LET'S HAVE MORE NEWS MEDIA DISCLOSURES ABOUT . . . THE NEWS MEDIA THEMSELVES

  
 
      IT HAS MORE OR LESS FALLEN OUT OF THE HEADLINES, but the Murdoch-News Of The World scandal did raise some questions related to the trustworthiness of "The Press" in general -- and they are questions that I believe need to be explored.

      Since that revealing UK parliamentary inquiry last month into the now-deceased News Of The World's morbid cellphone-hacking caper, there have been few, if any, proposals from within the conventional mainstream press for reforms in the field of news gathering and publishing -- even though the conventional press is not always shy about about wandering into scandal sheet territory itself.

      I mean, sex and scandal sell well in all forms of popular information dissemination, don't they, and not just in the tabs. Yet, somehow, that reality has been overlooked in the handwringing over the Murdoch press.

      The mainstream press, of course, is always eager to adopt a lofty position and treat the trash press as by definition unworthy of being taken seriously, saying in effect, "That's not us -- we are responsible."


      THE PRESS IS A BUSINESS THAT IS NOT especially comfortable with the idea of criticizing or investigating its own methods and practices, while at the same time reserving to itself the right to pry into everyone else's business.

      I've been retired from the game for more than 20 years, but I'm still a news junkie, and over those years I've thought quite a lot about how easily the news media get by without being called to account that much.

      So, today, I'm going to throw out, in a helpful, speculative way a few suggestions that might contribute to improvement of public trust in The Press. (Surveys show, by the way, a relatively low rating for public trust of the news media, aside entirely from the Murdoch thing.)

      Just before I get into my suggestions, however, I'll repeat one of my biggest complaints, which I never tire of voicing -- and that is my objection to the relentless concentration of ownership in the conventional news media, seemingly just about everywhere in the English-speaking world. The sad part of it is that the general public doesn't seem to notice, or else doesn't really care, so muted are any protests. Oh, that's right, I just remembered -- the mutes are operated on the whole by the concentrating forces themselves, aren't they? But the good news is that we do occasionally see the on-line "press" taking the ball away from the big boys, and this is to the public benefit.


      A LONG TIME AGO the Canadian government commissioned an inquiry into the monopolizing trend in Canada's news media. The upshot was a report, based on complaints and suggestions to the inquiry by many concerned citizens, containing a number of constructive recommendations, including legislated limitations on concentration of ownership. The idea was to encourage competition in news, the better to inform the pubic.

      Nothing came of it, the concentration continued.  I suppose there weren't then (as now) many politicians who wanted to arouse the hostility of news media owners, managers, and publishers intent upon diminishing competition in news coverage and thus improving their profits.

      Okay, that battle seems to have been lost, at least for now. But let us not despair -- there are other ways in which improvements can be made with the objective of making The Press more reliable and trustworthy, and that's what I'm on about here.

      What I have to suggest would go under the heading of "conflict of interest," a topic that does engage the interest of the news media, because it is one major activity of news gatherers. Looking into conflicts of interest, mostly in politics and business, and the publicizing of it in its news spaces, is a significant part of the bread and butter of news-gathering-and-publishing businesses.

      Therefore, I propose, that same principle ought to be one that is equally applied to those who do the news gathering, including news commentaries and editorials. And applied as well, where it might reasonably be applied, to publishers, managers and other news media executives.


      FOR EXAMPLE:

      * The business-news editors and reporters should have to disclose what investments they own, in what companies, if any; or at the every least disclose whether, on any given story they have handled about any given company or class of business, they hold any personal interests.

      * Ditto for political reporters and commentators on where their personal political -- and business interests too -- may rest, if any. Do any of them hold a publicly undisclosed membership in any political party? And, if a political story or government policy affects a company or class of business, have they any personal interest in any of those businesses? It might even be fair to ask how they vote.

      * Ditto for the writers and editors of the sports pages, where any personal interest might involve any of the sports or teams or athletes or personalities written about (including animal racing).

      * Ditto for the writers and editors of the entertainment pages.

      And so on and so forth, for culture, for religion, and for all the other sections and content of a newspaper (TV or radio station).


      NOW, WOULDN'T YOU AS A NEWSPAPER READER,  TV viewer or radio listener feel more comfortable, and enlightened, if you knew those personal things about the people you pay to keep you informed?

     And, knowing those things, wouldn't you feel a good deal more trust toward them and view them as more reliable as well?

      All right then, the people of The News Media have to act: they should suck it up and give us the lowdown on their personal selves and interests, and their relationship to the news. If there's conflict, they need to own up to it, and get rid of it. Create a better-informed readership. We are entitled to that information. It could be a fascinating part of many a story.