The major league American media has, for the most part, cautiously approached the uproar engulfing Rupert Murdoch's dominions in the United Kingdom. In an event that speaks volumes about the media's ambivalence over l'affaire Murdoch, the Washington Post opened its Opinion page to none other than Larry Flynt, so that he could present his perspective on the conservative press baron's current crisis.Using a rogue such as Flynt to do the liberals' dirty work was a cowardly masterstroke. Flynt, by definition and disposition can write whatever he wants. His disconnection from the media establishment (liberal or conservative) gives him a unique freedom to articulate certain uncomfortable realities about journalism. Let's just say one is very unlikely to hear Flynt's views on Meet the Press or Fox News Sunday.
Flynt's opening gambit was to assert both he and Murdoch valued a free press. "We understand," Flynt wrote, "that in this quest to protect this freedom (i.e., a free press), boundaries must be pushed." In short, Flynt has pointed to journalism's dark side as a consideration in any thoughtful person's contemplation of a truly free press. Of course, managing the dark side is a tricky business, and Flynt makes no bones about it.
"I test limits," Flynt noted, "by publishing controversial material and paying people who are willing to step forward and expose political hypocrisy." Murdoch, in Flynt's opinion, went well beyond encouraging the "willing" to speak out. The right-wing darling's minions, if recent allegations are true, routinely used illegal means to obtain damaging information about just about anyone. There were no boundaries to the Murdoch media's relentless search for dirt.
Before the NPR/PBS crowd smugly congratulates itself on being classier (pun intended) than Rupert's tabloid readers, The New York Times properly noted in a story on the Murdoch situation that illegal invasion of privacy was a given in nearly all British journalism, including the "better" papers. The criminality and corruption inherent in blackmail-style journalism wasn't unique to Rebekah Brooks by any means.
Some who believe in journalism's high road are repelled at the notion of the media paying anyone for a story. However, we've become numb to the repeated tales of television programs offering large sums so that morons can relate lurid tales to jaded audiences. Sometimes, "respected" voices demand a fee for "speaking" to the media in venues such as interviews. Payment isn't always in money; favors are often far more valuable currency.
Interestingly, Flynt makes a cogent point about the degradation of the notion of privacy in the Internet era. "On a daily basis, and in ways that the general public does not even recognize," Flynt wrote, "our right to privacy is disappearing rapidly. Our political leaders allow companies such as Google and Facebook to continually infringe on this right. Both of these companies serve as data mines, selling information about their users."
And Google wields power just as ruthlessly as Rupert Murdoch does. An AP article appearing in today's San Jose Mercury News notes allegations from Belgian newspapers complaining that Google has blocked them from appearing in the search engine's results. At issue is a case involving copyright infringement. Other European media outlets have taken Google to court over the same issue. Google spokespeople have denied the allegations, citing court rulings. Many watching the case view Google's denials as hollow.
The Belgian media suit brings into focus another uncomfortable media truth: Google's power is truly alarming. Foreign governments, especially the People's Republic of China, profoundly mistrust Google and view it as an unwelcome arm of American foreign policy. However, the American media is largely silent on the notion that information search and its related data gold mine has nearly become a monopoly. And there is no reason why Google's stated goal of "doing good" is a priori preferable to Rupert Murdoch's conservative political beliefs. Like it or not, both entities like power, and especially like concentrated power.
Finally, the Hustler boss noted why the crisis provoked by the Murdoch empire's uncontrolled disruption of privacy is a big deal for ordinary citizens, not just for pissed off celebrities or embarrassed politicians. The actions of the Murdoch press, almost certainly sanctioned by Rupert himself, "has placed all of us who enjoy freedom of the press at grave risk. Only when our readership trusts us to provide material acquired honestly can a free press continue to be a driving force in preserving our democracy."
The Murdoch affair, with its sinister, STASI-like violation of individual privacy, has illuminated journalism's dark side. It took a marginalized figure such as Larry Flynt to state the issues plainly, and show their connection to the disturbing rise of data monopolists. Do you think Flynt will invite Murdoch to write the Australian-American press magnate's version of the UK phone hacking story?
The image shows a poster from the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.
No comments:
Post a Comment