State of the News Media and my blog

Big (HUGE) brands of news media

Last month’s release of the State of the News Media 2009 from the PEW Project for Excellence in Journalism made me realize that I have reached a landmark in my experiment in blogging on the transition taking place in the news world.

It has been more than a year since I first conjectured to “heat up the debate between old and new media”. I laugh looking back. I cringe at the thought of reading through posts from this period of naiveté! What a simplistic view of the growing pains being felt by an entire institution of society, the decline and fall of the great empires of the fourth estate, the inevitable loss of power as described by Ibn Khaldun.

During this year, the economy has collapsed, several newspapers have moved to online-only publications, legacy news organizations have threatened to close, and I wasn’t admitted into the Ph.D. program through which I wanted to study this crisis of journalism culture. If you think that’s hard not to take personally, just consider that the San Francisco Chronicle, where I did my internship, might shutter its doors after losing US$one million a week in 2008, and The San Diego Union-Tribune, where I had my first job, was sold to some private equity firm!?

But what has shocked me most is that the discourse on which direction news media should move does not seem to be based on any particular principles, forget a coherent conceptual framework for discussion and action! This is unacceptable for a social institution meant to mirror the processes of the advancement of civilization.

Speaking of action, in truth it is with deeds not words that industry leaders will be able to learn what economic model and structure of values will carry journalism into the future. Incessant and fruitless debate has done nothing for the fields of philosophy, governance and development, and it has paralyzed the news industry as well.

Perhaps we as news women and men are too afraid of making a mistake. That paranoia is so deeply ingrained into our being as reporters and editors–once you make an error, you can’t take it back; one small mistake can cost you your career–that it has crippled our ability to learn. How else can an industry in such dire need of change evolve and mature if a degree of mistakes are not tolerated? We need to challenge this fundamental assumption in our professional ideology.

This blog is about rooting out and examining this and other assumptions. A year into recording my thoughts on the future of journalism, I feel I finally have something to offer to this discourse. I hope there will be readers and feedback.

Knowledge: mere opinion, fixed or subject to change?

Weighing that which is generally regarded as knowledge against the scales of opinion and knowledge that is either immutable or subject to correction in the future was helpful for me because these classifications directly affect how journalists portray such claims to knowledge.

It is exactly the confusion about this matter that has led to misinformation in the news media. Meanwhile, individuals have intuitively perceived that truth is not comprised of either-or absolutes and have rebelled against this dichotomous thinking by pushing a creed of relativism.

The press has an important responsibility of filtering out the zero-sum game between these two camps in its presentation of the knowledge it is meant to help generate and apply, and to assist readers in acquiring.

For example, in the presentation of scientific theories and religious convictions in the news media, it is crucial to properly convey the category of knowledge into which they fall because—as studies in almost every field have shown—these are the two systems of knowledge that have been the real progenitors of civilization. So nothing short of civilization is at stake.

To automatically present all scientific theories as immutable, incorrigible knowledge would not adequately represent the reality of the evolutionary path that science has followed, with the exception of perhaps pure mathematics. Especially in the unfolding period of transition, in which the scientific fundamentals rooted in the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview are being constantly challenged, the oversimplified science journalism seems naïve, out-of-touch, irrelevant and unreliable.

Similarly, when the majority of the world professes belief in a spiritual dimension of existence, the press—following suit with the current dominant consumerist-materialist culture—comes across as belligerent and having hidden motives in its refusal to present religious conviction as anything else than mere opinions. Meanwhile, believers consider Immutable to be one of the Names of God.

This last point is not to be argued, as debate and contention must be recognized for their worth: nothing (centuries of philosophical disputes have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt). Instead, the point must be demonstrated in action and, with time, the proof will be irrefutable.

For those who find that hard to believe need only look to the process required for theories of racial superiority to travel the spectrum from widely accepted “incorrigible knowledge” to merely harmful opinion. We as humans have learned nothing if we have not learned that we are never done learning.

(Mortimer Adler’s Ten Philosophical Mistakes sparked this reflection.)

Human Rights: moral authority or relativity?

The objections to the present tone of the discourse of human rights seem to be framed around the suspicion that Western civilization is seeking to assert itself as the moral authority and beneficiary, as well as the aversion to the idea that such categorical righteousness exists. By extension, I believe the thinking of those who are bothered by this exchange of ideas–that categories originating in so-called developed countries would be favourably presented to so-called developing countries–is heavily influenced by a brand of moral relativism.

Religious groups and non-governmental organizations from the West may be at the centre of the debate over the universal morality of human rights, with the moral thinkers on the periphery offering criticisms but not solutions. However, this dispute also often involves governments pitted against each other and against multi-national coalitions. A recent situation that comes to mind first is the deadlocked presidential election in Zimbabwe. At the first suggestion that the U.S. or the United Nations might intervene, influential individuals and nations in the African continent warned that the power struggle was an African problem and needed an African solution. True leadership would entail declaring unity to be the central aim and interest of the region, and welcoming all who wish to consult and act on the means to achieve that end.

