by Wallace Garneau, America Outloud:
For most of our nation’s history, Americans lived inside a media ecosystem that, while imperfect, was fundamentally functional. That system relied on a set of underlying assumptions that had to remain true for the market to discipline itself, and for media institutions to serve the public rather than manipulating it. These assumptions were rarely stated, but they governed behavior nonetheless, and once they broke, the entire system began to behave very differently.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The first assumption was that the audience was the customer, and back when our nation was young and printed media was all that existed, this was true.
People who consumed media paid for it through subscriptions and purchases, even as newspapers also sought advertising revenue. Revenue flowed from credibility. If an outlet misled its audience too often, that audience would leave, taking its money with it. In this environment, truth had economic value. Accuracy was not just a moral aspiration, but a business necessity.
Media organizations survived by being believed.
That’s not to say all early media said the same things. Early American newspapers were split between federalists and anti-federalists, between whigs and tories, or between whatever the parties of the day were, and they could be absolutely brutal in how they portrayed the other side, but both sides disagreed within the same sets of facts, interpreting them differently but agreeing on what the basic facts were.
The second assumption was that participants shared basic liberal norms. Speech was understood to be a means of persuasion rather than saturation. Arguments were made with the expectation that listeners had agency and could be convinced. Truth carried reputational value, even when it was inconvenient, and while bias certainly existed, outright bad faith carried real social and professional costs.
Journalists who were caught fabricating or knowingly misleading did not weather the storm and move on. They lost credibility, and often their careers. The system assumed that most participants were constrained by a shared commitment to honesty, even when they disagreed.
The third assumption was that media markets were local, or at most national in scope.
Capital was predominantly domestic. Advertisers were embedded in the same culture as their audiences and shared at least a minimal civic alignment with the societies in which they operated. Media institutions existed within national boundaries and were shaped by local norms, laws, and expectations.
This created a degree of accountability. A newspaper that undermined social cohesion or public trust was harming the same society on which it depended to survive. There was no meaningful separation between the cultural health of the nation and the long-term health of its media institutions.
The fourth assumption was that no actor could absorb unlimited losses.
Competition imposed discipline. Sensationalism might produce short-term gains, but it carried long-term reputational costs.
Read More @ AmericaOutloud.com
