And why it won’t have any effect on our ‘democracy’.
The collapse of the news industry speaks volumes. It shows that people aren’t interested in the news and, if they are, they’re probably not willing to pay for it.
The corporate (or ‘mainstream’) media is sinking, and is doing everything it can to stay afloat: sacking staff, erecting pay walls, or simply closing some publications.
This, and the things that have caused it, should be celebrated by those in power.
Breeding apathy.
The majority of newspapers’ income comes from advertising revenue, which has decreased as circulation has decreased. Why should advertisers continue to pay so much money, when they’re reaching fewer people?
A commonly accepted view for circulation decline is that it’s because readers can often get the same content online, effectively for free.
Another, but not discussed, reason is that the news media has ceased to have any relevance to their daily lives.
For example, let’s take local newspapers. Their circulation has dropped massively. Many commentators may fret over what this means for “local democracy”. It means precisely nothing for local democracy, as it does not exist in any significant form.
Very few people actually vote in local elections. We can be fairly confident about concluding this is because they believe the outcome will not affect their lives in any meaningful way. They’re probably right.
Most issues of any significance are decided in Parliament. There, too, the public have little influence. The electoral system is a complete joke, producing governments from a party with the support of a minority of voters, let alone the population. ((In the 2005 election, the Labour party got just over 35% of the popular vote. This is just over a fifth of all eligible voters.))
Not only that, but there are no significant differences between the two parties that could conceivably win an election. In John Pilger’s words, they “have converged into a single-ideology business state, each with almost identical social, economic and foreign policies.”
This leaves no real choice for the public. To pick one example, the majority of the British public were opposed (pdf) to the Iraq war, perhaps two million Britons protested against it, and yet two-thirds of MPs voted for it.
Even the most cursory look at the state of our democracy shows it is not healthy, or even functioning. So when those who own the corporate media claim, like James Murdoch did recently, that it “plays a vital part in a functioning democracy”, they can be dismissed outright.
And this analysis doesn’t even consider the causes of our broken democracy, or the role of the corporate media in propping up the “business state” system.
Business won.
Corporate power should revel in this. The system that suppresses real dissent, and often basic facts, has been ridiculously successful.
Not only has it succeeded in hiding the truth from its readers, but the gap between what the media claim ((e.g., the great battle between the two main political parties, the benefits of globalisation, etc.)) and the reality the public can observe for themselves has caused shocking amounts of apathy and feelings of impotence.
The best part about this is that people aren’t turning to radical publications either.
The corporations who own the news media may feel somewhat sore, given the crumbling of once (and often still) profitable activities. But they have absolutely no interest in ratting out the rest of corporate power, because they have sticky fingers in many economic pies.
Original WordPress comments:
Shane Croucher:
So what could replace the corporate-owned media?
Do you believe a new age of political radicalism is needed to kickstart some kind of revolution?
I see what you’re saying, and I can’t fault it, but….what next? If you know what I mean. It just seems like we’re forever stuck.
Rob Wells:
I’m very pessimistic about the future. I hope that, one day, there will be true democratic control of social and economic institutions. There are some encouraging developments in Venezuela regarding worker control and participatory democracy, but my fear is that they’ll be undermined and won’t last, and won’t spread.
History is not encouraging on this matter.
As for everything else, from how to push for such things elsewhere, and how to replace the corporate media, I don’t know. The corporate media could be replaced by community-owned media, but I’m not sure how that would work. It certainly won’t work in the current economic system, at least not on any significant level.
If anything, this is what we should be discussing when we talk about the ‘future of journalism’ or the ‘future of the news industry’. Current debate is largely focused on sustaining existing institutions, or creating new ones that operate along similar lines (for profit, advertising-funded, etc). This system has not helped — and has often undermined — the public’s interests, so we shouldn’t help it survive.