First, we must overcome our aversions to and suspicions of every promotion of human rights issues; that all is hopelessly tainted by both the ideology of individualism and ulterior motives of the proponents of Western policies. Such mainstream criticisms about the moral failures of globalization–of course, there is more truth to some than others-have not yet, on the most part, offered a viable solution to the problem. By only contributing destructive criticism, these “moral thinkers” are in fact preventing any learning or progress, however imperfect it may be.

Before anyone despairs that we’ve reached checkmate, there is one solution that hasn’t been tested, and that is to infuse the human rights discourse with the requisite spiritual component and the realization of the harmony between science and religion. More on that to come.

Goal No. 1 of the Millenium Development Goals

Goal number one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. That reducing extreme wealth is left out of this aim, set for the year 2015, makes me wonder whether it was omitted because the officials understand that closing the gaping disparity between rich and poor must curb the extremities from both sides, or rather because they haven’t yet arrived at this understanding.

One thing that the current global economic crisis has led me to suspect is that Western capitalistic philosophy believes wealth doesn’t have to taken from some to be distributed, as it can simply be created. However, as the bottom drops from beneath the trillions of dollars of virtual money that was generated by the grown-up equivalent of “let’s pretend” called a “bubble”, many would probably question this belief, if only they could understand how such a complex system of gambling based on mathematical equations actually worked and how it was allowed to wreak such havoc on the entire world. A very limited number of experts can actually understand and perform these equations, and only the elite have access to these experts. This is a glaring example of institutionalized inequality.

Decision-making behind the veil of ignorance

What does the veil of ignorance fail to cover up?

“At the group level, a concern for justice is the indispensable compass in collective decision making, because it is the only means by which unity of thought and action can be achieved. Far from encouraging the punitive spirit that has often masqueraded under its name in past ages, justice is the practical expression of awareness that, in the achievement of human progress, the interests of the individual and those of society are inextricably linked. To the extent that justice becomes a guiding concern of human interaction, a consultative climate is encouraged that permits options to be examined dispassionately and appropriate courses of action selected. In such a climate the perennial tendencies toward manipulation and partisanship are far less likely to deflect the decision-making process.” Passage from The Prosperity of Humankind.

My observations of the essentiality of justice in decision-making processes have been gathered through experiences with both mutualistic relationships that seek to build unity and adversarial relationships that seek to impose a set of ideas by one group on others through contentious negotiation. Interestingly, however, both processes exist in an interconnected world.

Justification for Human Rights

Most of us seem to agree that equality (metaphysical) and equity (material) are dependent on a sense of justice, and that this sense is a faculty of the human soul. Negar raised a good question in her response regarding whether this faculty requires education, the same as, say, reason does. In trying to formulate an answer, I realized something that worries me: currently the world does not share the sense of justice that we have all been describing, the implications of which can be seen in the suffering of the human race.

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

This, I believe, is why Baha’u'llah wrote, “Justice is, in this day, bewailing its plight, and Equity groaneth beneath the yoke of oppression.”1 However, He also offered the road map to comforting these twin Guardians of men: “It is incumbent upon every man, in this Day, to hold fast unto whatsoever will promote the interests, and exalt the station, of all nations and just governments.”2 Upon reading these words I could feel how tenuous the notion of human rights is in the world, even in those countries that are party to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights!?

Let me see if I can make my thoughts clear. As Baha’is, the reason for our belief in and upholding of human rights is our knowledge that we were created from the same dust and that none of us should exalt ourselves over another. With the understanding in our hearts that we are created from the same substance, then we have no choice but to accept to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land. From our inmost being, by our deeds and actions, oneness and detachment are made manifest through our sense of justice.3 In the rest of the world, however,

Justice

“…By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. …”

Justice and thinking independently

Reading the well-known quote from Baha’u’llah regarding Justice while reflecting on this subject focused my thoughts on the phenomenon of “thinking for oneself” and what it means to be an “independent thinker”.

Set it then before thine eyes.

I remember when I was young thinking that this Hidden Word was about not cheating. Like, “keep your eyes on your own paper”! What fresh meaning I derived from these words when I began to understand Baha’u’llah’s imagery of a person who has formed her opinions by herself. I wonder whether this illustrates a cause-and-effect relationship between independent thinkers and a just society. Implicit in this independence is the imperative to investigate reality and the inability to blindly imitate others. Imagine if there were no cultural hegemony, no media campaigns and no weekly sermons to shape the way someone sees and knows…

Reflections on unity, peace and the news

As I explained before, some of the content of my posts will feature assignments that I write for the FUNDAEC course on Constructing a Conceptual Framework for Social Action, which I am taking by distance learning. Below are a few paragraphs that I wrote based on a reflection exercise on the assertion that a lasting peace will not be attained unless and until the unity of humankind is firmly established; why is this so and in what way is unity the prerequisite of peace?

