turn, their poor business decisions are misleading them into getting rid of journalism.
In order to solve this crisis, they suggest a drastic increase in government involvement in order to create more jobs for journalists. They point out a direct correlation between press subsidies and democracy among nations around the world, resulting in flourishing and uncensored private media.
I agree that government involvement is necessary to solve this current journalism crisis. For one, anything that creates more jobs in this economic state is a plus. I also agree that the government is a representation of the people and our actions, and it is necessary to turn this crisis around.
Post a Comment