Shrinking number of news outlets spells trouble
Question: What do you think will happen to the political process of this country now that the number of major news sources has been reduced from about 50 in the early 1990s to around five today? Further consolidation is now occurring as a result of a recent ruling by the FCC allowing cross-media purchases. Has it ever occurred to media magnates that government of the rich, by the press, for the interests of the wealthy owners and their oligarchy of super-rich corporate friends is a perversion of the intention of the founding fathers?
While money does not assure election, anyone without substantial wealth or the ability to raise it is an automatic non-contestant in the political process today. The media get most of the money. Is that not a conflict of interest?
My sign crew put out about 17,000 signs for John Kerry this year in the Spokane area. Most were destroyed or removed from where they were legitimately erected within a few hours; sometimes within a few minutes.
Whoever was doing it was obviously well organized, very effective and efficient. When the Democrats — for lack of money or fairness — fail to show up for the election process, what kind of democracy will we have then?
In the history I have read, when the rich got too rich and powerful and the poor became too oppressed and too numerous, there was often rebellion, revolution and anarchy, which resulted in tyranny and frequently national disintegration. — Lorence Simonsen, Spokane
Answer: I don’t know where to begin with this. There are quite a few books out there on media consolidation, on news ethics and values, etc. There are quite a few thoughtful media critics and scholars who write eloquently on the issues raised.
I can’t defend media consolidation, or mount much of an argument against it, either. It is what it is and is a reflection of American business realities more than a reflection on American journalism. Regardless of ownership, the journalists I know are dedicated to fair, accurate and comprehensive reporting, and truth-seeking, for that matter.
Furthermore, most journalists flatly reject black and white perceptions of our world, putting them at odds with consumers who reject ideas not in total conformity with their own.
In my view, the greater threat to democracy isn’t media consolidation; it’s the growing unwillingness of citizens to consider issues from the perspective of people with whom they disagree.
Polarization gets in the way of compromise and resolution, which are the bread and butter of a working democracy.
One bright spot for the writer to consider: At the same time consolidation sweeps mainstream media, technology is opening news reporting, writing and editing to limitless numbers of people.
The future of news reporting in this country probably belongs to the self-employed, self-trained editors and bloggers rather than the corporatized few. Anyone with a PC can be in the news business now without having to invest in a chunk of metal (the printing press) or a digitized, plasmatized TV studio. — Steve Smith, editor
Contact the ombudsman
If you’d like ombudsman Gordon Jackson to address your concerns about news coverage and commentary in The Spokesman-Review, you can e-mail him at gordonj@spokesman.com, or you can send regular mail to Jackson in care of Doug Floyd, The Spokesman-Review, 999 W. Riverside Ave., Spokane, WA 99201.