AUSTIN -- Excuse me if my professionocentrism is showing, but I
believe the American media deserve a good chunk of all the blame that is
going around for Sept. 11 and its aftermath. Here we are trying to figure
out "Why Do They Hate Us?" at this late date. One is tempted to reply,
"Where have you been?"
The American media, notoriously provincial country to begin
with, have been getting noticeably worse in recent years, with the amount of
time and space devoted to the rest of the world shrinking to an ever smaller
percentage of the total, while we go relentlessly full-bore, for months at a
time after Monica Lewinsky, Elian Gonzalez and Gary Condit.
If you spend a few days listening to British Broadcasting or
Canadian Broadcasting, you will note the striking difference simply in the
amount of information presented. I think provincialism is a universal
characteristic -- at least I've never been anywhere it didn't exist -- but
it is especially annoying when it comes from a capital. Think of American
attitudes toward New York before Sept. 11 -- admiring resentment? resentful
admiration? -- or our perpetual resentment of Washington, which never seems
to understand the rest of us. Little slights, differences and cultural
misunderstandings are magnified when they come from a center of power -- I
can think of a couple of lulus when we seriously offended Mexicans out of
sheer ignorance. Multiply this by genuinely clumsy interventions with no
understanding of how destabilizing our presence can be, and you get a lot of
resentment.
The extent to which American media (honorable exception to the
usual handful of great newspapers) have cut foreign coverage in recent years
has been the subject of much hand-wringing in media journals. On network
television, it was down to 6 percent of total news, according to a recent
speech by Dan Rather. Peter Arnett wrote a classic article on the subject in
the November 1998 issue of American Journalism Review, "Goodbye, World." And
the reason is disgraceful. Thirty years ago, the publisher of a good size
city daily expected a return of 7 to 8 percent. Today, there is virtually no
competition, and getting less than 20 percent is considered a failure: Some
have gotten as high as 28 percent.
A news organization has only one way to cut costs, and that is
to cut news gathering. As foreign bureaus have been closed and even networks
of stringers (local journalists) fall into disrepair, the effects cascade.
Because we so seldom hear or see news from abroad, when we do, it seems to
have nothing to do with us. Economic crash in Asia? Revolution in Indonesia?
What's for dinner? People everywhere are mostly interested in the weather
and football -- we're not singular -- but we do have an unusually narrow
world view compared to other western countries. We've been told this before,
frequently: The difference is now we know the consequences.
As the ownership of American news media becomes more and more
concentrated, with all outlets subject to judgment by some 25-year-old
hotshot on Wall Street as to whether they "meet earnings expectations," the
pressure to cut news gathering gets worse. As far as the media conglomerates
are concerned, newspapers and television networks are just "profit centers."
If they can make more with a niche-market magazine for knitters, they will.
That the media have a public responsibility so important it is protected by
the Constitution gets lost in the profit chase. Our leaders may have other
sources of information -- though the intelligence community has not covered
itself with glory -- but they, too, are influenced by the daily media blat.
No wonder we were asleep at the wheel.
And the whole problem is about to become worse as Michael
Powell, a free-market Republican and now head of the Federal Communications
Commission, sets about deregulating media (It worked so well with the S&Ls
and California electricity.) Forbes magazine is predicting a merger frenzy
in 2002 as Powell prepares to repeal the ban on crossownership of TV
stations and cable operators in the same market, crossownership of TV and
newspapers in one market, and the 30 percent cap, limiting one cable to 30
percent of the nation's subscribers or 35 percent of the television
audience. In a moment of painful irony Tuesday, Powell was discussing the
need for back-up broadcasting capability after the World Trade Center attack
knocked out many radio and television antennas, and said, "Public policy
should minimize having all of your eggs in a single basket."
Yes, Mr. Powell, it should.
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other
Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web
page at
www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
