Search the Products Store
Search the Book Store
clog dancing Book Store Index
Privacy Policy
Copyright Notice
Home
|
|
The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century |
Author: Robert McChesney
Published: 2004-03-01 |
List price: $16.95
Our price: $11.53
|
Usually ships in 24 hours
As of: December 04th, 2008 02:31:20 PM
|
|
|
Customer comments on this selection.
 Everyone should read this
This book takes some very complicated issues and makes them easy to understand. The arguments are persuasive and well researched. I found myself getting angry at what is happening to our country and this book explains much of it. This is an interesting perspective and I hope it will start a new debate about the value of public media and spectrum as a public resource.
 a Marxist view
It's always interesting to read a Marxist view of anything to get a vastly different perspective from the usual liberal and conservative views (and the few moderate views that manage to find their way into print).
At bottom, the problem with the news media, according to McChesney, is that it's not far enough to the Left! He rejects the criticism of the media's liberal bias. This rejection is based on an eccentric use of the term "liberal". For instance, Bill Clinton and Al Gore are "moderate to conservative Democrats" (p. 102). "The Left" consists of radicals and "social democrats". (p. 103) He sees both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as "neoliberals": "with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal moment had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman." (p. 49)
McChesney opposes professionalism in journalism, because professionalism "is a journalism of fact without regard to" a political ideology. (p. 67). "The claim that it is possible to provide neutral and objective news" is suspect. (p. 68) Professionalism refuses "to place every important issue in a larger political ideology." (p. 71)
He deplores the influence of corporations on news broadcasting (Don't we all?), but he also deplores NPR and PBS: "NPR and PBS at a national level tend to provide a bland variant of mainstream and conventional journalism" (p. 245). So, the root problem is that even NPR and PBS are not far enough to the Left!
He wants unlimited funding of these public media without any overseeing or accountability. (Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment--although he doesn't actually propose such a thing or say how this would otherwise be achievable.) One wonders why he is so sanguine that he would be happy with a public news broadcasting source that was not answerable to anybody. Is it because he assumes that it would be run by insiders who share his Marxist views? He would certainly not be happy with it otherwise. (See, in this connection, the film "Shattered Glass".)
Bottom line: Skip this book and buy Don't Blame the People or Freedom of the Press--for Whom?
Media? Propaganda Machine.
Robert W. McChesney's exploration into the historical underpinnings and contemporary realities facing the United States media system has proven to be an extremely well-researched discussion. The Problem of the Media covers the evolution of American systems of journalism and entertainment media while exploring the problems of this evolution in their current manifestations. McChesney has produced an almost unerring synopsis of current problems facing the media, and, unlike most of his colleagues, offers real optimism and motions for future change.
I was extremely pleased with the way McChesney illuminates the historical nature of the media in the United States. He does a phenomenal job at coupling past incarnations of American media structures in their inherently partisan and biased formulations with today's antiseptic and sterile "professional" variety. The Problem of the Media is exceptional in this historical analysis as it does a logical and rational job of dropping left hook after right cross to the philosophical and practical foundations of the professional journalistic structures. It was as if someone has finally shown me real foundations, actual alternatives, and structures for change, but the beautiful part of all of this was that they had actually already existed (and in this country to boot).
McChesney's arguments are absolutely extraordinary as he goes toe to toe with the right wing noise machine's accusations of the liberal bias that exists within the mainstream newsroom. Drawing upon cogent arguments backed up with innumerable sources, McChesney goes on to systematically deconstruct the false arguments that are time and again posed by the conservative sophists that dominate the entirety of American information mediums. I have read several texts arguing against the so-called "liberal media," but none were as persuasive and apt as McChesney's proved to be. In addition to this, I thought that The Problem of the Media also did a very astute job of explaining to the reader all of the news that has not been covered in mainstream press, while foolish and arguably unimportant issues take to the forefront of coverage. Examples of this reality include the extremely lackluster and ill-timed coverage of the 2000 American Presidential elections as well as the seemingly censor-ridden coverage of the current war (if it can even be called that) in Iraq.
