Customer Reviews

The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Expect this book to get a wave of one-star liberal-bashing reactionary reviews once the neoconservatives learn that it exists. That's because their entire philosophy, especially concerning the media, is decisively shot down in this powerful manifesto. McChesney's specialty is media ownership patterns and their effects on popular democracy. Here we find that the modern push for deregulation in media industries is leading to a real crisis for democracy in America - in effect there really is a "problem of the media." While megacorporations wrap their campaign for unlimited profits in rhetoric about free speech, the First Amendment, and giving the people what they want, McChesney finds that all of these claims are false and usually downright dishonest.

The current wave of media deregulation has been greased by big media money in the halls of power, and influence peddling among a few power players (including FCC chairman Michael Powell, whom McChesney unapologetically cuts down to size). The common people are left out of the loop, with a loss of media coverage toward local and dissenting viewpoints, and more and more lowest-common denominator media content. Despite the rhetoric about free trade and capitalism, today's media is far from competitive and equitable. Instead it's a hyper-commercial oligarchy of power consolidation and political power grabbing, and McChesney provides plenty of evidence and eloquent arguments about these trends and the damage they are doing to popular democracy.

Certain parts of this book also serve as a monumentally informative primer on modern neoconservative politics, with that movement's almost total contempt for the public interest and slavish kowtowing to corporate bigwigs. That makes this book essential for media watchdogs, plus more general political observers who can then learn more about media trends as a specific issue. A bonus is Chapter 3 in which McChesney brutally deconstructs the standard right-wing claims of "liberal bias" in the media, finding that this is merely an attempt by conservatives to monopolize social thought, in addition to income and political power. This book's final chapter presents a partial happy ending in documenting the vast popular uprising that is now confronting the media giants and their pocketed politicians. The people are up for a long fight against media money and power, but all those who read this outstanding treatise from McChesney will certainly have the knowledge necessary for true democratic progress. [~doomsdayer520~]

The corporate owners of the media, their executives and their business partners (commercial and political advertisers) are in collusion to make sure that the deck is stacked against regular citizens who are raised to believe in fairness and in favor of those in collusion. Their tools include the Federal Communications Commission and their agenda is the perpetuation of commerce, not an informed citizenry.

This book explains the early traditions of American media, how the media has been coopted and corrupted by the Right and by powerful commercial interests, and how this situation has become self-perpetuating and institutionalized by the FCC.

Don't be persuaded that this book is a left wing screed. Although this issue is a major reason why we have a Bush administration, it is not a personal indictment. Rather, it is an indictment of the system that is, and a case for why it should be (and once was) very different.

Robert McChesney tries hard to be an honest broker of information about the Media and he largely succeeds. In the lengthy (chapter-length) appendix, he is meticulous with his sources and invites further reading on all sides of the issue. While you're reading McChesney, read John Nichols (and particularly the book they wrote together, called "Our Media, Not Theirs").

The next time you hear people ranting about the liberal media, ask them to question who influenced them to think that way and point them to this book. Consider: why is it that the more citizens question the consolidation and bias of the media, the more the issue is fogged up by figures in the media? The answers are simple; McChesney helps the reader understand.

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.

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.

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.

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.

After reading this book, I find it humorous that some reviewers felt that the book was was too "opinionated." I suppose that McChesney is opinionated in the same way as scientists who evaluate evidence and then warn of global warming. That is, McChesney is opinionated in the same way as any individual who uses their critical thinking faculties to analyze facts and subsequent consequences to generate theories.

McChesney's basic premise is that a robust media is required to help create an informed, democratic citizenry. By robust, he means diverse, national, local, multi-class, and multi-cultural. So if you are saying that he's opinionated because you do not agree with his assertion that media concentration, in which a few large corporations own most of the media and therefore, control the local and national debate, is anti-democratic, then of course, he is opinionated. But it's difficult to argue with his facts and assertions.

The book is extremely well researched--to the point of distraction at times. Lest you think McChesney is on some unfounded tirade, let me assure you that everything is footnoted and that there is no vitriol. McChesney provides a brief but comprehensive history of media in America and then discusses where he thinks things went wrong.

Another interesting point is that the book is non-partisan. Conservatives who want to paint this book as another liberal media diatribe are way off the mark. McChesney says that the American political system has failed us with regard to media policy. That is, both Right and Left have been all too willing to do the bidding of Corporate America, without regard to the consequences on the American people. By the way, "Neoliberal" is the view that a free, dergulated market is best and has nothing to do with "Liberals."

This is an important book and I hope more people read it. At times, it can be a laborious read but is well worth your time and effort.

Mostly a very dry read, but what I could distill from this very VERY thorough examination of media issues - focusing on 1996 to 2004 (when it was published) - the Bush Administration was in cohoots with the FCC to allow big corporations to own up to 50% of all media outlets (radio, newspaper, and TV) in any given city or region. That would mean HALF of everything people were exposed to would be swayed to whatever political views that big corporation had.

Where this book left off, what had historically been a bunch of back room decision-making, with no public opinions available to sway votes in either direction, a populist movement arose (ironically, John McCain used to be a good guy on this issue and voted against allowing these near-monopolies) that forced the Senate's votes to cut down the percentage of corporate ownership to 39%. That's still wacky huge and scary, but not as bad as it could have been.

Sadly, this book that I bought used had been a library book, and NOBODY had ever checked it out. Kind of eerie the way things are going. I read this book to give me some insight for a dystopian sci-fi novel that I am writing, this book already reads like an Orwellian nightmare... a very bookish one.

It's a slippery slope. This book documents one foothold in the slow decline of journalistic freedoms.

As a pioneer in his field, McChesney provided a wealth of information within this text. Recommended for students and professionals alike, this book is informative and a great reference for study. Also see the author live in the documentary, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism - Fox Attacks Special Edition.

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?