|
X Close Window |
MAKING MEDIA AN ISSUE
Herschel Hardin Leadership Campaign
Policy Circular 11A • May 25, 1995 |
|
|
Along with the American ideological model, the media, and not the Liberal or Reform parties, are our chief political opponent. They set the framework within which political debate takes place. I continue to be astonished that while we grumble about the narrow and concentrated ownership of most of the mass media, and about media bias, we do not make them an ongoing electoral issue.
We avoid bringing this crucial issue forward at our peril
Structural Media Bias
Representative mass media ownership and control are as essential to a democracy as the principle of one person, one vote. For us, as a political party, media control is doubly important because of the bias we face from mass media largely owned by political opponents.
We all know of case histories of such bias in news coverage and political commentary. Some of us have whole catalogues of such cases in our head. In my home province, British Columbia, we have a powerful television station which is notorious for its anti NDP take on the news, especially around election time.
Media bias, however, goes well beyond any slanting of news stories or the orientation of newspaper columnists. It involves the regular "service" coverage of certain kinds of activities and the exclusion of other kinds of activities. Daily newspapers, for example, have substantial "business" sections each day, including several pages of stock market listings. They will report even minute and trivial details. No such service sections exist, however, for the public sector, although its work may be highly skilled, interesting, and important, and involve large amounts of money. Nor are there equivalent sections for labour unions, the workplace, environmental practices, technology, or education.
Two large daily newspapers the Globe and Mail (Report on Business) and the Financial Post reflect this same structural media bias. CBC Television has an expensive weekly program, Venture, on private business matters, but no equivalent for the public sector, technology, education, environmental practices, labour unions, or other sectors of the political economy.
The downstream impact on politics, economics, and the allocation of resources, from this media failure, is huge. Non financial, non business management work is indirectly downgraded. Ultimately, this structural bias distorts the framework of values in which political debate takes place.
Television commercials and increased commercialization generally (see Policy Circular 10, "The Post Propaganda Society") similarly distort the framework within which politics take place. This is the most powerful form of structural bias, because it is so pervasive.
Structural Media Bias
Representative mass media ownership and control are as essential to a democracy as the principle of one person, one vote. For us, as a political party, media control is doubly important because of the bias we face from mass media largely owned by political opponents.
We all know of case histories of such bias in news coverage and political commentary. Some of us have whole catalogues of such cases in our head. In my home province, British Columbia, we have a powerful television station which is notorious for its anti NDP take on the news, especially around election time.
Media bias, however, goes well beyond any slanting of news stories or the orientation of newspaper columnists. It involves the regular "service" coverage of certain kinds of activities and the exclusion of other kinds of activities. Daily newspapers, for example, have substantial "business" sections each day, including several pages of stock market listings. They will report even minute and trivial details. No such service sections exist, however, for the public sector, although its work may be highly skilled, interesting, and important, and involve large amounts of money. Nor are there equivalent sections for labour unions, the workplace, environmental practices, technology, or education.
Two large daily newspapers the
Globe and Mail (Report on Business) and the Financial Post reflect this same structural media bias. CBC Television has an expensive weekly program,
Venture, on private business matters, but no equivalent for the public sector, technology, education, environmental practices, labour unions, or other sectors of the political economy.
The downstream impact on politics, economics, and the allocation of resources, from this media failure, is huge. Non financial, non business management work is indirectly downgraded. Ultimately, this structural bias distorts the framework of values in which political debate takes place.
Television commercials and increased commercialization generally (see Policy Circular 10, "The Post Propaganda Society") similarly distort the framework within which politics take place. This is the most powerful form of structural bias, because it is so pervasive.
Putting The Case In The Political Arena
Some people argue that one cannot criticize the media because one is dependent on them for election coverage. They have the last word, we are told, so we cannot win a battle with them. I take the opposite view. Not making media ownership, control, and bias an issue is self destructive. We are going to take the penalty anyway. We might as well take it fighting back.
Without that, we are indeed badly handicapped. It is not so much bias at election time that does us in, although that takes its toll. It is the framework of values, or what I call the "context of understanding," inculcated day by day incrementally and culturally, that defeats us, and does so before we even get into an election campaign.
Alternatively, realizing the prospects we face, we little by little tailor ourselves to fit into the media perspective. That may help electorally for a few years, even for a decade or two, but eventually we lose our dynamic as a party which thinks for itself and has leading ideas. Our popular vote declines. People wonder if the NDP has anything new or different to offer. The media themselves then dismiss us for being a tired party. We are written off as irrelevant. Beaten again.
For the Liberals, Reform Party, and the Conservatives, this biased context of understanding is not an issue. It suits them. Newspaper columnists can take pokes at Ralph Klein or Preston Manning, even sometimes bludgeon them, yet the contextual bias already generated sustains such politicians nevertheless. We, on the other hand, are fighting against the dominant way of looking at things. For that, changing the "context of understanding," by challenging the media, is crucial. It breaks the vicious circle in which we always find ourselves trapped.
A Larger Question
Aside from our own predicament, the media are a dominant "political" force and need to face the same test of public scrutiny as ordinary political parties.
They are chock a block with conflict of interest. We are given to assume that today's mass media are somehow fair and objective, yet their owners have strong financial and political interests of their own. We should keep the public continually aware of what those interests are and what the implications are for journalism. Television is the most in conflict. It is financially captive to a propaganda system in the classic sense. These matters need to be raised, and hammered home, in the political arena.
There is an even larger issue involved, however. Arguments about bias, especially bias in news coverage, eventually go around in a circle. There is no means of resolving them. The only practical way to provide balance and openness in the media is to democratize ownership and control and make them more diverse overall.
We owe it to the public to engage these issues. The current narrow, concentrated mass media ownership is impossible to justify in a democracy. So is the capture of television for one way marketing propaganda. We are arguing from strength in these matters. Most of all, we owe it to ourselves to put these issues high on our agenda.
|
|
