Rather to Obama: Journalism Needs Help

danrather.jpg

July 30, 2009
Posted by Candace Clement

In a passionate speech in Colorado on Tuesday night, former CBS News anchor Dan Rather called on President Obama to form a White House commission on journalism and public media.

Citing declining investment in investigative journalism and the loss of news outlets that regularly monitor institutions of power, Rather said that all citizens should be concerned about the crisis in journalism. "A democracy and free people cannot thrive without a fiercely independent press," he said.

I couldn't agree more. Decades of unchecked media consolidation and poor media policies have left us with shuttered newsrooms, disappearing local media outlets, unemployed journalists, and a near absence of investigative reporting that exposes wrongdoing and abuses of power. It's clear that we have passed the point of shrugging our shoulders and just assuming that the free market will solve our media problems.

Public media, established to provide news and information as a public service instead of being a conduit for advertising dollars, are one of the most readily available tools in our arsenal for saving the news.

Rather called media reform a "national priority," and explained our country’s long history of establishing national commissions to address the needs of at-risk industries. The Aspen Daily News reported:

    The free press, as established by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ought to operate as a public trust, not solely as a money-making endeavor, Rather argued, and it’s time the government make an effort to ensure the survival of the free press. If not the government, he suggested, then an organization like the Carnegie Foundation should take it on. Without action, he predicted, America will lose its independent media.

Indeed, this would not be the first commission to take up the issue of public media. In 1967, a Carnegie Foundation-backed commission released a landmark report, Public Television: A Program for Action. The commission recognized that a public television (and later, a public radio) system was necessary to provide an "instrument for the free communication of ideas in a free society."

The commission’s report was quickly taken up by President Johnson’s administration, and within nine months, the Public Broadcasting Act – which established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – was passed into law. A new commission that focuses on the unique demands and opportunities of today’s media landscape has the potential to project a broad, new vision for public media in the digital age.

More than 40 years later, public media ranks continuously as the No.1 American institution in public trust. NPR’s news division is growing, even as commercial newsrooms are shrinking. Programs like The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Frontline are providing the serious journalism that is fast disappearing.

Public media also provide a welcome alternative to the sad state of commercial reporting. And with the rise of the Internet, and declining costs of tools like video cameras, more individuals and organizations are creating media that tell the stories and share the views so seldom seen and heard.

But while public media may provide some of the critical journalism our democracy needs, it is continuously hamstrung by a vicious cycle of paltry funding. The United States spends just $1.35 per person on public media, compared to more than $80 per person in the UK and $100 per person in Denmark and Finland. And most public media programming does not yet reflect the true diversity of the nation.

These important issues around funding and diversity, as well as the governance and expansion of the public media system, require attention from Washington if we are ever to create public media that meet the needs of the American people.

You can read more about public media’s catch-22 in the Free Press report Public Media's Moment.

Comments

Yes, the state of journalism

Yes, the state of journalism is sad, but unfortunately in content as well as financially. For Dan Rather, who did much to damage media credibility, to invite help from the President to maintain "..the press' traditional role of being the watchdog on power.." is truly laughable. Yes, financial issues are indeed pressing on traditional media. But these same outlets often do little more than serve as stenographers for Obama and the Democratic Party.

Steve: That's a rather large

Steve:

That's a rather large acqusation to make about Rather's body of work. Yet you offer no factual basis to such an assertion. Please offer me me your sources and I'm sure I can easily debunk them.

Moreover, I think i'll prove that Rather's work probably consistently reported a credible truth you didn't want to know more than anything else.

So Steve - I challenge you to throw off the feathers of the ostrich and provide me some insight into why you think a man a Rather's caliber and experience symbolizes lack of credibility.

Joe, I agree with what you

Joe, I agree with what you said about Steve's comment. I am safely assuming he is a right wing Republican. And the biggest problem posed by people like him is their ineptitude to look at facts, and challenge "conventional wisdom".

Al Gore speaks of this problem of the media in the Assault on Reason, but he goes further. It is not simply a problem of finances, or the media's inability to conduct responsible reporting. It is a problem with the American psyche, who have traded their reasoning skills with mind-numbing info-tainment that is so prevalent in media outlets. Asking Americans to care about what news organizations is able or not able to do is just not that interesting to them. The majority prefer the lies and propaganda being offered by FOX News and similar pseudo-journalistic avenues. It easier that way for them; informed citizens are more likely to take actions against what our government and corporations do that are unjust and unfair. Americans have become to complacent, and when they do get in an uproar it is always about the wrong thing with inaccurate facts. It's a sad country we live in...

The corporate newsmedia

The corporate newsmedia fired Dan Rather for trying to tell the truth about George W. Bush's military record. However
Lou Dobbs and many others can go on and on about Obama's place
of birth spewing outright lies and fomenting the "birther" movement which includes the recent assassination at the
Holocaust Museum in D. C. And still we hear the nonsence
(since Spiro Agnew) about the "liberal" press.

Hi Steve and Joe, It seems

Hi Steve and Joe,

It seems to me that the comments here have gotten focused on the past. I read Rather's remarks as a call to envision a new future for journalism. I don't think Rather was suggesting that the govt "bailout" old media giants - instead, it seemed that he was calling for a panel that could take a hard look at the bad policies that got us in this mess (i.e. media consolidation, etc...) and explore/promote new policies that could foster a new era in public service journalism, with an emphasis on people not on profits. Regardless of what you think about Rather's past performance, the idea of a White House panel on the future of news - if done right - could bring much needed new resources and support to journalists and communities.

Disclosure: I work here at Free Press on our SaveTheNews.org campaign.

Nearly all media is bought

Nearly all media is bought and owned by one of 6 companies. The media's job is to push the shadow government's agenda. There is no such thing as free press. It's long gone.

I believe the media should

I believe the media should be held accountable for so many wrong doings in the press, the radio, and the tv. I think they should only be able to publish the truth or pay a high consequence for their actions. The people want only the truth, so that they can decide for themselves what information pertains to something of interest to them and their lives. By printing untruths; they are irresponsible and should not be in the business. The news should always be ethical and above the garage they cover most of the time. I get tired of only hearing negative stuff, not enough good, or of any interest. I can't trust the media to give me the truth about a canidate running for office of any kind. I don't want to hear someone's personal beliefs, I only want facts to base my decisions on. If they can't do that, they are lower than the slimbucket they cover.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Freepress.net is a project of Free Press and the Free Press Action Fund
Massachusetts Office: 40 Main St, Suite 301, Florence, MA 01062 - Ph 877.888.1533 - Fax 413.585.8904
Washington Office: 501 Third Street NW, Suite 875, Washington, DC 20001 - Ph 202.265.1490 - Fax 202.265.1489