Although The Daily's editorial addressing press freedom in Qatar was correct in saying that the country does not allow "a fully protected free press," the criticisms made by the editorial board largely missed the point ("Press not so free in Qatar," Oct. 6). You can probably get away with saying things in the United States that would not be tolerated in Qatar. But by focusing on abstract, legalistic norms concerning the media, the editorial failed to understand the way in which discourse is really controlled and regulated in our society.
Before the days of tooly political science majors reading CNN Politics on their MacBooks, left-leaning students sneered at the mainstream media, calling it the "bourgeois press." Bourgeois not in the sense of ski vacations in Aspen, but because they are owned and controlled by a small group of wealthy shareholders and corporate interests. This bourgeois ownership determines what is reported, how it is reported and what analysis enters the public sphere. As FCC regulations continue to be softened, fewer corporations increasingly control most of the media that we have access to.
The problem is that when media is just another commodity produced for profit, attributes like honesty become secondary to the goal of increasing monetary returns. Delivering honest, critical news is not necessarily the most profitable way to conduct business. Fox News, the channel every liberal yuppie loves to hate, may be the most grotesque example of this race to the bottom, but the trend is evident across the board. Major news media increasingly reduces reporting to sensationalized sound bites, simplistic pseudo-analysis (James Carville, anyone?) and tabloid gossip.
Countering this increasing commodification of news is the development of alternative media with the growth of the Internet and other technology. Projects like Democracy Now! and ZNet have made it much easier to access left-wing and independent journalism from home. But these projects still rely on shoestring budgets and the generosity of a lot of volunteers. They do not have the funds or the clout to get the sort of access that CNN or the Washington Post can, and are a far cry from being able to advertise on the level of a corporate owned publication. Media outlets like these do a good job preaching to the left-wing choir but are unable to break out and become major voices in public dialogue.
It is nice that in the U.S., I can say whatever I want and be free from punishment (probably). But to conflate a formal freedom of expression with actual freedom of the press is inaccurate and misleading. The mainstream press in the U.S. is controlled by corporate interests and the profit motive. This control may be a bit more flexible than that of Qatar's government censors, but neither are truly free.
Weinberg senior Loren Balhorn can be reached at lbalhorn@gmail.com.
Be the first to comment on this article!