MEDIA FAILS WATERGATE TEST IN ELECTION #42
MY CANADA commentary on the long
election #42 Canadian campaign based on comments by morning Tim Horton coffee
club members should be of interest to politicians. The major reason for
commenting on the issue is the way continuous electioneering becomes boring and
irritating. The Conservatives might have initiated the extended campaign but
the media is at fault for lending credence to the issue.
The media has changed over the years but most markedly since the Harper government years in power. It was inconceivable in the past that political parties would overpower the media controlling if not dictating coverage direction. Reason for the change is probably obvious within the media industry. Independent news organizations are almost something from the past. Virtually all media outlets are now owned and controlled by major corporations. The greatest problem with the change is undoubtedly the perchance for corporate management and or political control of news.
News management was previously difficult to control since most media outlets prior to the advent of continuous news was localized, owned and managed by independent business persons. People mostly with ideals that would personally forbid the thought of business executives or any other individual with either perceived or actual influence dictate news content. Most individuals and for that matter media management would probably strongly disagree, however it has happened except for a small core of more experienced individuals tolerated for their views. Most of those people of influence are nearing if not past retirement age.
Thinking of the way the media can be controlled only requires common knowledge with regard to job security and journalistic career advancement. For several decades if not a century the pendulum has swung with the consolidation of the news media. Most television networks, print media and even social media sites are corporate entities. Meaning those in top management can dictate direction and the way subject matter can be directed and offered for public consumption. A good indication of how those controls can happen is the method Prime Minister Harper dictates news coverage and controls journalists. Aside from a few of the fore mentioned aging group of columnists and lower grade managers almost every newer age journalist is required to follow company protocol. To rebel would almost certainly stall any career advancement and probably lead to frustration as details of an assignment is edited and likely changed or pressured into following management guidelines which in effect are probably dictates.
Many might disagree with the suppositions in this article but the facts point to the situation already implemented. Listening to any television political show or even most newspaper exchanges discussing party leader activity and those selected to be involved are journalists with narrow partisan views. There isn’t even any indication the participants have inner thoughts or feelings that the party line might need fine tuning. The party position dictated by the leader and his or her staff associates is the only view allowed to be offered to the listening or reading public.
The façade that corporations and affluent individuals cannot contribute massively to political party coffers is infantile. Any thinking person is well ware ways will be found to make certain influential persons with high income levels can donate to the party of their choice regardless of legislation fashioned to have the public believe such practices do not happen. Huge tax credits for donations together with favors to assure needed legislation gets passed are the tip of the iceberg on this issue. To actually prove the accusation would require in depth individual journalism with the desire and drive to delve into all the workings of the system. But that kind of reporting and investigating ended with the Watergate incident that took down American President Richard Nixon in the past century. It is extremely doubtful any journalist educated and trained in this century would or even could delve as deeply into modern day corporate or that matter political workings. Losing journalistic freedom with all the traditional desire for the media to expose wrongdoing is an affront to our vanishing democracy.
The media has changed over the years but most markedly since the Harper government years in power. It was inconceivable in the past that political parties would overpower the media controlling if not dictating coverage direction. Reason for the change is probably obvious within the media industry. Independent news organizations are almost something from the past. Virtually all media outlets are now owned and controlled by major corporations. The greatest problem with the change is undoubtedly the perchance for corporate management and or political control of news.
News management was previously difficult to control since most media outlets prior to the advent of continuous news was localized, owned and managed by independent business persons. People mostly with ideals that would personally forbid the thought of business executives or any other individual with either perceived or actual influence dictate news content. Most individuals and for that matter media management would probably strongly disagree, however it has happened except for a small core of more experienced individuals tolerated for their views. Most of those people of influence are nearing if not past retirement age.
Thinking of the way the media can be controlled only requires common knowledge with regard to job security and journalistic career advancement. For several decades if not a century the pendulum has swung with the consolidation of the news media. Most television networks, print media and even social media sites are corporate entities. Meaning those in top management can dictate direction and the way subject matter can be directed and offered for public consumption. A good indication of how those controls can happen is the method Prime Minister Harper dictates news coverage and controls journalists. Aside from a few of the fore mentioned aging group of columnists and lower grade managers almost every newer age journalist is required to follow company protocol. To rebel would almost certainly stall any career advancement and probably lead to frustration as details of an assignment is edited and likely changed or pressured into following management guidelines which in effect are probably dictates.
Many might disagree with the suppositions in this article but the facts point to the situation already implemented. Listening to any television political show or even most newspaper exchanges discussing party leader activity and those selected to be involved are journalists with narrow partisan views. There isn’t even any indication the participants have inner thoughts or feelings that the party line might need fine tuning. The party position dictated by the leader and his or her staff associates is the only view allowed to be offered to the listening or reading public.
The façade that corporations and affluent individuals cannot contribute massively to political party coffers is infantile. Any thinking person is well ware ways will be found to make certain influential persons with high income levels can donate to the party of their choice regardless of legislation fashioned to have the public believe such practices do not happen. Huge tax credits for donations together with favors to assure needed legislation gets passed are the tip of the iceberg on this issue. To actually prove the accusation would require in depth individual journalism with the desire and drive to delve into all the workings of the system. But that kind of reporting and investigating ended with the Watergate incident that took down American President Richard Nixon in the past century. It is extremely doubtful any journalist educated and trained in this century would or even could delve as deeply into modern day corporate or that matter political workings. Losing journalistic freedom with all the traditional desire for the media to expose wrongdoing is an affront to our vanishing democracy.
