Bill Moyers Journal: News Polarization & Ethnic Media

In this week’s JOURNAL, WVON Chicago radio program director Coz Carson says:

“There’s a great deal of mistrust for mainstream media when it comes to African-American issues. So when we approach people, when we ask them to speak to us, they feel like they’re speaking with family, they’re speaking with people who understand their plight.”

A paper from Stanford University's Political Communications Lab about political preferences and news polarization argues that since “people prefer to encounter information that they find supportive or consistent with their existing beliefs” there is a “real possibility that news will no longer serve as the ‘social glue’ that connects all Americans… [as they turn] to biased but favored providers.”

What do you think?

Can this conclusion be applied to ethnic media as well?

Does news coverage from specific ethnic media outlets for specific ethnic groups contribute to the polarization of the news?

Do ethnic media serve their communities in ways the mainstream media can’t? If so, how?

Comments

I would like to thank Bill Moyers and the Journal for quality journalism once again. It scares me that this type of journalism is so rarely seen in the media today. One of the lessons of 911 is that for me to be the best citizen, I need better information. If I am spoon fed what the administration wants me to hear, I will not have the information I need to voice a helpful opinion. I think the FCC behavior is crimminal. -Deb Shechter

Posted by: Deb Shechter | November 19, 2007 6:56 AM

I would like to thank Bill Moyers and the Journal for continually letting us know what the mainstream media will not. My views on the subject of the FCC commission pushing for media consolidation are best represented by the letter I sent each of the five FCC commission members, my Senators, Representative, and the President: To the FCC Commission: I am writing to you today to ask that you vote no to further media consolidation. It is vital to the American public that the American people have access to an array of varied and balanced media sources that reflect the communities and nation we live in. In an age where a small group of powerful large corporations own most of the media sources in the nation, outlets such as local community radio, NPR, and PBS are increasingly threatened and increasingly important. Media should be about the wealth of information offered to the American public, not the wealth being funneled into shareholders pockets. As a successful, college educated woman I am opposed to having the information I see on the nightly news, read in magazines, listen to on the radio, and search for on the web be filtered through an increasingly...

Posted by: Erika Savoy | November 11, 2007 3:21 PM

I thought that the FCC was a body that takes its constitutional authority from Congress. Las t I looked the Democrats were the majority. Why is the FCC majority still 3 republicans and 2 democrats? This seems to be another issue the democrats are letting down the American people, again and again.........

Posted by: Torey Culbertson | November 5, 2007 9:53 PM

I am so relieved to have Bill Moyers back on BPS. You cover the issues that are so important while the conglomerates cover these issues with the fog of shows such as Nancy Grace. Never have I been so distraught about the US and its future. The executive branch has turned into a monarchy bouyed up by its own appointees in positions of power.

Posted by: Florence LaPolt-Goldfarb | November 4, 2007 4:32 PM

I was one of the first female radio announcers on the air in Milwaukie WI starting in 1970. I worked for a small "progressive" station that actively protested the war in Viet Nam, we pulled and read our own choices of news stories from UPI and AP teletype machines...and we played the anthems of the times. It didn't take long for the station to be one of the highest rated in the region. At one point we received a bomb threat...and the FBI came in to crawl around under the studio equipment, seeking explosives, while I carried on with reading the news, and playing rock & roll. There was no bomb. There came a point in reporting the war news that the policy was simply to say "And the war in Viet Nam continues" at the end of every newcast. It is such a disturbing disappointment these days to spin the dial and find no variety or real personalities on the air. I'd be willing to bet there are virtually no stations in the country who take a stand on any national issues....save the rabid force-fed sindicated talk shows, most of which are entirely right wing serving. These new FCC...

Posted by: ERose | November 3, 2007 1:16 PM

Thanks, Bill Moyers. You are my hero. I am white and feel I don't get news and items like the peace march just are not reported. I give you credit for what you say but how to get the public involved? The press is not doing it's job since it's 6 companies which plan to own even more media. I feel like I'm living in Soviet Russia.

Posted by: CKinLA | November 3, 2007 12:28 PM

The media consolidation segment this week reminded me of the kinds of dangers predicted by Madison in Federalist Paper #51. Although he addresses civil and religious rights threatened by “the tyranny of the majority”, his concerns pertain as well to threats to freedom of information attendant to the consolidation of power by a few media conglomerates. Madison writes: "The second method will be exemplified in the Federal Republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the...

