Comment Interview: Media Critic Normon Solomon on Shirky (Score 1) 101
I am one of the folks who helped get indymedia.org started in Seattle and continue to be involved here in New York.
As Clay Shirky mentioned in his Slashdot interview, he and I have chatted about Indymedia.org several times. I have enjoyed our chats.
I must say though, I was a bit shocked to read his denial of the INCREASING corporitization of the news. I thought that was a given.
However, I am grateful to his response and those of you on Slashdot, since it has lead to a healthy and important debate on the subject. I hope the following adds to it:
Via e-mail, I interviewed syndicated columnest and media critic, Normon Solomon regarding Clay's Slashdot thoughts on Indymedia and Corporate Media. The results follow:
CH: Shirky calls the belief in an increasing corporitization of news,"alarmist". He doesn't believe it because he is, "old enough to know better", remembering the 1970s when things were worse.
NS:When the first edition of Ben Bagdikian's book "The Media Monopoly" appeared in 1983, some people called it "alarmist." At the time, Bagdikian showed, 50 corporations controlled (through ownership) most of the news and information flow in the United States. Each of the subsequent editions of "The Media Monopoly" documented a drop in that number, down to six by the year 2000.
It's not very healthy to live in denial. To take one example: Increasingly, "news" is being defined as business news -- as anyone who spends much time monitoring CNN can attest.
Print outlets are part of the corporatization of news focus as well; anyone who doubts that should take a look at page 21 of the Columbia Journalism Review's November/December 2000 edition, which shows the explosion of business coverage in U.S. daily newspapers. To put it mildly, there is no such escalation of coverage of labor news; actually, most of the coverage of labor disputes is presented in a business context.
One of the problems with the business focus of news reporting is that it usually presents a window on the world as seen by investors, owners and managers. We're accustomed to this; we tend to internalize it as normal, balanced and fair.
The fact that PRI has a daily national "Marketplace" program (funded by GE and other large firms), but there's no national radio "Laborplace" program, is symbolic of the media situation.
I recommend Robert McChesney's book "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" to anyone who doubts the reality of increasing corporatization of news.
As for being "old enough to know better," it's difficult to think of a sillier expression. I'm 49, but that hardly makes me inherently less insightful than someone who's 69 or more insightful than someone who's 29. Otherwise, Strom Thurmond has a legitimate claim to extraordinary wisdom.
CH:As an example of things having gotten better not worse, Shirky notes that in the 1970s, "There used to be 3 sources for TV. Now there are 50-150 TV channels, and *tens of thousands* of print outlets via the Web."
If this is true, isn't this an example of media expansion, of more choices for the public and more democracy in media? Does more mean better?
NS:A few companies dominate, via ownership, the major broadcast and cable channels. A few huge firms dominate the major cable distribution systems as well. There are 50 brands of cigarettes at the supermarket; eventually we might notice that they're manufactured by less than half a dozen corporations. Also, we might think about their qualities and effects on consumers.
As for the Web: AOL Time Warner.
Corporate domination (not total, but overwhelming) of multimedia is
As Clay Shirky mentioned in his Slashdot interview, he and I have chatted about Indymedia.org several times. I have enjoyed our chats.
I must say though, I was a bit shocked to read his denial of the INCREASING corporitization of the news. I thought that was a given.
However, I am grateful to his response and those of you on Slashdot, since it has lead to a healthy and important debate on the subject. I hope the following adds to it:
Via e-mail, I interviewed syndicated columnest and media critic, Normon Solomon regarding Clay's Slashdot thoughts on Indymedia and Corporate Media. The results follow:
CH: Shirky calls the belief in an increasing corporitization of news,"alarmist". He doesn't believe it because he is, "old enough to know better", remembering the 1970s when things were worse.
NS:When the first edition of Ben Bagdikian's book "The Media Monopoly" appeared in 1983, some people called it "alarmist." At the time, Bagdikian showed, 50 corporations controlled (through ownership) most of the news and information flow in the United States. Each of the subsequent editions of "The Media Monopoly" documented a drop in that number, down to six by the year 2000.
It's not very healthy to live in denial. To take one example: Increasingly, "news" is being defined as business news -- as anyone who spends much time monitoring CNN can attest.
Print outlets are part of the corporatization of news focus as well; anyone who doubts that should take a look at page 21 of the Columbia Journalism Review's November/December 2000 edition, which shows the explosion of business coverage in U.S. daily newspapers. To put it mildly, there is no such escalation of coverage of labor news; actually, most of the coverage of labor disputes is presented in a business context.
One of the problems with the business focus of news reporting is that it usually presents a window on the world as seen by investors, owners and managers. We're accustomed to this; we tend to internalize it as normal, balanced and fair.
The fact that PRI has a daily national "Marketplace" program (funded by GE and other large firms), but there's no national radio "Laborplace" program, is symbolic of the media situation.
I recommend Robert McChesney's book "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" to anyone who doubts the reality of increasing corporatization of news.
As for being "old enough to know better," it's difficult to think of a sillier expression. I'm 49, but that hardly makes me inherently less insightful than someone who's 69 or more insightful than someone who's 29. Otherwise, Strom Thurmond has a legitimate claim to extraordinary wisdom.
CH:As an example of things having gotten better not worse, Shirky notes that in the 1970s, "There used to be 3 sources for TV. Now there are 50-150 TV channels, and *tens of thousands* of print outlets via the Web."
If this is true, isn't this an example of media expansion, of more choices for the public and more democracy in media? Does more mean better?
NS:A few companies dominate, via ownership, the major broadcast and cable channels. A few huge firms dominate the major cable distribution systems as well. There are 50 brands of cigarettes at the supermarket; eventually we might notice that they're manufactured by less than half a dozen corporations. Also, we might think about their qualities and effects on consumers.
As for the Web: AOL Time Warner.
Corporate domination (not total, but overwhelming) of multimedia is
