Why the Traditional Media No Longer Serves Our Needs

The Truth Matters, Chapter 1

With the decimation of the Washington Post newsroom by billionaire Jeff Bezos, the crisis of the media seems to have reached an apex. I saw this coming in 2017 and wrote a book about it: The Truth Matters. Since I believe that the message of the book still resonates, I’ve decided to serialize it here on Substack. It’s a short book so it shouldn’t occupy too much of your time. Following is chapter one.

Key points:

· The fairness doctrine was obsolete and cannot be revived.

· Conservatives were underserved for many years by traditional media.

· Progressives were slow to embrace new media such as talk radio.

People have never been happy with the news media, always blaming it for lying, misinforming and being unfair to one side or the other. Thomas Jefferson expressed views on this subject that many people today no doubt would share. In an 1807 letter to John Norvell, Jefferson said,

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, “by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.” Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day….

I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

The complaint that the news media have a built-in bias is an old one and there is truth in it. The major media have long been based in our major cities where people naturally tend to be more socially liberal. That has been one of the great attractions for living in cities rather than small towns and rural areas that tend to be socially conservative. Additionally, it’s a fact that people with a liberal disposition have tended to gravitate toward journalism as a profession, while conservatives gravitate elsewhere.

Media consolidation also tended to make it more liberal. In any town with more than one newspaper, one would usually be conservative if only for competitive reasons. Partisan affiliation and ideological compatibility in editorials, news judgement and among columnists was one reason people subscribed to a particular paper. But as newspapers have closed, those with a conservative bent tended to be the first to go because they were usually the afternoon papers. Those with no competition tend toward bland mushiness when it comes to politics.

Radio and television have always tended to be more even-handed because news presentation focused on breaking stories where audio or video was available. It didn’t lend itself to commentary or editorializing. Moreover, there was a government rule called the fairness doctrine that required both sides to be presented when political endorsements were made or opinions expressed. But the main effect of this rule was to discourage the presentation of any opinions at all, rather than waste precious air time presenting alternative viewpoints.

In 1987, the fairness doctrine was abolished. Many rue this day as the one when fairness itself began to disappear from the media. But the fairness doctrine never applied to the print media and it was already clear by 1987 that cable—CNN went on the air in 1980—was ushering in a new era of news coverage. It was untenable to maintain restrictions on over-the-air media that didn’t apply to print publications or cable. It’s likely that the fairness doctrine would have been struck down by the courts if it wasn’t repealed.

It is indisputable, however, that abolition of the fairness doctrine gave rise to talk radio. Developments in the radio market were also critical; the AM band had been suffering for years as the FM band was better suited to music. Rush Limbaugh was the first to recognize that the end of the fairness doctrine meant that he could do an entire show devoted to nothing but expressing his opinions, of which he had many, all strongly felt and vigorously expressed. The AM band was well-suited to talk and was cheaper than employing disk jockeys to curate music selections.

It’s perhaps an accident of history that a strong conservative like Limbaugh was first to recognize the political potential of talk radio. It was probably also true that conservatives were underserved by the liberal sameness of conventional journalism at the time. At least in his early years, Limbaugh was a genuine news source, giving national attention to stories, research and viewpoints that were hard to find elsewhere. Before him, the only national publications with a broad reach that reflected a conservative bent were the Wall Street Journal and Reader’s Digest.

Limbaugh’s success led to the creation of Fox News by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch, based on a vision long nurtured by Republican media guru Roger Ailes. With most television tilting a bit to the left, they cleverly positioned Fox in the middle of the political spectrum, which made it slightly to the right of its competitors.

The enormous financial success of conservative talk radio and Fox News stimulated growth of a vast conservative media network. Meanwhile, efforts to copy its success by progressives have uniformly failed. No one is quite sure why; it may be that those on the left are inclined to be satisfied with the traditional mainstream media. The problem is that it is dying a slow death. Something will replace it, we don’t know what just yet. Many analysts believe that virtually all print publications will disappear in a few years.

It may be that progressives have more to gain from developing new methods of acquiring news and information than conservatives, who seem very satisfied with the availability of compatible news and views on Fox, talk radio and the internet. But conservatives should avoid complacency. By having a closed-loop of news sources, they are more prone to deception by charlatans peddling conspiracy theories, fake news and extreme views far outside the mainstream. These are likely to be political albatrosses in the future.

In the long run, political parties and movements are best served by truth, accuracy and responsible news reporting. It may be that this needs to be subsidized in some way. The federal government has long done this by giving newspapers and magazines subsidized mailing rates; and radio and television stations were given extremely valuable spectrum for literally nothing. Legal requirements that certain public notices be published in local newspapers is another sort of government subsidy. Given the importance of a well-informed electorate to the functioning of democracy, it is not unreasonable to think that market forces alone may be inadequate to the job.

One idea I have had is to allow foundations and other groups to endow reporting positions at news organizations as has long been common for university professorships. Something like this is already being done at the Boston Globe, where local nonprofits are subsidizing the cost of employing a music critic, with the paper retaining full editorial control over the critic’s work.