Saturday, April 12, 2008

Media Capture & An Uninformed Electorate

ABSTRACT: Media Capture by City Hall was a ubiquitous and transparent phenomenon during this past municipal election campaign; that is, collusion between the local media and City Hall, particularly Mayor Sue McCloud, to influence and dictate the outcome of the election. What is meant by “Captured Media” and the failure of the local media to uphold the “principles of journalism” is discussed.

Media Capture by City Hall was a ubiquitous and transparent phenomenon during this past municipal election campaign; that is, collusion between the local print media, principally The Monterey County Herald, Monterey County Weekly and The Carmel Pine Cone, and city council incumbents, particularly Mayor Sue McCloud, to influence and dictate the outcome of the election.

What is meant by “Captured Media?” In the context of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, “Captured Media” is characterized, as follows:

Promulgates propaganda and suppresses negative or unfavorable information.
Vital issues are never substantively presented to the extent that the issues do not enter the public’s consciousness.
Ignores and under-covers stories.
Fails to hold politicians accountable for their actions with follow-up questions and context.
Bad” politicians are never identified because their records are never scrutinized.
Results in high incumbency reelection rates.

Theorically, the media is supposed to empower citizens to make good electoral decisions by informing citizens on the vital issues of the day. However, the media can do so only if the media strives to uphold the “principles of journalism,” especially “JOURNALISM'S FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE TRUTH,” “ITS FIRST LOYALTY IS TO CITIZENS,” “ITS ESSENCE IS A DISCIPLINE OF VERIFICATION,” “ITS PRACTITIONERS MUST MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENCE FROM THOSE THEY COVER,” ”IT MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER,” “IT MUST STRIVE TO MAKE THE SIGNIFICANT INTERESTING AND RELEVANT” AND "IT MUST KEEP THE NEWS COMPREHENSIVE AND PROPORTIONAL.” Moreover, when the media fails to uphold the “principles of journalism” and has a “cozy” relationship with government, the news content is unduly influenced by government to the extent that government is no longer accountable to citizens.

In the local media’s coverage of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, particularly the past municipal election campaign, instead of striving to uphold the “principles of journalism,” the media were purveyors of candidates’ propaganda, slogans and talking points. Furthermore, the media ignored the issues of the day and failed to make the candidates answer substantive questions about significant issues, including questions about “open government,” the City’s budget and overall fiscal condition, the future of the Carmel Fire Department and consolidation, historical and cultural assets, Carmel’s “urbanized” forest and storm water discharges into Carmel Bay.

In closing, when the media coverage of the past municipal election campaign is characterized by “we print what we’re told,” unreported stories on significant issues and unasked questions, Carmelites are not making electoral decisions as informed citizens on the issues of the day. As a consequence, uninformed citizens are all the more susceptible to viewing as credible the media’s editorial commentaries and endorsements, no matter how unfounded and unreasoned.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree in part. It is obvious that this blog hits the nail on the head when it comes to the Pine Cone. Under Paul Miller it has been a bully pulpit for his extreme views not only on the editorial page but also in the way things are reported and in the letters to the editor that get printed or not printed in the weekly. Sue McCloud has made a point of becoming friends with whoever makes editorial decisions at the Herald and has gotten undeserved favorable coverage as a result. Now that Garcia is moving on we can only hope that whoever replaces her will not be taken in by McCloud and the paper will start to report on what's going on in Carmel fairly and accurately. Where I have to really disagree is lumping the Monterey Weekly in with the other two publications. Its editorial policy has generally been more fair and accurate even if one doesn't necessarily always agree with its positions. It's possible for the wool to be pulled over the staff's eyes of course but that is really a different matter.

Anonymous said...

The trouble with Paul Miller is he sees the Pine Cone as a vehicle for his own agendas, much like The Herald’s Carolina Garcia. Promoting his agenda has replaced any sense of responsibility as a member of the fourth estate. Readers of the Pine Cone should know too Paul Miller’s one journalism award was 20 years ago as a freelance writer for coverage of sporting events at an Olympics, not for hard news coverage or editorial writing.
Paul Miller, a big fish in a small pond, with the Pine Cone as an advertisement vehicle, not a news source of note. Maybe he will sell it one of these years.
But you are right about him facilitating Sue and her agendas, no doubt about that-more like a partisan advisor than an independent and critical voice looking out for the interests of Carmelites.

Anonymous said...

Carmel voters are not the only ones uninformed about issues facing Carmel, the candidates themselves are not well informed. This tedious, predictable campaign was an issueless campaign. Human nature being what it is candidates take the path of least resistance. Popularity and name recognition did the trick. I do think it arrogant of those incumbents who think public service means they can get away with refusing to address questions put to them. Take the Carmel Fire Dept.; the incumbents had different answers for why consolidation was not viable depending on what day of the week it was, and none of them made any sense. Kind of like a moving target. If they kept reciting different talking points then people would be so confused they must think they knew what they were talking about. Except, just ask the firefighters, and they will tell you their reasons were completely without merit.