media filters

The main study comes from a book by E. Herman and N. Chomsky. The proposals are mine.
###
A study of the evolution of the media in Great Britain shows that there was a lively working-class press that reached a national audience in the first half of the nineteenth century. It was perceived as a major threat by ruling elites, such that coercive efforts were undertaken to crush this, in the form of libel laws and prosecutions. In the end these methods were deemed ineffective, and were ultimately abandoned in favor of market means to undermine the reach of the popular press.

The rising cost of newspaper production sadly led to the demise of national-scope labour newspapers, and into the arena emerged national commercial newspapers.

Ownership of newspapers and other media increasingly became concentrated, occurring till today, with 'horizontal' and 'vertical' integrations taking place left and right. Moreover, keep in mind that the business of these media is to reap profits. The scale of concentration is so vast, that alternative voices would be hard put to compete in the market. This does not mean that organizations aiming for social change shouldn't set up their own publications and media units. On the contrary. The point is that ownership and its profit orientation is the first filter through which news of the world is sieved through.

When setting up a newspaper, one has to think about production costs. Those with advertising revenues can afford a copy price well below production costs; those depending on sales only would seriously be disadvantaged. With advertising, therefore, the so-called free market does not in the end lend to neutral buyers' choice. Advertisers' choices influence the survival and expansion of media companies.
Advertisers tend to buy space from media that synch-in with business outlook - generally conservative - again at the disadvantage of alternative voices. From time to time, advertisers pull out advertising if they perceive the media getting out of line. Thus, advertising as a source of revenue becomes a second filter.
But even if advertisers have their eye on who's got the money to buy their goods and services, media is still a mass media. Therefore, advertisers are affected by ratings or the number of newspaper subscribers. Advertisers generally avoid programs with serious complexities and disturbing controversies that affect the "buying mood" of consumers, thus educational programs and shows that explore the workings of businesses and governments are frowned upon in favour of light, escapist entertainment. Shows with the lowest common denominator would find sponsors anytime. Consumers of the media can affect network content by subscribing to programs that actually enlighten, tell us something of the workings of social institutions, until there is critical mass that even corporate sponsors would be forced to pay attention to.

Progressive groups may have to find sponsors either from other institutions -even the elite state - or organizations with similar principles such as theirs, with the clear understanding of content and managerial independence. The alternative press must moreover be not-for-profit if it is to continue its mission of wriggling truth from the world for justice and transformation.

Another filter is the media source. News organizations tend to go to steady news sources, mainly the government and corporate PR offices. Economic costs and the demands of news deadlines dictate that they focus their resources on where significant news often occur. There is also the "principle of bureaucratic affinity: only other bureaucracies can satisfy the input needs of a news bureaucracy." Thus don't be surprised that news sources come from official ones, and "experts" often are linked to similar power interests.

Progressive organizations thus have to step up their response times in the form of press conferences and other press events. The quick polishing of news releases in copyable format also becomes imperative. In this arena, I think progressive groups in the Philippines are in a relatively advanced stage of information dissemination -without overestimating - and aided by quite relevant issues they constantly raise. In my fieldwork in Batangas with a peasants' organization, I saw how Ka Orly would call the local radio station daily to issue their stand on relevant issues. I also got involved in the publishing of their paper.
Another means is to cultivate long-term relationships with media personalities and organizations, whatever their orientation. Conducting workshops for practitioners and budding journalists would also be of great aid.

Powerful forces also negatively respond to news content or opinion that could be seen to be against their interests. It could take different forms: letters to the editor (LTTE), phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches and bills before Congress, threats and other punitive actions. Sometimes the irony is that the military, for example, would claim that the media people are too biased against them, for left-wing causes. Which obviously overlooks the resources on their side and the quantity of reportage that do indeed show them in a flattering light.

Again, forces that may want to counteract this could also write more letters to the editor and point out relevant facts that media may deliberately be missing.

The dominant worldview is another filter. That is something that many progressive groups are more than armed to combat.

The minor proposals for progressive groups are of course not to be substituted to a thoroughgoing movement that involves a comprehensive program for societal transformation, only possible through the radical transformation of social relations. This is just one institution that has been analyzed - albeit inadequately - and is aimed only as as a contribution to the more general project.

To truth (the small and big one) and transformation.