PFD: Resolved: That the American media work against the best interest of the American public

Resolved: That the American media work against the best interest of the American public

I could bitch, moan whine and complain about how bad this resolution is, and I will, just not all at once lest it deter you from getting interested in what could potentially be one of the funniest resolutions of the year. I would like to preface at this point that I will turn this set of notes into a rant for the podcast I write for. It will contain considerably more non-family friendly language and be even less useful for you unless you’re looking for the funny.

Before we go into overview, I want to ask a question: what responsibility does the American media have to the American public? Or for that matter, the interests of Americans? Note here that we aren’t limited to news media. There’s nothing in the resolution that asks us to ignore American Idol or Howard Stern. That in mind, I ask you again, what responsibility does the media have to the interests of Americans? There are millions of Americans who find American Idol to be incredibly interesting. Does that mean that the media is working in their interest? This then leads us to the real questions at hand. First, what does it mean to work in (or against) the best interests of Americans? And more importantly, who makes the decision on what is (or is against) the best interests of Americans? No, you cannot say that the judges make that decision. You as debaters don’t make the decision, but neither do the judges, the judges only decide who sucked the least in the round.

So wrap your head around this, as this is the progression you should be thinking about as you prep this resolution. Who decides what is in the best interest of Americans? Once we figure out who we can ask, what they have determined is in the best interest of Americans. Once we figure out what is in the best interests of Americans, we can ask what media we’re talking about here. While the implication is primarily for the news media, it’s not stated as such, so we could just as easily be talking about Howard Stern. It may even be a large premise of the affirmative that shows like Stern’s are against the interests of Americans. You could even expand it to say that those ClearChannel motherfuckers are killing my ear drums playing the same song 7 million times a day on the radio. Now once you figure out what media we’re talking about, you can answer the question as to whether or not the media you have determined we’re debating is acting in the interested of the American public. Now once that’s done you still have one more question to answer which is: does it right damn well matter? Is it the purpose of the media to act in the interests of Americans? Note that the reason this is at the end is because you still need to know what the interests of the American public are, as well as what the purpose of media is in order to answer it. This last one is particularly important for aff because if we determine that the purpose of the media has nothing to do with the interests of the American public then you can outright say that no they aren’t but they aren’t supposed to either so it’s just fine. There’s nothing wrong with it because that’s not the purpose of the media. If the media in question don’t have a responsibility to the American public then it’s like asking if your neighbors pet cat is acting in the best interests of forest fire prevention. It doesn’t make a fuck bit of difference one way or the other.
I want to start with the transcript from Jon Stewart’ appearance on Crossfire. There’s a section in there where he’s talking to Tucker Carlson and he says “you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.” Stewart’s proposition here is that specifically a cable TV news station has a responsibility to the public discourse. That because they present themselves as a news show informing the public, there is a responsibility there to actually inform the public. To ask the hard questions, and push for the hard answers and make the politicians and decision makers accountable for what they say they’re going to do. As much as I like Jon Stewart and am daily impressed by the quality of the writers on his show, the sentiment expressed here has flaws. The affirmative here will argue that because the cable TV stations like CNN are profit driven, they’re motivation isn’t the best interests of the American public, it’s the best interests of the shareholders. NBC is owned by GE, not the American people. ABC’s parent company Disney is responsible to shareholders not the American public.

The negative counter to this will be Stewarts claim. That because these shows have access to the decision makers and because they say the intention of the show is to inform Americans and act as a check on government; they have a responsibility to act in the interests of the American public. Now the flip to this is also Stewart’s argument, that even though that have that responsibility, they aren’t living up to it. To quote again from the Crossfire appearance: “stop hurting America.” As the 24-hour news networks have degraded into little more than both sides spiting out talking points. The shows that do say they’re trying to inform the public, don’t really inform them about anything. There is no debate, just two sides trying to figure out which one yells louder. That does not work in the interest of Americans. The assumption of course (and yes, it’s generally bad to assume) is that keeping Americans informed is in the public interest. If you want to try and argue on the affirmative that it isn’t you can try to but really, it’ll be hard to argue.

Keep in mind here that you don’t necessarily have to uphold ALL the interests of the public. The resolution says “best interest” which you can take two ways. First you can take it as the singular BEST interest of the people. This takes work because you have to establish what that single interest is. The second view to take is that there are multiple interests and that the media may not uphold all of them, but it does uphold some of them and does fail on some of them. If you’re the first speaker you can set the tone of the debate by ascribing one of these two views.