Posted by: M. Douglas Ris | November 3, 2007 10:27 AM

Thank you for the "Journal". I believe that you are presenting information that is vital to the survival of our democracy. Unfortunately, there are not enough of us listening. How can we prevent the FCC from allowing this proposed consolidation of the media? We are already living in a country where the "news" is so biased and controlled that it takes a lot of work to find out what is really happening in the world. Please keep up the good work.

Posted by: Lynnda Jordan | November 3, 2007 2:54 AM

It saddens me to see that Amy Goodman & Juan Gonzales - Democracy Now, don't receive any credit for their outstanding, unbiased reporting of news stories.They were months ahead of everyone reporting about the Jeena 6; Mykal Bell's incarceration & the circumstances leading up to the convictions. They showed how the white kid pulled a gun on the black kids at a Quick Shop & yet not a thing was ever brought up about this criminal behavior by the main stream media! So I'm sorry but the news does get out there on progressive programs. Where's the outrage that "Air America" is the only left wing, liberal, progressive staion out there! At least there's more than one Hispanic, Black, Christian, Right Wing,etc. channel out there! Granted, where are the rich Progressives to help initiate or back progressive stations? I know that I pay my monthly fee to sattelite to get progressive radio & will GLADLY continue too so I can hear an opinion not sculpted by the corporate media, otherwise there's only the internet, Democacy Now & Link T.V. I'd suffer otherwise! By the way, Rev. Jackson had his own show on Air America along w/ other black hosts.I realize...

Posted by: Pier Cohen | November 3, 2007 2:43 AM

Hello, When you did your story about WVON and the FCC, you just repeated some of the myths about the Jena 6. Craig Franklin listed twelve of the myths that the mainstream media thought to juicy to fact-check. Here they are. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html Media myths about the Jena 6 A local journalist tells the story you haven't heard. By Craig Franklin Jena, La. By now, almost everyone in America has heard of Jena, La., because they've all heard the story of the "Jena 6." White students hanging nooses barely punished, a schoolyard fight, excessive punishment for the six black attackers, racist local officials, public outrage and protests – the outside media made sure everyone knew the basics. There's just one problem: The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice. I should know. I live in Jena. My wife has taught at Jena High School for many years. And most important, I am probably the only reporter who has covered these events...

Posted by: Gregory R. Williams | November 3, 2007 2:36 AM

Regarding to the absence of programs who expose the current "war' ..... is true that they almost non exist... neither in the mainstream media or in the hispanics or 'minorities' networks .... I didnt see any program on the new veterans of war,talking about the horrors...when all the television around the world is exposing it,as every day ,internationally speaking,the american image is really "going down the tubes".... Also the name documentary channels seems are part of the conglomerate and also in its historic perspectives defend this empire,and the "former" empire,as most of the providers of reality and non fiction are british companies.... The only two heroic programs who are scaping from the selled out and prostituted media is Frontile ,Now,and Bill Moyers.... Let's pray for its continuation...

Posted by: Alex Chionetti | November 3, 2007 2:07 AM

Where are the contact addresses for the FCC Chairman and his cohort? I certainly am against the further consolidation, and am anxious to add my name to the list of persons opposing these new rules. Nevertheless, i am not certain the address i might select to send my objection to, would be the most effective. Your assistance is most appreciated. Thank you for your prompt response Yours, Gary Mason

Posted by: Gary Mason | November 3, 2007 1:23 AM

Thank you, Bill Moyers, for being the outstanding journalist that you are. This story caused me to recall a related story on the privatization of the Postal Service recently aired on NPR's "Justice Talking." I never realized the postal monopoly on first class mail was largely credited for the comparatively high literacy rate in the United States by promoting the relatively inexpensive movement of information through periodicals and newspapers within the country. The changes being proposed in the postal rate structure threaten this information movement for small publishers. Such small publishers might be compared with small locally owned radio or television stations. In a similar manner, the consolidation of media under a few very large companies bodes for less local coverage and will likely foster intellectual improverishment.

Posted by: Stephen Patton | November 3, 2007 1:16 AM

Congratulations on another timely program on media consolidation. I promptly sent a message to the chairpersons of the FCC objecting to the lack of public notification for the Nov.9th hearing.

