The media entanglement
22 January 2021 By Abiodun Giwa
A piece of good news for the media in Australia that the government there is working on a law that will make the social media share royalties with news publishers, according to a news reports on the BBC. The development renews the debate on the issue of the media entanglement and that if Australia succeeds rolling out the law, it will have ricochet effect in other countries.
And that is by the way. Observers say that it is impossible for the media to report the same story the same way, but that what matters is for the truth to be told and not to be blindsided. There is no other place in the world that the statement is appropriate than the United States of America, the land that teaches other countries the perfection of democracy.
The problem about the media in the U.S. is the sharper ideological division among the outlets and one that has made the public feel that the media is not only in an entanglement, but that the media has lost the respect it should command as the Fourth Estate of the Realm.
The Liberal media does not hide its support for the liberal ideology and the Democratic Party. The same is applicable to the Conservative media. People believe that both media came under the gauntlet of the internet impact with a large loss of the advertisement revenue. Many people know the revenue that have been taken over by the social media cannot easily be fully recovered by the media, and how the media has been struggling after most of them have successfully become savvy with their online publications is another issue about whether they have fully recovered loss revenue.
Many observers have described the Liberal media support for the liberal and the ideology and the Democratic Party in the just concluded election cycle as a matter of life and death, and that the Liberal media could say that it delivered the presidential election victory to the liberal candidate along with the social media cooperation. Many have observed that it is not that the Conservative media has not been as virulent as the Liberal media, but that there are times the Conservative media tries to present an image of a balanced news organization outlet, but it is still Conservative media. Moreover, the practicing journalists on the Conservative media also agree that the Liberal media constitutes the main media because of its many outlets compared to the Conservative media. There also commentators in the Conservative media who express their liberalism without excuse. But you rarely see a liberal media that allows expression of Conservative ideas or side of the issues.
For example, curious people say that if the Conservative media, especially some practitioners in the Conservative media, have not chosen to tread the path of caution over the argument about the last presidential election results, the story on the ground today would have been different. They are saying that if the Conservative media has been as sharp as the Liberal media in its support for the Conservative candidate, the argument would be fashioned in a way that some observers have framed it that even if the Conservative candidate has won the election, supporters of the Liberal candidate would have rejected the results and that there possibly would have been mayhem on the street. And that the storming of the Capitol would have been seen as justifiable. But that the Conservative media condemnation of the storming of the Capitol along with a handful of Conservative elected officials saved the situation.
There is no time that the words of Sir William Blackwell about the freedom of the press is appropriate than now. "The liberty of the press is indeed the nature of a free state, but this consists in laying no previous restraint upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public, but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity." Jean-Jacque Rosseau furthered the point, "All people are born free and equal, but unless constrained by morality and law, would become uncivilized and violent. People accordingly form a social contract in which they exchange some of their freedom for a limited government that advances collective interest. Because the people remain sovereign and do not surrender their rights, government censorship violates the fundamental social contract and can never be justified."
What do we have today? The media is struggling with income flow from the loss of advertisement revenue, making the saying that he who pays the piper dictates the tune more impactful in the direction the media chooses to go. The owners have more control of the journalists in their employment because with no advertisement revenue, the owners would determine the monetary need for the organization and what you bring to the table will decide the stoutness of your position. Most of the journalists today cannot tell their owners to please allow them practice based on their training to allow advertisement income because the income is dead or near death already.
Everyone says that the internet is the cause of the death of the media advertisement revenue and that readers have shifted to the social media where they are able to freely express anything they want to express. But the social media too has become a problem, by not only restricting what people are saying based on ideology but also by blind support for a political candidate and has therefore restricted part of the media itself. The social media is playing the role of a moralist with the power to decide what can and cannot be published. What is politically acceptable or that is not politically acceptable.
All these developments have led to the call to regulate the social media. There is a debate in the U.S. with some proponents seeking the abrogation of the Section 230, a provision that has given the social media the freedom from responsibility for materials on their platform. But many people are saying that abrogating the Section 230 is not the solution, but to tell the social media platform owners that they are not publishers or editors and that they cannot restrict what newspaper organizations can publish or not publish. In Australia, the government is rolling out a new law, according to a news report BBC that will make the social media pay media outlets for their content placed on the social media. But that Google has given a notice to remove its search engine from Australia if the country goes ahead with the promulgation of the new law.
