In Part 2 of this series, I gave a fairly long list as to what constitutes “governance” and what constitutes “politics.” Let me give a briefer explanation:
“Governance” is about the issues, which need deliberation to make the better decisions.
“Politics” is about who makes the decisions.
Media lessons from 9/11
After the events of 9/11, we Canadians went through a great public deliberation as to our role in the aftermath. Our two major TV networks, CBC and CTV, did a wonderful job of laying out the upcoming dilemma: whether Canada should or should not take an active part in the upcoming invasions. The TV networks seemed not interested in taking sides. They got many knowledgeable people to explain the ramifications of our choices. The newspapers were the same. Canadians talked and talked about our role. And eventually, through out Parliament, we made the decision to support the invasion of Afghanistan, but not Iraq.
When I flipped to the American news channels, the American TV networks seemed united that invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq was the only direction the USA could ever make. This does not mean there was no opposition, but that opposition was omitted from the public discourse. There was little dissent in the American TV media.
The media deliberations in Canada were quite open. The media deliberations in the United States were tilted. I believe Canada made the better decision. Had the world focused its resources just on Afghanistan, we might have a different Afghanistan than we have today.
These days, I get most of my American news from PBS Newshour. It has less sensationalism than the other American networks and if there is an agenda from PBS, it’s harder to figure it out.
My local PBS affiliate comes from Spokane, Washington. One show I occasionally catch is “Inside Olympia”. I have written about this show before.
To my mind, Inside Olympia is doing what the media should be doing: not taking sides but letting the two sides present their cases to the public. This show reminds me of the great discussion Canadians had with our post 9/11 decisions. But Inside Olympia has made this technique routine — for many issues in the state of Washington. I suspect other PBS affiliates are providing similar political analyses for their local audiences.
I did some quick internet research on the ratings of various news shows in the United States. Let’s just say PBS Newshour didn’t show up very well. It seems not many Americans are watching this news production.
If we try to apply my “politics vs. governance” paradigm to PBS Newshour, I would give this show a score of 75% governance and 25% politics. The 25% comes mostly from the difficulty of avoiding the drama of politics when the drama is so pervasive.
PBS is funded by private and foundation donors. It has no advertisers to appease, so it can focus on quality news. Is there a bias in PBS? Probably! But it is relatively low.
I know there is government funding of the Canadian networks, which means taxpayer money is directly or indirectly funding Canadian TV news productions. When I tried to do some research for this article, I realized that I should do a lot more research to speak credibly. As this article is unlikely to get more than 20 reads, I can’t justify this research time. So I will just provide my anecdotal observations.
Canadian news is more sensationalist than PBS. Canadian news stations still need to get the ratings to keep the advertisers happy.
When I compare Canadian news stations to CNN and MSNBC, these American networks, definitely have more sensationalism and a higher left-wing bias. But these two American networks also rely more on advertising revenue than the Canadian networks.
Let me just summarize my anecdotally observations. The less a news network relies on advertising, the more it can move the “politics vs. governance” dial towards “governance.” In other words, the network is giving its audience a more balanced report by educating its viewers of multiple sides, then letting its audience make its own informed decision.
I don’t want to give the impression that a Walter-Cronkite journalism is the ultimate objective. There were analysts of those days pointing out the flaws, (like the three American networks more or less covering the same stories with the same angles). My objective here is to show that when a media is more financially independent from advertising, it is better at reporting the news.
An Example of “Politics vs. Governance” in the Media
I’m making up these two similar media clips, but I think most readers will be able to see my point.
From a media perspective: Which clip is mostly governance, and which is mostly politics?
1. Today, former President Donald Trump was indicted in a NYC court for corruption.
2. Today, former President Donald Trump was indicted in a NYC court because of corruption.
I’ll just let readers figure how such a little shift of words would cause a great shift in the governance/politics dial.
And then readers can figure out which wording is more likely to keep viewers on the TV screen, keeping advertisers happier.
A Solution?
This idea came to me from someone else many years ago.
When a citizen files his/her annual tax return, there will be a little box for a “personal media investment.” The citizen fills that box with the media outlet(s) he/she wants to support in the next year. These can be national broadcasters, like PBS or CNN. They can be newspapers, magazines, radio stations, or internet sites. They can be national in scope or local. When the citizen fills in that box, the government will send a small amount, say $500, to those media outlets.
With this money, the media outlet will be become less reliant on advertising. How it reports the news will change more towards the PBS approach: more facts, less sensationalism, less bias.
Please note that the citizen does not get that $500. Nor does that citizen pay $500 extra in taxes. It is an allocation from the government to responsible media outlets — toward better democracy. The citizens — not the politicians or civil service — make the decision.
And every citizen has the same $500 say in this matter. The less-than-wealthy classes will be making media decisions they usually do not get to make.
Notice that I said, “responsible media outlets.” I have faith that a forum of respected professional journalists will be able to define the terms that determine which media outlets are responsible. Many of today’s media outlets will make this cut. They can then be selected by citizens for the media allocation. But these outlets still need to be relevant to some citizens to get these funds.
For those media outlets not making the “responsible” cut, they should be allowed to continue, but with no government money.
Tiered Democratic Governance
If you made it this far, I’m going to assume you like the above idea of a public allocation of funds to media outlets, using the tax system. It addresses a known problem; it is worthy of more discussion; it might be worthy to try it out.
But I will also assume that you are a realist — and recognize that getting this idea implemented is next to zero. There are too many vested interests that have other agendas. And politicians are distracted. So forget about pushing this idea around the internet to gain some mass appeal to later bend the will of those overly ambitious who aspire for public office. We can’t get “personal media investment” done in the near or intermediate future.
But if we had a different system of governance, we could put up ideas like this for full discussion.
And we can start building this new system of governance. Today. We do not need permission from the media, the political elite, the wealthy, or the academics.
Published on Medium 2023
Prez 47 Satire: Bombs Bursting in Air
Dave Volek's Pandemic Simulation
