It is no secret that there is a lot of hostility directed at the news media. Immediately following the disclosures of Watergate in the 1970’s, there were few careers that seemed more heroic than being an investigative journalist. How times have changed…but why?
There seem to be four primary elements that have led to this shift. In chronological order, they are:
- The elimination of the wall between news and entertainment.
- The suspension of the Fairness Doctrine.
- The increased concentration of media ownership among fewer and fewer people.
- Allowing the disadvantages of high technology to prevail over the advantages.
Let’s look at the first two.
According to Harvard’s Nieman Institute, the late 1970’s saw a global shift in the expectations held for news organizations. Hardly noticed by the general public, the late 1970’s marked the first time that news organizations, usually connected to or co-owned by entertainment organizations, were expected to be profitable ventures. Prior to that time, networks saw news coverage as the responsibility of being a citizen of the community, In fact, news stations are still required to allow the public access to write commentaries about a network’s success or failure as a prerequisite to renewing a broadcast license. Unfortunately, few citizens realize that they have the opportunity to comment, opening the door for “infomercials” and other pseudo-news shows that draw high ratings.
Oh, but there are two ways to in crease profits! In addition to increasing revenues, agencies started cutting costs. Typically, a U.S.-based news agency covers the entirety of Africa, a continent with a land mass and a population nearly four times the size of the United States, with just two reporters, usually based in Egypt and South Africa. Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, does anyone really believe that the Benghazi incident would have happened if there had been prior journalistic scrutiny? Or, going back in time, what about blood diamonds? Rwanda genocide?
When those of us old enough to remember journalism at its peak recall the stories, we remember them both for being truly newsworthy and unbiased. Unfortunately, the biggest blockade to violence has been eliminated: the Fairness Doctrine. Created in 1949 by the FCC, it was eviscerated in 1987 when Congress refused to continue to fund its enforcement.
The Fairness Doctrine required a number of criteria to be met for a radio or television source could broadcast a story. The most significant were that a story had to present all major ideological perspectives, if called for, that editorials be clearly designated as such when broadcast, and that call-in shows could not screen out callers based on their political views. While some challenged the Fairness Doctrine or any attempt to restore it as a First Amendment violation, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, since broadcast stations occupied a portion of the finite amount of electromagnetic bandwidth, the government was within its rights to place stipulations upon its use.
By 1987, political pressure and changes in broadcast technology gave opponents of the Fairness Doctrine the ammunition that they needed to render it useless. The proliferation of cable broadcasting, followed later by digitization, meant that there was so much bandwidth available that the argument that one station’s broadcast would keep another off the air was no longer valid. With media becoming more and more corporate, there was little incentive to enforce a policy that would allow anti-corporate interests to be represented. The emergence of commentators such as Rush Limbaugh reinforced this, since their anger and other style elements attracted new listeners, usually disaffected workers, like flies to honey. Cracks about the “mainstream liberal media,” “femiNazis,” and comparing teenager Chelsea Clinton to a dog may have been unfair and terribly shallow, but there was nothing to stand in the way of his remarks. Finally, to this day, staff members are taught routinely to block anyone who has a point of view that contradicts the star of the show.
Since 2007, there have been efforts to restore the Fairness Doctrine but, besides the fact that one side of the debate has tremendous incentive to block it, two other obstacles remain. One is that the United States has become rabidly anti-taxation in recent years, making it hard to sell any regulatory legislation. The other is the Internet; due to its nature, all Internet news falls into a gray area that is neither broadcast nor print. Could it be regulated?
Not surprisingly, millions of Americans are angry at the Electoral College right now, especially Democrats; the 2016 Presidential election marks the second time in less than 20 years that the Democratic candidate received more votes than the winning Republican candidate. Before reacting in anger, though, we should all look at why the Electoral College was created.
In the Federalist Papers, #68, Alexander Hamilton wrote about his fears of having the president directly elected by the people. At the time, only about 10% of Americans were literate, and Hamilton felt that many people would respond based on emotional appeals. What most of us do not realize is that, at the time the Electoral College was created, it was left to each state to determine how it would choose its electors; today, of course, all 50 states have chosen to let its voters determine who the electors would be. This is the primary reason that has been cited for having the Electoral College.
However, there are two additional arguments that support the Electoral College. The first is that, when the Constitution was drafted, the 13 states regarded themselves as autonomous entities. In other words (avoiding political science geek speak), the 13 states were much closer to today’s European Union than the country we know today. In getting the Constitutional framers to compromise successfully, it was vital that each state be allowed to maintain at least some of its autonomy; this was well-accomplished by allowing the individual states to proclaim which candidate they supported.
