IDI.2018

VIEWPOINT TEHILLA SHWARTZ ALTSHULER
Media in crisis: Who should decide
what enters the public domain?
AT A TIME when everyone is talking about “fake news,” it’s
fascinating to see the release of a movie like Steven Spielberg’s The
Post, a film that portrays the publication of the Pentagon Papers in
1971, and their remarkable content regarding the Vietnam War.
The Post is another in a long line of movies depicting the
relationship between the media and the subject of their investigations,
such as All the President’s Men from 1976, on the Watergate scandal,
and especially the 2015 Oscar-winning movie Spotlight, on the
systematic cover-up child molestation by the Catholic Church in
Boston, which was adapted for the silver screen by Josh Singer, who
also created the adaptation of The Post.
These two recent movies complement one another. While
Spotlight is about how a story is developed; the meticulous research
involved such as interviewing victims of sexual abuse, crossreferencing
sources, searching archives and libraries, and laying
bare an institutional conspiracy of silence, The Post explores the
question; who decides whether a story should be published? Part of
the discussion about whether to publish the Pentagon Papers takes
place in the US Supreme Court, which the paper’s editors petition to
in order to exercise their right to freedom of the press, arguing that
“the founding fathers gave the free press the protection it must have
to fulfil its essential role...to serve the governed, not the governors.”
No less important than a storyline, is the debate between the
editors and the paper’s owners and shareholders about money as a
means to exercise freedom of expression.
Should those with the deepest pockets be the ones to decide
what enters the public domain? What are the interests of a media
corporation’s shareholders? Are they aligned with the interests of
the public?
At the Globes Business Conference in January, Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu said: “The weak cannot survive.”
Netanyahu meant the State of Israel, but the same sentiment could
be applied to media corporations. Nowadays, the entire media
milieu in Israel [and around the world] is on its knees, whether
due to financial woes, huge subscription losses, lack of a stable
business model, threats from social networks and their siphoning
off wholesale advertising revenue, or due to political challenges –
threats from changes in media regulation, and harsh attacks on the
media made by politicians.
Against this backdrop, we need to recognize that weak media
organizations are unable to conduct meaningful investigative
journalism. They don’t have the resources to invest in long months
of research that can sometimes lead nowhere. They are wary of libel
suits and the huge sums that may be required of them to pay in order
to settle them. They censor themselves in order not to lose the few
advertisers they have left. When this is the reality, exposes like those
recounted in The Post and Spotlight are no longer feasible.
Some would claim that in the brave new world of social media,
there is no need for old-school journalism. Now, all of the information
is out there, and all that’s needed is someone who is willing to share
it with others.
The recent #MeToo campaign is just one example of excellent
investigative journalism, fueled by individual posts and tweets.
But, in reality, this is an illusion. First, old-school, traditional
journalism offers us the necessary context to interpret the vast
swathes of information produced by social media. It provides a
narrative with a beginning, a middle, and an end, which enables us to
connect the dots. Without it, in a world bombarded by information,
we are left confused and unable to comprehend.
Second, social media networks also have a dark side. The algorithms
which dictate how information is shared and with whom, and the
never-ending desire of the major platforms to grow and increase
their revenue, have created fertile ground for states, organizations,
and individuals who seek to spread disinformation rather than share
news. As noted by BuzzFeed in 2016, “The top fake election news
stories generated more total engagement on Facebook than the top
election stories from 19 major news outlets combined.”
It’s no coincidence that the decline of public trust in the media
has come to a stop over the last year, both in Israel and the United
States. Nor is it a surprise that there has been a noticeable rise in
subscriptions to the major newspapers.
This is the public’s reaction to the assault on news organizations
and accusations of “fake news,” and to the understanding that social
networks are not quite as free and open a medium as we initially
thought they were.
IDI’s project on media reform is tackling questions regarding
the role of traditional media – as an exposer of corruption and
institutional failure; as a defender of victims, the weak, and the
silenced; and as a guardian of our democracy.
This role is now more crucial than ever during a time that might, on
the face of it, appear to be a golden age for free speech. In fact, this
is an immense opportunity for journalism to renew its commitment
to professional ethics and public integrity, and to display the same
courage and determination that eventually find their way to the silver
screen.
Dr. Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler is a Senior Fellow at the Center for
Democratic Values and Institutions and Director of the Media
Reform Program and the Open Government Program at the Israel
Democracy Institute
12
70 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE