Sunday, February 19, 2006
Oh you meant “Hot Topic” punk? I thought you meant real punk.
Media Sustainability Index 2005
My first reaction to the Media Sustainability Index that I received in the mail from Fielding was eagerness to delve into it and excitement that such a thing existed. Reading through the executive summary had me wishing to be a part of the project in some way, but I also began to question some points. For example, while the study centers on indendent media, I could not locate a working definition of independent and/or independent media. The closest I came to unearthing such a definition is in the final sentence of the exectuvie summary:
- … a robust media system that promotes governmental transparency and accountability and brings citizens the information they need and deserve.
Still, my questions were minimal compared to the excitement at apparent growing independent media sustainability in eastern europe and the evidence to follow in country-specific chapters. Until I read the methodology.
When I envision independent media, I think of indymedia.org, grassroots groups, blogs, ‘zines, and in-depth reporting overlooked and under-funded by mainstream, corporate media. These groups are revolutionizing the U.S. media.
Unfortunately, the objectives and indicators included in this study seem to base healthy journalism on steroetypical and out-dated U.S. paradigms. Systems that are being challenged by academics and the masses. Systems that are leading to new definitions of journalism and experimentation by major universities in attempts discover how to research, present and distribute information in this age where trust (of journalists) is waning and information is always available.
Why hold emerging media to flawed visions when they have the potential to show us new opportunities?
My main complaint about the criteria used in the study are the Business Management Indicators. These require that media be profit-generating businesses, use advertising, and use market research to “enhance advertising revenue"… What about media supported by audiences? Media that refuse to play by the rules of advertisers as well as government? This is an especially important question when taking into account the concern by MSI panelists in various countries about “commercialization.”
- With domestic and foreign investors seeking solid returns on their capital, many criticize media for seeking the lowest common denominator as they peddle scandal, entertainment, and gossip at the expense of news and public affairs.
Objective 1 covers free speech. In light of the concentration on corporate/for-profit media, a new concern arises. The summary for this section is that “legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to public information.” While this in and of itself is a positive objective, leaving out the possibility of corporate control of speech when business has such a prominent place in the objectives and indicators leaves a large gap in judgement. For an example of this, look to Fox News’ suffocation of the bovine growth hormone newscast in Florida (due to an advertiser complaint) that led to the termination of employment for the two reporters involved as well as suppression of the information.
Simply having multiple, non-state media outlets does not guarantee free speech nor variety of content.