McChesney does not stop at the line of criticizing the current journalistic regime and its anti-democratic systems of "professionalism" and obtuse neutrality, but instead goes on to make vital connections between a capitalism gone crazy (hyper-capitalism) and the entertainment industry. I think if any regular American took the time to sit down and ready chapter four of The Problem of the Media s/he would find that s/he intuitively knew about the detrimental affects of massive media conglomerates, oligopolistic market controls, and the current manifestation of an increasingly intrusive and overbearing advertising/public relations sector. McChesney does a fine job at providing the reader with real examples of televisions shows (i.e. Monster Garage, Trading Spaces) that use this disgusting development in embedded advertising strategies and exposes the companies that support this process for what they are.
Fortunately, McChesney closes The Problem of the Media with words of encouragement and optimism. The discussion abounds with the realization that in order for there to be the massive change for a new positive media evolution their must be widespread education on the topic. This book is a fantastic step in furthering that agenda, however I am somewhat skeptical as I believe the media system is simply a tool of the neoliberal policy agenda, and as I understand it unless the greater economic beast is laid to rest, its pups will continue to thrive.
 Great book, but some confusing philosophical notions
I should begin by saying that I like McChesney, and I admire and respect him as the leading authority in this area. I went into reading the book as if it were a magnum opus. The book started weak and ended strong.
Most of what you'll read here is common sense to anyone on the left who has paid attention to what has happened to the media in the past 30 years. However, McChesney does an excellent job at arguing against the common assumptions about the media. This is an excellent polemical resource for media activists for that reason, but do not turn to it for realistic policy prescriptions or philosophical soundness.
Yeah, democracy depends on a free press. But does a free press depend on democracy? I doubt that it does. A free press relies on freedom, obviously. The problem is that corporate owners manage the press, censor journalists, and set the agenda for the media. If journalists had more autonomy, you would bet that we would have a better press... but grassroots participation? The last thing we need is a press run by different interest groups that slant content towards a certain direction. Democracy is good for some things, but not for perveying truth. The press should be protected from public meddling the same way it should from private meddling. I'm fine with the public influencing media policy, but not journalism itself.
The second problem with this book is that it attributes the lack of political participation to the free press. If anything, the education system has more of an impact on public participation than the mass media. Yes, I think the media does a bad job at purveying important stories that could rouse political participation. What about people who aren't interested in current events? What about those who don't read the news? You cannot attribute a lack of participation to mass journalism when people don't read or watch the news. I know people who get most of their news entirely from mainstream television who are very into politics. They hold inaccurate ideas, but I wouldn't call them apathetic. Most of the people I know who are apathetic don't watch or read the news. Most of the people I know who are politically active have parents who were also interested in politics and had teachers who inspired them to be politically active.
Overall, this is a great book. McChesney has some great ideas about how the media needs to be nonprofit and how commercialism threatens journalism.
Another enlightening book with a more historical perspective would be Newton Minow's "Abandoned in the Wasteland", which is more focused on children, but provides an excellent history of the mass media.
Extraordinary
Extremely well researched. McChesney has been a key figure in the "media debate" and he approaches the subject with knowledge and objectivity. His disciplined, almost scientific investigation is an example of non-partisan coverage of a crucial issue. If only a few politicians were as concerned with the public interest as McChesney, we would be in a better world. I am a Mexican citizen so I couldn't care less about U.S. partisan politics, and if you care about the fate of public communications, you shouldn't either. This is a problem that affects every country, not just the U.S.A., since the big telecommunication companies are broadcasting all over the World. The interest of big advertisers is being protected by U.S. policy and their marketing messages are then blasted everywhere. Even the smallest community in the South-Mexican jungles knows Ronald McDonald. CNN has Latin editions of their biased news transmitted to most Latin countries. As an outsider, I hope the U.S. citizenry will realize that this is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans but a World-wide issue of the individual vs. the big corporations. In reality they don't care about your political affiliations, as long as you saturate your credit cards to buy their heavily advertised products, you can debate each other to death.
|
|
Our clog dancing book picks:
|
|
Search the clog dancing Products Store
LCS Amazon Store 2.5 © 2008
|