Re: news media and social soma

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,

*Current* coverage is not independent of *current* advertiser
interests. While I doubt the influence is as pervasive as some
on this list have suggested, I take the existence of influence
to be easily documented and sometimes important.

As I said to Doug, however, we should not mistake the symptom for
the disease. To *explain* the pattern of coverage we need to
explain why this configuration of consumer, news media, and
advertiser behavior persists.

One approach, which I have opposed, is to assert that there is a
large "unmet demand" for alternative analysis, and to claim that
the available options lack this analysis and are *imposed* on
consumers.

The approach I have supported, in contrast, allows consumers
an important role. That is, when advertisers do not want certain
coverage *and* consumers do not care, that coverage is not provided.
When advertisers do not want coverage and consumers *do* want
coverage, the outcome is less certain. (Consider the Food Lion
investigative journalism.) Intuitively, we expect that news
media will trade-off increased reach (viewership or readership),
with the implied higher advertising revenues, against the lower
advertising revenues implied by irritating or possibly permanently
alienating an affected advertiser.

Now because of the nature of the mass media, it is relatively
hard to provide persuasive evidence for either view.
That is why I turned to periodicals for evidence of lack of
interest, in an attempt to dispute the "unmet demand" approach.
But I have allowed that, while I find this evidence extremely
persuasive, the question deserves formal study.
One other nice thing about looking at periodical subscriptions
is that it is very clear that to point to *current* lack of
supply is to completely beg the question of why consumers do
not have more exposure to alternative analysis. The profusion
of niche publications makes it clear that in this area supply
at least has the potential to be very responsive to demand,
and that even obscure interests often generate a quick market response.

My primary interest has been to attack the idea that
pointing to current practices, such as the current role
of advertisers, provides a *fundamental* explanation of the
pattern of coverage that we see. This does not deny that it
is part of the story; it simply insists that it is only
*part* of the story. Further, outside the mass media, I have
argued that it is not the most important part of the story.
This raises the question of whether it is the most important
part of the story for the mass media. Clearly my view is that
it is *not*. That is, I believe that a political shift in,
say, the interests of the median viewer would quickly lead
to a shift in coverage as networks vied to grab and retain
viewers. But the evidence I have adduced is only suggestive of
this and not conclusive. However, I am satisfied to raise the
question and to show that the usual arguments against this
perspective are largely question begging.

Finally, a point that I have continually acknowledged but
have not tried to explore in any depth, consumer interests
are of course endogenous. That is, any deep analysis will
have to consider how consumer interests are shaped by the
media as well as how they are reflected by the media.
This is a key part of understanding how the pattern
of news coverage we observe in the mass media emerges as
a social equilibrium. But the scope of my argument has
been much more restricted.

I hope this is clearer, since I have clearly managed to
confuse several people about my views in this area.
However, I believe that if you look through my posts,
this point has been consistently argued.

--Alan G. Isaac


William S. Lear wrote:
>
> On Mon, March 3, 1997 at 10:41:49 (EST) Alan G. Isaac writes:
> >[...]
> >Although I have been dragged through many side issues,
> >my central point has always been simple: the pattern
> >of news coverage and analysis that we observe cannot
> >be *explained*, in any fundamental sense, by pointing
> >to the *current* role of advertiser interests.
>
> Let me get this completely clear, you are saying that "the pattern of
> news coverage and analysis" is independent of "advertiser interests"?
>
> Bill