On the negative side you can argue that one interest of the American public is to keep the airwaves “decent.” We accomplish this via FCC regulation of broadcast and cable media. We accomplish this by things like fines for the “wardrobe malfunction” Janet Jackson had, or by forcing Howard Stern’s move to the relatively unregulated satellite radio. The point is that we have obscenity laws to regulate the content that can be seen by minors. Things like the v-chip and the content warnings on CD’s. If we consider it in the best interest of the American public to keep content reasonable for all public viewers, then it can be argued that things like FCC regulations do force the American media to act in the best interest of the American public.

The affirmative rebuttal to this is that these regulations sometimes make little or no sense. When Oprah can talk about the same subjects, using the same language as Howard Stern and face no punishment from the FCC while Stern faces significant fines and gets forced off broadcast airwaves, these regulations violate ideas of fairness and equality which do not function in the best interest of Americans.

Continuing on the negative side, the argument can be made that things like PBS, NPR and other public media are not beholding to any private shareholders in the same manner as companies like NBC or ABC. Because PBS is a public network and not motivated by profit, we have to ask what it is motivated by and what it seeks. As a public network it is ultimately beholden to the public. And so it works in the best interests of the public. Shows like the News-Hour or Frontline offer an unassuming and honest view of many important public issues.

The affirmative flip to this is that there is limited exposure by so few public venues as opposed to the larger commercial interest. The major broadcast networks. CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, control the largest part of the television market share because of the content and the way they do business. Even if PBS has the content which does follow the best interests of Americans, it likely doesn’t have the market share to make a difference. How would you rather spend your time? Watching Weekly Business Report or watching 24? It’s not enough for one or two independent outlets to follow what they believe is in the public interest. It is just as important to get the public to see that content and if they don’t draw public consumption, the fact that they produce quality material doesn’t matter. How is it in the best interests of Americans to have the content if they aren’t watching it?

Now take a look at radio. ClearChannel for example owns and operates more than 1200 hundred radio stations across the US. As FCC regulations have eased, the market share for ClearChannel listeners has increased dramatically. With each new station they open in each market, the competition is driven out. As the affirmative you can easily argue that the lack of competition and the drive to push out alternative content is actually harming America and restricting the content that is available to the American public.

The negative rebuttal to this is that ClearChannel has been cleared through anti-trust probes launched against it. They abide by FCC regulations and have been cleared by the DoJ of anti-trust practices. From an economic standpoint, they offer an efficient way to provide radio content. A large national network can more competently distribute radio to the American public. This includes news, talk, music, etc. All of which helps develop American society and culture as well as business.

Therein lies a strong negative argument for all forms of media. The development of American culture and business is the main function of the media. The business of the media is culture and business is good. One of the primary exports of America is the content it spreads around the world via media. Everything from music to movies to news is spread around the world by the media and in that sense they work for American interests abroad. Further, they make a great deal of money. This money goes into America’s economy which is definitely in the interest of Americans. Universal Pictures and the RIAA will sue your ass for those DVD’s you bought from Taiwan because it steals money from America. The development of the American economy through the media is a strong benefit to the interests of the American public.

The flip side of course is that exporting this culture can have negative effects too. The push to export American culture has led to ugly Chinese kids singing the Backstreet Boys to the whole fucking internet. It has also led to much complaint about American across the globe. As much as they might like Coca-Cola, conservative governments don’t particularly like seeing some hairy man-ass on NYPD Blue or appreciate (even if I do) that blonde in the tight dress on Battlestar Galactica. American ideals exported abroad through media have been used as an excuse to incite terrorist action against the US which certainly doesn’t operate in the public’s best interest. As far as the economics, all business helps the economy, if we base the decision today’s debate on economics why not propose selling drugs? I bet Viacom could make a shitload of money selling cocaine to your neighbor or dealing low-cost amphetamines to computer programmers. The economics of the issue are irrelevant all businesses have some effect on the economy. Even PBS has some effect. Big Bird and Tickle Me Elmo aren’t free.

I’m going to leave it here for now and wait for some comment or feedback. I suggest you look through some of the commentary here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/f56.html not all of it is quality but some of it is and some of it raises interesting points that you can argue further.

For more on ClearChannel in particular, I would suggest http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/all_about_clear.html There are a bunch of interesting bits that are pointed out. Read the comments as well, some of it is pretty good. I’m not a big fan of ClearChannel myself, but you should know both sides of the equation.