The other supporting argument emerged as the country’s history unfolded. The tendency of the Electoral College, statistically, was to exaggerate the margin of victory of the winning candidate. While that may not seem advantageous, it meant that the losing side would be more likely to accept the results of the election and to support the incoming president.
So, should we abolish the Electoral College and replace it with the popular vote, given the three arguments above? Let’s look at the three arguments.
In response to Alexander Hamilton’s fears, we are already more democratic than he wanted the country to be, and our literacy rate is well over 98%. Does this mean that voters are less likely to respond to emotional appeals, given the prevalence of social media and the lack of limitations that candidates have in their campaigns?
In response to the second concern, we are no longer a country of autonomous states…at least not officially. I would argue that we still, at the cultural level, have a divide that seems to be growing and that the Electoral College is one of the direct causes of exaggerating that divide, perhaps even cause it. For instance, Oregon is labelled a “blue state,” and Texas a “red state,” but a closer look shows that the difference in registered Democrats and Republicans is less than 2% in both states.
The final concern, of course, has blown up in our faces in both 2000 and 2016. George W. Bush’s administration was weakened by the disparity between the electoral and popular votes, and we are already seeing widespread refusals to accept president-elect Trump. So much for exaggerating the size of the victory and generating extra support for the winner!
So, I would lean toward abolishing the Electoral College, given what is described above. The remaining question is how a popular vote would be conducted. Most people believe that there are greater opportunities for third parties under a popular vote system, with the possibility that, if no party received a majority of the vote, two or more parties would be forced to work together to create a majority. Such a system is used in the majority of parliamentary democracies. Another possibility would be to force a run-off if there was no clear majority; and there are many other possibilities to consider.
Here is a link to an excellent article on the Electoral College, whose author takes the opposite side from my conclusion:
Please note that I am not the one who is referring to Trump as a demagogue.
I never quite understood writer’s block. True, of all the writing I’ve done in my life (papers, essays, columns), there were times when I just cranked out what I needed to do to fulfill my commitment.
Well, this has been my first experience with it. There are two things that seem to be at work here (careful…remember that the analyst who treats himself has a fool for a patient!):
1. Rather than being unable to think of what to write about, I feel overloaded. Too many things going through my mind at once for me to decide what I should tackle first.
2. Directly related to the previous problem is that, the longer I wait to write something, the more guilty I feel about not writing, and that makes me want to avoid writing.
So, to anyone reading this, dos this sound familiar? I know what I have always told students finding themselves in this spot, which is to just start writing ANYTHING. Funny how much easier it is to give advice than to take it!
Job Performance Reviews Suck! But, remember that they suck for both the employer and the employee. Approach them with that in mind and things are more likely to have a positive outcome.
This is a difficult post. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have been admirable in taking states like Wisconsin to task for being “unChristian” in their treatment of workers’ rights and their desire to cut assistance to the poor. Bravo!
Unfortunately, they have taken some of the luster away from their stand by condemning the Sisters in the United States for spending too much energy on fighting poverty and not enough on fighting for Pro-Life causes. Regardless of your personal position on pro-life issues, the USCCB are guilty of one of the most common logical fallacies: creating a false dilemma. Creating a false dilemma is when you are told that you have only two choices, and that they are at odds with one another. False dilemmas are the meat-and-potatoes of negative political campaigns; i.e., “A vote against candidate A is a vote for American values.”
So, why is this a false dilemma? Simply put, there is a 100% correlation between the number of abortions sought and the poverty rate. I can understand why the USCCB, given their drive to eliminate abortions, want to take anyone to task who doesn’t confront the abortion issue head-on but, with all due respect, the Council has let its emotions cloud its judgment. If American Nuns are allowed to pour all of their energies into fighting poverty, it will also reduce abortions. On the other hand, directly confronting abortion laws will not do anything to reduce poverty.
I’m having knee surgery in 3.5 hours. I don’t know what’s going to be the outcome; the surgeon says I could be good as new, may end up with a permanent limp, or something in-between.
In any case, there may be a gap in the blog for a while. Imagine a post written this afternoon or tonight, at least, by someone coming out from anaesthesia; it would be pretty goofy. (I can almost hear my spouse saying, “How could they tell the difference?”)
UPDATE: Preliminary report is excellent. The surgeon says that I might see a slight increase in arthritic pain, but I’ve lived with that for 35 years and I don’t really worry about that. Everything else went as well as possible, and I should be able to do all my normal activities within the next two months.
Only “glitch” (or is it?): I’m on Vicodin! The world does seem different right now, with some very odd auditory hallucinations. Lucky that I don’t have an addictive personality (except to books).