This is in response to
a recent diary by trykindness. My response grew so long I made a diary about it. I think it is diary-worthy not because I feel it is necessary to correct trykindness point-by-point, but because the overall theme says something about the nature of activism and the responsibility of the individual in effective collective action.
If I correct media misinformation in the forest, and no one hears me, did I really do it?
Media Matters publishes content on a website. The website is accessible by almost anyone with an internet connection. I would never even dare imply that MMFA exists in a vacuum where no one can hear it. Admittedly, the web is not purely democratic; not every voice is heard. Media Matters for America is a not-for-profit entity. It does not and cannot compete with profit-making corporations in terms of media presence and exposure. The burden, therefore, rests with its audience. If you, or anyone else, feels that there is an MMFA article that deserves wider exposure, link to it on your website, quote it in your diary, send it to your email circle, contact (and BOYCOTT) your local papers/television stations, donatemoney to MMFA, etc. Over time more and more MMFA articles will find their way to the top of search result pages. This is part of how a low-budget operation competes with high-budget operations, by appealing to the volunteerism of concerned citizens.
If I write the diary on Kos instead, have I corrected conservative misinformation in the U.S. media? Does the answer depend on how many read my diary?
- Well, you've taken part in the process of correcting misinformation, which is more than most. There's even more you can do if you feel strongly enough about it (see above).
- No, it doesn't matter how many people read your diary. You've expressed your opinion in a highly visible forum; that's pretty democratic. It's not your responsibility to compete with and defeat every other meme vying for the public's attention; it is not your responsibility to correct everything you feel is a publicly-held misconception.
The standard for correcting the media, however, must be not simply documenting errors and "holding" media accountable, but actually managing to have them take responsibility and, with a prominence fitting the seriousness of the errors, have them acknowledge their mistakes and have them state the clear truth on the matter.
My response it threefold:
- Clearly MMFA already does more than document what it considers misinformation, it almost always asks for some kind of elaboration/retraction/censure etc. from the offending news org. This by itself is activism, and while you do at least acknowledge this activism from MMFA, it obviously is not activist enough for you.
- No matter what you feel is the correct standard for having effectively corrected media misinformation, it is not necessarily MMFA's responsibility to meet that standard by itself, from start to finish. Like you, MMFA does its part in correecting misinformation. Why is the burden solely MMFA's?
- The last part of the quote above is, imo. dead wrong. You can lead a horse to water, etc. etc. The major media CANNOT and WILL NOT be held accountable according to the standard you've set, at least not without a massive public campaign. Simply put, MMFA does not, and does not pretend to, have the clout by itself to police the major (and minor) media. It is wrong, tho, to say that no one can "correct" the media without the kind of media acknowledgment you've described. It's a dialectic, not a pure black/white, win/lose struggle. MMFA has accepted a HUGE part of the responsibility in this dialectic, and done a fairly good job at it as well. What they have done more than qualifies as "correcting the media" and "holding them accountable."
So, here are my suggestions for Media Matters:
- Get serious about rallying the public to complain about the misinformation you expose. Find a live person at the network or outlet to whom the public can direct their questions and comments. Then post that contact info, not just the number for the general switchboard or the link to email a general complaint or comment. The first step toward media accountability is individual accountability, at the media outlet.
- Get serious about evaluating your own performance. The first step toward being more effective is knowing how effective, or ineffective, you already are.
"Get serious about rallying the public?" Why is that MMFA's responsibility? How bout YOU rally the public and let MMFA continue to document misinformation?
The rest of point #1 sounds like something you would drop in the suggestions box. In other words, it doesn't sound like the kind of observation that makes me suspect that MMFA is not living up to its charter. I agree that anything that MMFA can do to make it easier for its audience to take action is positive, but at some point MMFA's responsibility has to end and its audience's begins. MMFA doesn't pick up the phone and dial for you, that doesn't mean they aren't doing their jobs.
Point #2 is problematic. First of all, I suspect you have no clue as to how MMFA already evaluates its own perfomance. Second ofa ll, again, the phenomenon is dialectic; if the media refuses to be "held accountable," is MMFA succeeding or failing in its charter? It's impossible to say. Would there be even more media misinformation in MMFA's absence? MMFA's success, or failure, is not and probably can never be an exercise in objective standards. Essentially it comes down to how many people find its content compelling.
In the end, most of these recommendations sound like typical upper-management responses to what should be action by upper management. In other words, throw the responsibiliity back down to the workers. MMFA has amassed a considerable amount of content about misinfomation. It is highly searchable, and provides many phone numbers and contact information; MMFA suggests that content consumers who feel compelled should take action. Your response to MMFA's call to action is to ask MMFA to do even more. Maybe the appropriate response from MMFA to your suggestions is "No, we've done enough. You help us do the rest!"