Time for an Official News Source?

The title states the question. The growing gulf between any sort of balance and objectivity in the mainstream televised media (and to a lesser degree the newspapers) and the actual facts and true character of the subject being reported strongly suggest such a forum would indeed be useful, even necessary.

What prompts this in addition to prior musings on the matter is the recent feedback and commentary arising from the prior `blaming the messenger' post.

For example, commentatary there drew attention to some key facts. There *is* need for a reliable and accurate news source, and the catch-22 is this: not only is that not true of the present brand of `mainstream news' (and this refers to Cable like MSNBC and FOX as much as the old `Big Three') but further, those outlets do not call attention to or admit that their main goal now is entertainment and audience draw. The reason this is significant is that a large segment of the public -- albeit shrinking by the day -- still believes the TV news to be near-gospel truth and accurately cross-checking its facts. This might be called the `legacy of the Walter Cronkite' days or public image of investigative reporting.

Most of the public has no idea now just how "derivative" and `headlines first' oriented the media has become. In fact, it is not uncommon for major TV outlets to simply base their day's stories and leads on what the New York Times leads with first. More and more, the media appears to cater to snaring a particular `target-audience' or base, not unlike the two political parties, rather than both tracking down the news, and reporting the truth. Spin, rather than the old watchdog function, dominates the day.

Much has been said about the `bias' of the media, and it is true --- alot of it is ideologically driven, but the main motive is audience share. Truth or fact-checking has almost nothing to do with it. And the newer outlets like FOX are no exception. They too, cater to delivering content calculated to stimulate and draw a target audience. The importance of this cannot be over-stated. It means that you have at once two things: (1) A public that still thinks the mass media seeks to `report the news and inform', and (2) a mass media that seeks audience share at almost any cost, with accuracy playing almost no role at all, and a willingness to `target a base constituency' if it will meet its rating needs, thus allowing it to neglect true balance in its reporting. It is easy to see how the combination of these two has led to a dangerous state of the public being consistently misled from one wing of the spectrum to the other, with the common ground usually being whatever `most provokes and stirs' the viewer.

One of the commentators on the last post pointed out that it is useless to complain of this supposed abandonment by the mass media of a `responsibility to inform' regarding the public. And this because nearly all of it is now owned by mega corporations whose primary goal is the bottom line, which in turn is driven by advertising, which naturally, brings us back to "audience share" as paramount. As another commentator pointed out, this leads to the kind of distortion where there is a prior public expectation of truth that arguably justifies some form of regulation and oversight as is found in Food and Drug Advertising. Especially if there is not further transparency about the mass media's agendas at present, and they continue to posture behind the guise of political `watchdogs' rather than what they have become, `political lapdogs' -- where the only difference is to what party or ideology.

Yet this is precisely the point. If the `mass media' has no obligation to inform -- and I can agree with this --- then it also should not enjoy any "default level of trust" on this score. Furthermore, if the mass media is not going to accurately and responsibly *inform* the general public, than something else must take up that task. Because there is no disputing the need for such accurate and least biased-as-possible flow of information. Particularly regarding government political trends, votes, foreign policy, and domestic initiatives.

Therefore, it is the writer's opinion that the time has come for the government, both state and federal, to wake up to the fact that in a very real sense, it has no accurate voice speaking for it. The truth only filters through blogs, print media, and online sources and bulletins lengthy and detailed enough to describe it, and these are only being consulted by a minority with the time, skill, and inclination to do so. Yet just because most of the working public is too busy to research the truth and do the `comparative fact shopping' its pursuit requires, does not mean the public should then be blamed for being misled by the mass media which it had been raised to look to for such information.

No, the blame goes of course to the source of mis-information and spin continuing to present itself as objective, and the blame also goes to the simple lack of a voice for the government that is not already `hard wired' to either Left or Right in inclination, or Democrat vs Republican. What is needed is an information arm that will soberly and clearly lay out at regular intervals what decisions and actions are being made, and the where/who-to to address if one wishes to get more involved.

A good example is the lamentable mass media reporting about the Iraq War, vs the quality reports of embedded journalists, online bloggers, and print media summations that never make it to the TV screen except as a one line sound-byte before a "hard break for a commercial". It is arguable that much of the perceived failure in the administration and the Iraq War is due to its contining inability to speak about its achievements or accurately describe whats going on. Always what is said is filtered either thru the jingoistic never-say-wrong bullhorn of the Right media, or the pessimistic and carping doubt of the Left media.

From discussions it seems pretty clear to most of those with familiarity with history that we are currently in a "yellow journalism" period very much like that of 1898 and the Spanish-American War. On top of this, the problem is exaberrated by equally obscuring and manipulative "gotcha" politics by both parties, and campaign handlers and advisors such as Karl Rove and James Carville, whose expertise and brilliance lies in winning votes, not accuracy and truth. Divide and conquer politics, not consensus seeking, is the rule of the day. Faced with such a nexus of circumstance, at first glance, any `reform' of the mass media seems difficult, if not impossible.

However, despite the tone of this post, IMO, the situation is not nearly so intractable. It only requires thinking outside the box. In this case, the `box' is the very assumption that the mass media be the only voice available for officials and policy to communicate. The establishment of a bureau that would provide government with a way to "boringly" speak about basic and straightforward matters whether dynamic like Iraq War plans, or mundane, like projected pharmacy reform, would go a long way toward providing a means for the public to be put-in-the-picture sufficiently to make at least reasonably informed decisions and votes. Partisanship might be minimized by making it subject to a fact checking process, as well as staffed in a manner indepedent of the changes in administrations that come with Presidential elections.

To the inevitable objection that such might simply become a government `propaganda arm' the best reply is though a risk, it is worth taking. The need for a more sober and unifying political climate and information dissemination is so dire that some major changes are necessary if national `balkanization' is to be avoided. Under the current scheme you have a series of competing corporate-doormat news agencies each catering to `their base' at the expense of those outside that base, lambasting and provoking to play on their base's emotions and win ratings. None of them are seeking to build consensus, or point out where it might exist.

An official source might start to do this, especially if its charter began with an emphasis on integrity and a zero-tolerance for inaccuracy and distortion. By setting such a high bar, the natural pressure of being `outed' on any major falsehood would act as a corrective, instead of the resigned `expectation of falsehood' the public now feels toward TV in general. As for a possible overseer/parent, the author's familiarity with the straightforward and sober manner of the National Archives administration suggests it as a likely candidate. It tends to have a `long view' and seems to avoid excessive partisan outlook because its activities and staff tend to span several presidential administrations. In any case, it suggest a model, and since the means is already at hand, the need building by the day, all that remains is to settle on its form.

For the truth is, such a source is already available, via the online media and its ability to quickly and reasonably fact-check and verify the truth of things, and where necessary, locate and involve experts truly well-positioned or read to do so. What is needed then, is a forum where this capability is actively harnessed and put to use on an information basis, where profit and audience share is not the goal. As its reputation for accuracy and reliability grew, those truly interested in policy would increasingly learn to reference it. Nor could the mass media as easily get away with distortions in instances where it was revealed they had not consulted or cross-checked with this forum or clearing house. Who knows, in time, this might weaken the trend to `yellow journalism' in turn, and the mass media might ease back toward a more reliable presentation as in the days of the truly "Evening News".

- Anthony