Robert McChesney is widely considered one of the foremost figures in American media analysis. His Political Economy of Media is a compilation of his research results collected over the past two decades. In it, McChesney succeeds in writing eloquently of the trials of contemporary journalism. He describes in great detail the issues inherent in our reliance on entrusting newsgathering and distribution to large, profit-motivated, self-interested corporations.
The dearth of evidence that McChesney provides doesn’t just prove his argument. It also illustrates how easy his case is to make. And, ironically, the strength of his argument is also its undoing. McChesney is so thorough in his examination of the ways in which American media are inexorably linked to commercial and political forces, he leaves readers with just one question to ask; Why should we bother to step in between?
McChesney contends that “the condition of American journalism in the first decade of the 21st century can be expressed in a single unhappy word: crisis.” There’s no question that print journalism is suffering through an unprecedented period that could and should be described as nothing short of a crisis. Newspapers are closing their doors, and those that aren’t are squeezing their budgets so tightly, they’re choking the journalism out of their papers.
But McChesney seems to equate print journalism with journalism, and with media as a whole. Readers are often left wondering if he uses the terms “media,” “journalism” and “print” interchangeably. McChesney confesses his bias for the print medium. As support for his partiality, he offers Michael Schudson’s 2007 claim that, though all media play a role in the proper functioning of our democratic system, print media matters most in the preservation and oversight of democracy. In the midst of the multitude of media options that are now readily available for American consumption, this claim falls on deaf ears.
Audiences have folded up their newspapers and opened up their browsers, and they are likely to tune out any argument suggesting the continued dominance of print media in contemporary American culture. The crisis in print will continue to breed opportunities within other media industries. The new business model, one in which print plays a smaller role than its acclaimed history might suggest or McChesney might prefer, has proven more difficult to construct. It may even be—-dare we say— different from previous ones. And yes, it may require that we the people contribute to that reconstructed business model and offer assistance in funding journalistic enterprises in the form of tax-deductible donations to the news outlet of our choosing.
McChesney’s skepticism of the current model is well grounded, and his suspicion of any new model that continues to promote such an intimate relationship between public news distribution and commercial interest is understandable. But is influence inescapable?
Early in his examination, McChesney acknowledges that decision-making is an unavoidable part of the journalistic process, and therefore concedes that true objectivity in journalism is an impossibility. He then proceeds to construct 489 pages on an argument against the inevitable. And there are other inherent truths of journalism that McChesney seems to dismiss.
Media requires money to produce. That money will always come from a source. And that source will always possess the potential to exert influence. The inevitability is as real whether those funds are traced to private businesses, shareholders, donors, or as McChesney recommends, the government.
Yes, the media is too budget driven. But is a non-profit government-funded model the solution? Proceed with caution. Non-profits aren’t just budget driven. They’re budget obsessive. And McChesney himself describes the relationship between media corporations and politicians as uncomfortably cozy. Do we want them nestling closer by putting in place a business model founded on government subsidization?
At the heart of McChesney’s recommendation seems to be his genuine though misguided faith in the possibility of establishing an unbiased, nonpartisan media mechanism capable of remaining impervious to the usual forces of influence. This misconception can be traced to McChesney’s tendency to equate “media” with “journalism.” The goals of journalism revolve around truth, equity, and honesty. The objective of “media” centers less on the need to inform and more on the desire to entertain.
MEDIAtion Way Station 