Posted by: Doreen Swartz | November 3, 2007 12:42 AM

Media consolidation does not necessarily lead to exclusion of minority voices. On the contrary, corporate monopolists find it to their advantage to over-represent minorities of every stripe, to emphasize group grievances and generally to Balkanize the American media markets. Nothing would pose a more potent threat to corporate media monopoly than a robust, unified mainstream. For proof, just compare the number and independence of daily newspapers in the 1950s to today.

Posted by: Bart | November 3, 2007 12:38 AM

The lack of reporting of anti war views and the views of most Americans is appalling. In my state I live near the southern border by 55 miles. Seattle is about 130 miles north. That is where the TV broadcasters are. So I get TV from Portland. Problem is Portland is in another state and the news and politics have NOTHING whatsoever to do with our state. We have no information from our own state EVER and as citizens are being completely ignored and unserved. There is not one person to go to to remedy this. The politicians and appointees ignore us too. Just like they ignore the protests. They have the American public locked down and they are going to keep it that way. I believe they will call Marshall Law next year and cancel the election.

Posted by: Cynthia Yellowbird | November 3, 2007 12:29 AM

I wish the piece had focused less on representation (i.e. 10% of the population is named Bob but guys named Bob only own 1% of the TV and radio stations) and more on the larger problem. The larger problem being that more and more of the media is being monopolized by self-serving megaconglomerates leading to bias and censorship. By censorship I refer to the "non-reporting" touched on in the report.

Posted by: Mike | November 3, 2007 12:18 AM

The FCC Chairman's current rush to consolidate control of US broadcast media is consistent with the post-war rise of American empire as documented in the 2007 book by Chalmers Johnson "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic". The US government (and the corporate special interests and religious groups it now serves) cannot effectively enforce American hegemony over the world unless it also controls American public speech and opinion through a consolidation of all licensed commercial media into friendly hands. The current actions of the FCC Chairman is just a final step in that regard. Mr. Bill Moyer: PLEASE devote at least one Journal show to interview Chalmers Johnson. He is an American patriot in the mold of Washington and Jefferson. The fact that Mr. Johnson is now considered by many in the press as "radical" just proves how precarious is the position of our republic today.

Posted by: John Kelly | November 3, 2007 12:13 AM

The narrow coverage of national and international news is troubling. Too few people decide what the public hears--this is dangerous for democracy. I fully support diversity and the freedom of access to the media. We need more stations, newspapers, TV, internet connections rather than a restricted few. Perhaps then, public demonstrations would make the news!

Posted by: ARLIENE OEY | November 3, 2007 12:12 AM

Bill Moyers, THANK YOU for the program tonight, Nov. 2nd. Both subjects were absolutely terrific and so important. I especially was spellbound by the piece with K. Newman and her research which resulted in the book, THE MISSING CLASS. I do social policy advocacy for the League of Women Voters Illinois and in so doing have also been in the community so that I really know many folks in that missing class. Housing in my community, a Chicago suburban county, is such an issue for those in the modest income group; however, even in my town which has a reputation of a community with many Evangelical churches and institutions, I have found less than favorable attitudes regarding the supply of affordable housing. This, in my mind, is deplorable!! It is a moral issue to me and not just for the Evangelical faith group, but all religious as well as just plain human decency. I can attest to everything that was spoken of on your program, sadly. Thank you for getting this information out. Sincerely, Jan Kay

Posted by: Jan Kay | November 2, 2007 11:43 PM

why is it so great for blacks and hispanics to have their own tv stations and radio stations and newspapers but so horribly RACIST when white people to do that?? dont get me wrong im not racist but its a RACIST DOUBLE STANDARD for some people to stick with their own kind when others arent supposed to. if we want people to stop being racist then EVERYBODY needs to be AMERICANS instead of just sticking with their group. mike

Posted by: mike | November 2, 2007 11:26 PM

Througth my observation toward the coverage of the hispanic media.... the news are too polarized and no integrationist. with the main media. Ethnic media is very limited with the community covering the basic and sensatioalist issues,but not helping to educate. The isolation is inmense,as you feel you are watching news from an imaginary channel,or country. For example with the events of September 11,and last six conmemorative years,any news deptarment open a different criteria. Is taboo for networks as Univision or Telemundo cover issues that can look antiamrican,or contradict the official version or the offfcial story of the things...

Posted by: Alex Chionetti | November 2, 2007 11:15 PM

News Polarization & Ethnic Media

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Our Posts

Your Comments

Moyers Beats

Subscribe

Podcasts

Frappr!

Archives