In a decade in which media consumers are keen to eulogize American journalism, many have struggled with the tragedy. America has taken comfort—as the grief-stricken so often do—with self-reassuring platitudes. It happened so suddenly. It was out of our hands. It was inevitable. All things must pass.
The American democracy, which once lived on hard news, investigative journalism and contentious debate, now subsists on a steady diet of opinion and entertainment. Political coverage has become electioneering and investigative reports have become advertisement. American newspapers have ceased being, as H.L. Mencken once said, “…ceaselessly querulous and bellicose.” That great tradition of American journalism is dead, and on that matter there is little dispute.
Media critic Robert W. McChesney and journalist John Nichols remind us, in their new book “The Death and Life of American Journalism,” to look to where we tripped, not where we fell. McChesney is a professor of communications whom Noam Chomsky has called “the most important media critic of our time.” John Nichols is the Washington correspondent for “The Nation,” has covered seven presidential elections and has been an important critical voice in political reporting over the years. “The Death and Life of American Journalism” is not the first collaboration of these two great media minds; however, it does stand out from their other books in one notable respect: While both men frequently explore the problems of modern media, this book goes one step further, offering cogent and pragmatic solutions as well.
The authors expertly abjure many popular assumptions about the state of modern journalism, including how it came into its present state. While it has been assumed by many that the Internet is to blame for the woes that have befallen newspapers in America, McChesney and Nichols offer evidence that this is not the case. The authors point to the massive conglomeration of media enterprises over the past two decades as the primary cause. This trend, which began prior to the advent of the Internet, has led to a corporate ownership of newspapers which is at the mercy of market forces, and unwilling to accept the traditional margins associated with the news business. The voice of American journalism was not co-opted by bloggers; rather, it was downsized by corporate CEOs who believed that newspapers could be run like any other business.
Of course, the news is not just any other business. “The Death and Life of American Journalism” hastens to remind readers that the commercialization of the institution did not occur for nearly 100 years after the founding of the United States. There is a wealth of rich history that chronicles newspaper’s transformation from a government-funded and purposefully contentious form of public censure to a profitable business model in the advertising age. In examining this history, the authors offer some surprising insights with which to view our current media situation—namely, that our age has witnessed the total breakdown of the advertising supported newspaper model, and that it may be old conventions, rather than innovations, which may save journalism as an institution. With advertisers having fled to other forms of media platforms in droves, American newspapers find themselves in a position that they haven’t experienced since the American Civil War. Advertisers no longer depend on them, and they can no longer depend on advertisers.
In an interview with Paul Jay earlier this year, McChesney discussed some of the book’s proposed solutions, based on the historical model of American journalism prior to the maturing of the print advertising industry.
“Everyone knows that the government shouldn’t censor the press, but there is another aspect to the idea of a free press in America,” McChesney said. “That is that it’s the duty of the government to ensure that an independent fourth estate actually exists.”
“If you don’t have a free press, it’s a hollow right to say it won’t be censored. Our founding fathers took that for granted, they held those two beliefs simultaneously as being complimentary to one another, not contradictory,” he said.
While many would perhaps view government-subsidized journalism as a controversial solution, there is historical precedent, if we go back to a time when newspapers were seen a necessity, and a right of all people in a democratic society rather than a growth industry. The idea is perhaps less controversial if we consider that a transparently government-subsidized news media is vastly more trustworthy than one with a hidden corporate agenda and zero transparency.
In remembering how journalism once lived in America, we might yet find a way to ensure that it lives on. With ideas as fresh and bold as those of the founding fathers, Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols offer good reason to resist burying this great institution.
Oscar Wilde once wrote, “But what is the difference between journalism and literature? Journalism is unreadable and literature is not read. That is all.” ?