Back in the ancient 70s media guru Marshall McLuhan said something to me about a newspaper strike – “of course the newspapers are on strike – they’re obsolete!”
Like many of McLuhan’s pronouncements, this makes even more sense the more you consider it. Media that are booming, or on any kind of upswing, are not struck by strikes. Their workers are happy to be part of a winning operation that gives them prestige and job security.
But once a medium starts going downhill, everything begins to change. Every problem becomes a crisis, an occasion for deep soul-searching.
Which brings us to the other end of the Imus affair – how the media, not just MSNBC and CBS, but all the media, are playing this. Why is it such a hot, soul-wrenching story?
Because it connects to the decline and fall of mass news and talk-show media.
MSNBC is in third place in 24/7 cable news. Getting rid of Imus - one of their few successes in the ratings - was the last thing they wanted to do. But the real aggravation for MSNBC is that they still do not know how to succeed in this new media world.
In some ways CBS is even worse. Once the gold standard of network evening news, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric has fallen to a distant third in a shrinking field. Viacom embraces new media by threatening to sue YouTube for doing the favor of hosting its videos.
These are the deep currents that have led to so much angst in the television and radio news media about Imus. Not concern, really, about what he said. But concern about their own future.
Imus was easily addressed. Not so easy will be figuring out how to save the mass media. Their decline and fall looks all but irreversible.
Article comments
1 - daryl d
Another intelligent article about the debate. But the mass media isn't falling, it's changing. The Drudge Report is now the main media force, and there ar good and horrible things about that. Bloggers have now been given more power so we don't have to depend on the media, which is politically driven one way or the other.
2 - Clavos
The author notes:
Imus was easily addressed. Not so easy will be figuring out how to save the mass media. Their decline and fall looks all but irreversible.
I think the viewing public has already indicated that it's not interested in saving the mass media.
With the advent first of cable and later of the internet, viewers have increasingly shown their preference for "niche media" over mass media; a phenomenon that wasn't possible until cable and the internet came along.
Now these two newer information distribution media are the wave of today, as well as the future.
The problem, as I see it, isn't so much how to save the somewhat archaic traditional mass media as it is to avoid the balkanization of the distribution of news and information, which if left unchecked, will further divide our society as interest groups increasingly turn toward their own individualistic (and narrow) outlets for their information.
3 - Paul Levinson
Darryd - thanks, and I agree. What is falling is the traditional mass media model of information to the many coming from a few on-high sources - the networks, papers like the New York Times, etc.
Blogs, podcasts, etc are also mass - but they are created by many more people. The asymmetry between producer and consumer is being equalized.
Clavos: I also agree. The problem is how to save the mass media is one that most interests people still in power in the traditional media.
4 - Servant
News will always be interpreted by the people watching it, so saying that the outlets for information are narrow is misleading. The news exported facts, not (at least offically) opinions. Niche media could be considered good because by supporting a narrower mindset, more information can be distributed, leading to a more active and intrested population. This would devlop apologetics along with extremism, so at least it's not all bad.
5 - Sisyphus
"The Drudge Report is now the main media force...."
LOL! Drudge's popular link farm is influential, even among the MSM -- no doubt -- but the "main media force?" Whoa! I sure hope you're kidding. Drudge has been discredited so many times I've lost count. The last shady episode involved spreading a made-up rumor that CNN's Michael Ware heckled John McCain at a press conference in Baghdad. Of course the rumor proved to be completely false -- Ware was silent at the press conference -- but that didn't stop ol' Drudge. Drudge removed the story but he issued no apology or retraction (does he ever?). I wonder how many people saw the story and took it as fact? And that's just one example. Drudge's photo should appear in all reference books under the heading of "yellow journalism."
Do you think I would read the Drudge Report? HA! Yes, I do. Several times a day. Go figure. :)
6 - Paul Levinson
Sysyphus wrote: Drudge has been discredited so many times I've lost count. The last shady episode involved spreading a made-up rumor that CNN's Michael Ware heckled John McCain at a press conference in Baghdad.
Even that doesn't hold a candle, though, to Jayson Blair's escapades at the New York Times.
(Point being - the public is amazingly forgiving about media errors...)
Servant: Agree completely it's not at all bad. In fact, I think the decline and fall of mass media is mostly (but not completely) good.
7 - Sisyphus
"Jayson Blair's escapades..."
Indeed. And lest we forget Stephen Glass at The New Republic before that. There are plenty of examples. BUT, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, et al, are history -- gone in disgrace. Drudge still thrives and there's no one to fire him! :)
8 - Zedd
Paul,
The media is contributing to its own decline every day. Like the Bush administration, which came on board thinking they knew just how to run a country; that it should be run like a corporation and not realising that powerful corporations have employees who serve it begrudgingly and customers who hate the largeness and power which they have yet support it out of resignation (especially the oil industry). They missed the importance of popular opinion in everything that they do. In politics, no one gets paid six figures for sticking with you; cant have a sale in order to retain loyalty.
The changes in network news were a reflection of the structural change in the networks themselves. They treated the watching public like consumers. It became clear that we were being pandered to. It became just one never ending commercial. They would break for their sponsors then cheese to us for another 8mins then break again. We who "knew" Cronkite felt cheated and those before us who "knew" Murrow felt insulted. Not understanding that newness in this respect was not welcomed. That this is one of few institutions where tradition and respectability sold. Having a palsy, smarmy, hip or cute guy or gal in front of me, explaining the world just doesn't cut it.
Having a cocky 80's style MBA, CEO wanna-be is not what I look for in a President.
The nerviness of big business has resulted in the watering down of our country in many respects. Believing their business school ideals as gospel and a fix for everything is the problem. Those guys who in the 80's thought greed is good are now running the country. They dismissed the arts, the Social Sciences and only looked at science and technology as a tool to make more money, hence the reduction in investing into the space program (the financial return is zip). They utilized aggressive business tactics to get the Dems out. They used PR in the form of talk radio to change the hearts and MINDS of the average American (Rush was just a really loud commercial). They finally got their ownership of Congress and the Presidency. The problem is that, they were out of their league. They were playing basketball on a football field. It didn't work.
The same is true for the current network owners.