This
week
Al
Gore
said
the
obvious.
"The
media
is
kind
of
weird
these
days
on
politics,"
he
told
The
New
York
Observer,
"and
there
are
some
major
institutional
voices
that
are,
truthfully
speaking,
part
and
parcel
of
the
Republican
Party."
The
reaction
from
most
journalists
in
the
"liberal
media"
was
embarrassed
silence.
I
don't
quite
understand
why,
but
there
are
some
things
that
you're
not
supposed
to
say,
precisely
because
they're
so
clearly
true.
The
political
agenda
of
Fox
News,
to
take
the
most
important
example,
is
hardly
obscure.
Roger
Ailes,
the
network's
chairman,
has
been
advising
the
Bush
administration.
Fox's
Brit
Hume
even
claimed
credit
for
the
midterm
election.
"It
was
because
of
our
coverage
that
it
happened,"
he
told
Don
Imus.
"People
watch
us
and
take
their
electoral
cues
from
us.
No
one
should
doubt
the
influence
of
Fox
News
in
these
matters."
(This
remark
may
have
been
tongue
in
cheek,
but
imagine
the
reaction
if
the
Democrats
had
won
and
Dan
Rather,
even
jokingly,
had
later
claimed
credit.)
But
my
purpose
in
today's
column
is
not
to
bash
Fox.
I
want
to
address
a
broader
question:
Will
the
economic
interests
of
the
media
undermine
objective
news
coverage?
For
most
of
the
last
50
years,
public
policy
took
it
for
granted
that
media
bias
was
a
potential
problem.
There
were,
after
all,
only
three
national
networks,
a
limited
number
of
radio
licenses
and
only
one
or
two
newspapers
in
many
cities.
How
could
those
who
controlled
major
news
outlets
be
deterred
from
misusing
their
position?
Over
the
past
15
years,
however,
much
of
that
system
has
been
dismantled.
The
fairness
doctrine
was
abolished
in
1987.
Restrictions
on
ownership
have
been
steadily
loosened,
and
it
seems
likely
that
next
year
the
Federal
Communications
Commission
will
abolish
many
of
the
restrictions
that
remain
--
quite
possibly
even
allowing
major
networks
to
buy
each
other.
And
the
informal
rule
against
blatantly
partisan
reporting
has
also
gone
away
--
at
least
as
long
as
you
are
partisan
in
the
right
direction.
The
answer
was
a
combination
of
regulation
and
informal
guidelines.
The
"fairness
doctrine"
forced
broadcast
media
to
give
comparable
representation
to
opposing
points
of
view.
Restrictions
on
ownership
maintained
a
diversity
of
voices.
And
there
was
a
general
expectation
that
major
news
outlets
would
stay
above
the
fray,
distinguishing
clearly
between
opinion
and
news
reporting.
The
system
didn't
always
work,
but
it
did
set
some
limits.
The
F.C.C.
says
that
the
old
rules
are
no
longer
necessary
because
the
marketplace
has
changed.
According
to
the
official
line,
new
media
--
first
cable
television,
then
the
Internet
--
have
given
the
public
access
to
a
diversity
of
news
sources,
eliminating
the
need
for
public
guidelines.
But
is
this
really
true?
Cable
television
has
greatly
expanded
the
range
of
available
entertainment,
but
has
had
far
less
broadening
effect
on
news
coverage.
There
are
now
five
major
sources
of
TV
news,
rather
than
three,
but
this
increase
is
arguably
more
than
offset
by
other
patterns
.
For
one
thing,
the
influence
of
print
news
has
continued
its
long
decline;
for
another,
all
five
sources
of
TV
news
are
now
divisions
of
large
conglomerates
--
you
get
your
news
from
AOLTimeWarnerGeneralElectricDisneyWestinghouseNewsCorp.
And
the
Internet
is
a
fine
thing
for
policy
wonks
and
news
junkies
--
anyone
can
now
read
Canadian
and
British
newspapers,
or
download
policy
details
from
think
tanks.
But
most
people
have
neither
the
time
nor
the
inclination.
Realistically,
the
Net
does
little
to
reduce
the
influence
of
the
big
five
sources.
In
short,
we
have
a
situation
rife
with
conflicts
of
interest.
The
handful
of
organizations
that
supply
most
people
with
their
news
have
major
commercial
interests
that
inevitably
tempt
them
to
slant
their
coverage,
and
more
generally
to
be
deferential
to
the
ruling
party.
There
have
already
been
some
peculiar
examples
of
news
not
reported.
For
example,
last
month's
100,000-strong
Washington
antiwar
demonstration
--
an
important
event,
whatever
your
views
on
the
issue
--
was
almost
ignored
by
some
key
media
outlets.
For
the
time
being,
blatant
media
bias
is
still
limited
by
old
rules
and
old
norms
of
behavior.
But
soon
the
rules
will
be
abolished,
and
the
norms
are
eroding
before
our
eyes.
Do
the
conflicts
of
interest
of
our
highly
concentrated
media
constitute
a
threat
to
democracy?
I've
reported;
you
decide.
| |