In my last diary, I made an elementary effort to apply game theory to a couple pervasive patterns of media failure we can easily observe today. I left off in that diary absent any solution to these ails, hoping more inspiration would come from the comments.
Well, in a way they did. Both here, where several experts in journalism and game theory provided input, and in the companion cross-post at Openleft. It's there we begin to find the next step in fixing the broken media:
One of my favourite blog commenters (who should get his own blog!), Paul Rosenberg made this excellent point:
My purpose here is not to disparage this analysis. I'm a PD (prisoner's dilemma - S) fan from way back. What I want to do, however, is to discourage you from thinking that this analysis by itself is complete, and--more importantly--that it can lead to remedies that are themselves complete.
Which is completely true, and begets the question: Where can we find a more complete picture of what is wrong with the media?
We're all working with a disconnected set of information. We can see the results, and know something is very wrong. But working our way back up the chain, where is the source of the problem? Is it the reporters? The editors? The owners? Capitalism itself? Some other systemic factor?
Sure we have a few scattered data points. We have Fox News' lawyers arguing for the 1st amendment right to falsify the news in a Florida court. We have the sickening Libby investigation admission by Tim Russert that he gives a presumption of being off the record to Administration figures. We have the occasional leaked memo from Fox News, but we need much more.
This is why we need a full Congressional inquiry into the state of the American news media. Let's bring out the truth on these matters. Have all the players testify under oath. The data points we have are sufficient justification for at least one Congressional committee to see something stinks, and is worth investigating.
Lest we forget under the Bush Administration (because everywhere congress looks we find ongoing crimes), Congress doesn't need to be investigating actual crimes, just any matter it deems of public concern, and a possible subject of legislation. Recently we saw congress investigating Major League baseball and professional wrestling. Surely the very foundational field of professional journalism and the professions which specialize in dissemination of information are worthy of some attention?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
As far as I can tell, these matters would fall under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Let's stop talking in circles about what's on the minds of Roger Ailes or the Editorial board of the Washington Post. Let's put them on the record. Dozens of great questions come to mind: What makes a story "news"? What do you look for in a reporter? Why does your company keep cutting the budget for investigative reporting and foreign news bureaus? And so on.
I maintain my first assertion in the last diary: The current efforts of the netroots to pressure and shame the large media organizations through fact checking and sadly, basic logical coherence checking and even worse, 3rd grade reading level checking are fantastic and valuable. However they are not sufficient to fix what is wrong. We helped push Democratic majorities into both houses of congress, and yet the media landscape has changed little. Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck have pathetic ratings yet stay on the air, while Atrios' "No Liberals on the TeeVee" rule continues to be in full effect. The Sunday morning talk shows continue to strongly favour Repubican and conservative guests over Democratic and liberal ones.
At least some of the failures of our Democratic congress to stand up to Bush are potentially attributable to the basic fact that they are labouring under a Conservative and Republican media landscape. Battling Bush on one side, and the media itself for the most part on the other. 30% of the country still believes there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. What else needs be said?
It's time for more light to be shed on this. We have the majorities, and clearly this is in the interests of Democrats to dig into. Let the subpoenas work their magic.
If you agree, I ask that you send your members of congress, particularly if they are members of the committees above, requests to this effect. Not being American I would not feel right in doing so. If you will see them during the congressional recess, after lambasting them over the FISA bill, ask them about this.
UPDATE: To address some common points raised in the (excellent) debate below:
- Congress does not need to have evidence of a crime to investigate, or issue subpoenas.
- Congress does not need to know what legislation it will pass to investigate. Fact finding is a crucial part of the legislative process. Dozens of congressional investigations are ongoing right now that you never read about because they are dry and wonkish.
- Yes, the 1st amendment is a significant limitation in congress' power to regulate the media, however it is not a absolute limitation. The fairness doctrine and anti-trust laws are prime examples of past regulation of the media by congress. The viability of those items today is irrelevant. Congress has regulated the media in the past and can constitutionally do so again. The FCC fines broadcasters for allowing swearing on the air. This would seem to violate the 1st amendment.
UPDATE 2: There are several ways to skin a cat. Some of the problems I outline can be legislated not by regulating the media, but by regulating the government. Congress can most certainly regulate how the White House interacts with the press. Maybe Tony Snow shouldn't have discretion over which reporters he picks to ask questions. Maybe prominent government figures should not be allowed to discriminate which media companies they give exclusive interviews to.