Gatekeeping and South Carolina media
Last Friday, our friends over at Faith in the Sound reported that the much-talked about Scarborough and Ceips relationship, which burst into the public eye after Scarborough's altercation with SCE&G workers while "housesitting" at his parents' house, would soon show up in the "traditional" news media.Yesterday, that's exactly what happened, when our traditional media friends at The State ran a story on Scarborough’s re-election campaign, in light of the recent bad publicity he has received.
One of my lectures to undergraduate Communication classes at the College of Charleston examines how the media is moving away from its traditional role as "gatekeepers", channeling information and weeding out "trash" in an effort to come across as both credible and thoughtful. I’ve also discussed this subject in several past blog postings:
http://earlcapps.blogspot.com/2006/01/quantity-or-quality-which-is-better.html
http://earlcapps.blogspot.com/2005/12/end-of-media-as-gatekeepers.html
http://earlcapps.blogspot.com/2006/03/agenda-setting-gatekeepers-and.html
This trend is demonstrated by the shift in how the national media handled the string of accusations of sexual conduct by Bill Clinton during his Presidential administration. News media outlets, hesitant to publish the lurid accusations related to Gennifer Flowers in 1992, for fear of damaging their image and credibility, became increasingly willing to cross the line, culminating in their often-explicit coverage of the Monica Lewinsky accusations six years later.
This shift in what news media felt was proper to examine and present to their audiences was examined by communication professors Michael Delli Carpini and Bruce Williams in their 2004 paper entitled "Monica and Bill All the Time and Everywhere".
Columbia insider talk has long been full of lurid tales of wine, women (and men), and song involving legislators and other officials, both past and present, including arrests, divorces, and prosecutions a’plenty. However, South Carolina media in this state seemed reluctant to follow the path blazed by the national media in dragging the mud out for their viewers.
When things have surfaced, they generally didn't stick around long. Allegations of an affair by former Governor David Beasley in his 1998 re-election campaign faded quickly with little media attention, and the lurid accusations that turned up in the Lost Trust investigation in the early 90s barely received a passing mention, except in reports of courtroom testimony.
While it remains to be seen if this is part of a larger trend away from the gatekeeper role normally performed by South Carolina media and towards the “run it before someone else does” mindset that is now the norm in many national media outlets, it is certainly a good opportunity to ask if that is where we are headed, and if this is the direction which we want to see our media going.
Is this apporach presenting valid information that is relevant and important, or just pushing the trash? Your thoughts on the subject are certainly welcome. Fire away ...
I'd recomment Lasch's _Culture_of_Narcissism_ at least for one quote, albeit in paraphrase, that "the manistream media need not tell the truth, it only needs to appear to be credible..."
With the example of Wilson and Plame in mind and Pravda on the Potomac's obdurate article fresh on the screen, the Post's closing paragraph now admits that Joe Wilson lied about his findings in NIger and that he did (as a Kerry campaign activist) smear Bush going into 2004.
Yet Earl, their ultimate hypocrisy lands in the final sentence of the article, "It's unfortunate that so many people took him (Wilson) seriously." Borrowing Pilate's wash basin, Pontus Post mockingly dips its finger tips into the fingerbowl ere a sherbert course and seeking another haunch of Republican flank to bite.
With such a sterling example, would be Woodwards and Bernsteins reaffirm that fifth column of column inches better devoted to wrapping fish or adult classifieds.
If you want the link to the Post's article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
The editors obviously agreed the Scarborough scandal was, indeed, information both citizens and voters needed in order to be free and self-governing.
Refusing to cover these kinds of stories and events only helps those involved (in this case Scarborough/Ceips), people who already hold power.
The media have an obligation to inform the public and holding back on that information is a big mistake. But then again, this is a state where folks had to wait for Strom Thurmond to die before they could start digging up his skeletons. That needs to change.
Why would The State run a story about the campaign of a legislator from Charleston County? Surely not to inform his constituents, few of whom would read The State.
So if the residents of District 115 and 124 don't read The State, what's the motive here?
Are we dealing with the finding and presentation of facts, the pursuit of agenda, or plain old-fashioned yellow-journalism sensationalism?
Lurid stories can be informative, but sometimes, as Jerry Springer aptly demonstrates, they can serve no positive purpose. Such stories may even fill space that otherwise may have examined real issues, or engage in character assassination.
Hitler's Nazi Party was one of a number groups which seized power thought history, in part through the use of personal scandal and innuendo, real and invented, to run people out of politics and silence their opposition.
There are good people in this world who shy away from politics after a messy divorce, a DUI during college, or something else, because they're afraid of it being rehashed and spun by the press or an unscruplous campaign consultant.
Some people are snakes in the grass who don't deserve to hold office. Others screwed up, but are good people. How do you differentiate? Should the media become the judge and the jury?
This issue presents a double-edged sword, which can cut both ways. Given the power of media, both traditional and new, it should be wielded with great caution and sparingly.