The text that precedes this reflection question quotes from the portion of The Promise of World Peace that lists the issues that are immediately relevant to the establishment of world peace. This reading led me to reflect on the role of the press in this process, whether its maturation would be reached upon the attainment of a lasting peace or as one of the steps towards bringing about the necessary unity for peace.

Bahá’u’lláh made reference to newspapers in several Tablets, calling them mirrors that reflect the deeds and pursuits of mankind and an amazing and potent phenomenon; even commanding journalists to approach their work with justice and equity, gathering all of the facts and setting them down¹. (As an aside, it interests me to note that there is no mention of “objectivity”.)

‘Abdu’l-Bahá elaborated on the how the press will operate in/towards a world of peace: “A newspaper must in the first instance be the means of harmony between the people. This is the prime duty of the proprietors of newspapers to obliterate misunderstandings betwixt religions and races and nativities, and promote the oneness of mankind”². For an industry that trades in adversarialism and prides itself in such idols as objectivity, “checks and balances” and freedom of excessive speech, it is clear that a complete reordering of the core values of this institution, so essential for governance, is needed. In case it wasn’t clear the first time, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá reiterated to the newspaper proprietor in Minneapolis with whom he spoke during his visit to America, “Newspapers must be the first means of amity and understanding amongst men. Newspapers must be the heralds of the oneness of humanity”³. Every journalist will find this statement to be a challenge to the fundamental belief of Western democracy that a reporter’s job is not to have an agenda or opinion, but simply to be an observer of events and to make sure that every “side” of the story is told.

I’m sharing these thoughts in answer to the question of why and how unity is a prerequisite to peace in case you might also see in this exercise an illustration of the need for unity in achieving peace: Reflect on the quotations above and then imagine how such a press will operate and how this transformation—from the “watchdog” of the ruling class to publications “of high thoughts” that are “the dynamic power in the arteries of life” and “the very soul of the world”⁴—will influence its readers. You can see that without unity (especially the shedding of corruption and oppression in the governments) this peaceful picture of the press cannot exist. Without leaders who are committed to the welfare of all the peoples of the world, without just economic and legal systems, without recognition of the oneness of God, religion and man, the fourth estate cannot, or at least will not agree to, do its job in a way that advocates amity and understanding, harmony and oneness.

The history of news reporting, however, is rife with tales of courage in the face of great challenges and opposition. Perhaps the proprietors of the news media will, indeed, have the foresight and maturity to be trailblazers to peace, taking an active role in attaining their destiny that Shoghi Effendi depicted in his letter The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, “The press will, under such a system [a world commonwealth], while giving full scope to the expression of the diversified views and convictions of mankind, cease to be mischievously manipulated by vested interests, whether private or public, and will be liberated from the influence of contending governments and peoples.”⁵

---

_{¹ Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-‘Aqdas, p. 39
² ‘Abdu’l-Bahá: the Centre of the Covenant, HM Balyuzi, p.273
³ ibid. p.275
⁴ “The Secret of Divine Civilization”, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 109
⁵ The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, Shoghi Effendi, p. 204}

Get out of journalism school

I wish I had finished this post draft, although I understand why I didn’t as I was busy the entire fall “semester” last year with applications to…that’s right! J-schools!

That is, what should students get out of journalism school?

The plight of J-schools to be relevant, let alone useful, in the shifting industry has been the topic of recent polling, musing and, of course, blogging.

To take a serious crack at this discussion, the first step is to throw out the idea of the journalism degree and to replace it with the notion of a multi-disciplinary discourse on the myriad aspects of the theory and application of the profession, institution and public service that is journalism.

20% profit margin is enormous…and won’t last much longer

Another draft I never finished, or even developed past note form.

Basically I recall being angry with some news industry story that conveyed the same gist as this piece (although it was likely more recent). This one begins as follows:

“Contrary to popular belief, newspapers aren’t dying. Newspapers are making tons of money.”

– MARK CUBAN

The Tycoons Are Rushing to Make a Deal

When the Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, went on the block, it was another response to stockholders’ insatiable demand for rising returns, even for papers with loyal readership and steady ad support. But now that a bevy of bigwig buyers are itching to own prestigious dailies, newspapers in key markets may benefit from a return to private ownership..

These were my thoughts basically in bullet-points. Note the last one. Still makes my blood boil to think that’s why many of my friends have been losing their jobs.

• Newspapers dug their own graves and now they are being buried by the outcomes of greed. Rebellion against the notion of the “gate-keepers” of news has, well, opened the flood gates. What’s been unleashed are essentially the many expressions of defiance for everything that represents traditional media… even for those principles which worked.
• Because of this, even professional media Web sites are taking their cues from participatory, grassroots media, abandoning the journalistic values which transcend the medium.
• *Idea that shareholders are taking advantage of the option to cut overhead (journalists on payroll) rather than dip below the monstrous 20% profit margin