Undoubtedly, people are of the view that if Australia succeeds with the law to open a new source of income for the media, journalists may have something new to say to their owners, that they have something they are bringing to the table for them to be allowed to determine the direction of their organizations as a news media and not as an affiliate of of a political party or any government.
And that is by the way. Observers say that it is impossible for the media to report the same story the same way, but that what matters is for the truth to be told and not to be blindsided. There is no other place in the world that the statement is appropriate than the United States of America, the land that teaches other countries the perfection of democracy.
The problem about the media in the U.S. is the sharper ideological division among the outlets and one that has made the public feel that the media is not only in an entanglement, but that the media has lost the respect it should command as the Fourth Estate of the Realm.
The Liberal media does not hide its support for the liberal ideology and the Democratic Party. The same is applicable to the Conservative media. People believe that both media came under the gauntlet of the internet impact with a large loss of the advertisement revenue. Many people know the revenue that have been taken over by the social media cannot easily be fully recovered by the media, and how the media has been struggling after most of them have successfully become savvy with their online publications is another issue about whether they have fully recovered loss revenue.
Many observers have described the Liberal media support for the liberal and the ideology and the Democratic Party in the just concluded election cycle as a matter of life and death, and that the Liberal media could say that it delivered the presidential election victory to the liberal candidate along with the social media cooperation. Many have observed that it is not that the Conservative media has not been as virulent as the Liberal media, but that there are times the Conservative media tries to present an image of a balanced news organization outlet, but it is still Conservative media. Moreover, the practicing journalists on the Conservative media also agree that the Liberal media constitutes the main media because of its many outlets compared to the Conservative media. There also commentators in the Conservative media who express their liberalism without excuse. But you rarely see a liberal media that allows expression of Conservative ideas or side of the issues.
For example, curious people say that if the Conservative media, especially some practitioners in the Conservative media, have not chosen to tread the path of caution over the argument about the last presidential election results, the story on the ground today would have been different. They are saying that if the Conservative media has been as sharp as the Liberal media in its support for the Conservative candidate, the argument would be fashioned in a way that some observers have framed it that even if the Conservative candidate has won the election, supporters of the Liberal candidate would have rejected the results and that there possibly would have been mayhem on the street. And that the storming of the Capitol would have been seen as justifiable. But that the Conservative media condemnation of the storming of the Capitol along with a handful of Conservative elected officials saved the situation.
There is no time that the words of Sir William Blackwell about the freedom of the press is appropriate than now. "The liberty of the press is indeed the nature of a free state, but this consists in laying no previous restraint upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public, but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity." Jean-Jacque Rosseau furthered the point, "All people are born free and equal, but unless constrained by morality and law, would become uncivilized and violent. People accordingly form a social contract in which they exchange some of their freedom for a limited government that advances collective interest. Because the people remain sovereign and do not surrender their rights, government censorship violates the fundamental social contract and can never be justified."
What do we have today? The media is struggling with income flow from the loss of advertisement revenue, making the saying that he who pays the piper dictates the tune more impactful in the direction the media chooses to go. The owners have more control of the journalists in their employment because with no advertisement revenue, the owners would determine the monetary need for the organization and what you bring to the table will decide the stoutness of your position. Most of the journalists today cannot tell their owners to please allow them practice based on their training to allow advertisement income because the income is dead or near death already.
Everyone says that the internet is the cause of the death of the media advertisement revenue and that readers have shifted to the social media where they are able to freely express anything they want to express. But the social media too has become a problem, by not only restricting what people are saying based on ideology but also by blind support for a political candidate and has therefore restricted part of the media itself. The social media is playing the role of a moralist with the power to decide what can and cannot be published. What is politically acceptable or that is not politically acceptable.
All these developments have led to the call to regulate the social media. There is a debate in the U.S. with some proponents seeking the abrogation of the Section 230, a provision that has given the social media the freedom from responsibility for materials on their platform. But many people are saying that abrogating the Section 230 is not the solution, but to tell the social media platform owners that they are not publishers or editors and that they cannot restrict what newspaper organizations can publish or not publish. In Australia, the government is rolling out a new law, according to a news report BBC that will make the social media pay media outlets for their content placed on the social media. But that Google has given a notice to remove its search engine from Australia if the country goes ahead with the promulgation of the new law.
Undoubtedly, people are of the view that if Australia succeeds with the law to open a new source of income for the media, journalists may have something new to say to their owners, that they have something they are bringing to the table for them to be allowed to determine the direction of their organizations as a news media and not as an affiliate of of a political party or any government.
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...
