Media yesterday and today

 The media quickly forgot about the mission to society. They started to function as ordinary businesses. In addition to the overwhelming tendency of the authorities to control them - especially public television - we observe today the dictate of the "salon", which promotes the only right truth at the expense of distortions and distorting the image of reality. This results in the formation of a coupled system of politics, business, and media, which was clearly demonstrated by the Rywin scandal.

Some media not only cooperate with political power (which would be reprehensible), but even manage it. Adam Michnik managed to do what Murdoch was just dreaming about: the editor-in-chief of Gazeta Wyborcza became the embodiment of the actual power in the country. To use the American formula, it can be said that it "steers from the back seat".

Similar phenomena are observed all over the world. Therefore, the degree of approval for journalists' activities ranges between 17-18% in the United States, as well as in England and France. At Harvard's research facility, The Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, I heard top ABC and CBS presenters Ted Koppel and Dan Rather emphasize that we are now dealing with a mixture of news and entertainment in jargon called infotainment or showbizzification. The latter complained that the media are now managed by people who have no idea about their deontology and have nothing to do with us. R. W. Apple Jr., head of the Washington Times office of the New York Times, summed up the situation more emphatically: when we look at what we have made of this beautiful profession, we should lower our heads in a feeling of immense shame.

The media struggle with many problems. I can only mention a few that seem most important to me:

The impact of globalization. More and more often we are dealing with the uniformization of the style and content of the media. The unification of the media message is the result of the growing concentration of the mass media, often in the hands of financial giants who do not have much in common with them. In "Le Monde diplomatique", the magazine's director, Ignacio Ramonet, showed how industry giants from the energy, defense, and electronics industries took the media by storm. One group was once America Online, Netscape, "Time", Warner Bros., and CNN. The king of software, Bill Gates, also reigns in press photography through Corbis. Rupert Murdoch is the owner of numerous British and American newspapers, such as "The Times", "The Sun", "The New York Post" and "The Wall Street Journal", as well as the BSkyB satellite platform and the 20th Century Fox film company. It is no better in Europe since Bertelsmann, Berlusconi, and Ringier control a huge part of the media market. In France, to make matters worse, the two largest media groups, Dassault and Lagardere, are linked to the arms industry.

Ramonet rightly points out: all these concentrations pose a threat to the pluralism of the press and to democracy. Moreover, they emphasize profit rather than quality. And he adds: one of the valuable rights of the human person is the right to freely communicate his thoughts and opinions. In democratic societies, freedom is not only guaranteed, it goes hand in hand with another fundamental right, the right to be honestly informed. But this law is threatened by the concentration of the media and the absorption of once-independent writings by hegemonic groups. It also asks a fundamental question: should citizens accept this appropriation of press freedom? Can they accept the fact that information is becoming an ordinary commodity?

There are also people in the US who are sensitive to these threats. Economist and columnist Paul Krugman, long before he won the Nobel Prize, wrote in the New York Times in a humorous, though indeed sad and disturbing, manner that the vast majority of the American audience draws their information from a single source: AOLTimeWarnerGeneralElectricDisneyWestinghouseNewsCorp. And he added: the handful of entities that deliver news to the vast majority of people have vested commercial interests that inevitably lead them to manipulate information and support the ruling party. Krugman's conclusion gives food for thought: so far, the blatant falsification of reality by the media is still limited thanks to the old regulations and norms of behavior. But soon the regulations will be abolished and the standards will disappear before our eyes. Do conflicts of interest related to our highly concentrated media pose a threat to democracy? I have presented the facts; you will decide.

Liberalism, the primacy of profit and the pursuit of sensation. Another serious problem, closely related to the previous one, is the desire to maximize profit at all costs. I remember the words of the director of a great French daily, who tried to convince me that the newspaper was for him a "product for sale". And he added: today I am selling such a product, maybe tomorrow I will sell soap; it makes no difference (I will add that it ceased to operate in the media industry a few years ago). He was very surprised when I told him that this was not my concept of journalism.

Patrick Le Lay spoke most frankly about this instrumental concept of the media, who in 2004 - as president of the French TV TF1 - wrote in his book "Les Dirigeants français et le Changement": Let's be realists: basically the TF1 robot is helping, for example, Coca Cola is selling its product ... In order for the advertising message to be hit, the viewer's brain must be available. The mission of our programs is to make this happen… What we sell Coca-Cola is a time when human brains are at its disposal.

The pursuit of profit maximization leads to lowering the quality of the media and their "tabloidization", which is a sign of contempt for the audience.

Lack of professionalism and laziness of journalists. A real journalist must constantly work on himself and train himself, e.g. by spending long hours in the documentation department or in the library. Now, in order to write sensational or shallow articles, a journalist - if at all we decide that it still deserves the name - doesn't have to make an effort. For example, in order to attack a selected politician, it is enough to sit down to the computer and write whatever you want.

I think the natural human tendency to be lazy is one of the reasons for lowering the level of journalism. I observe quite often how young journalists (and not all of them!) Do not show the willingness to broaden their knowledge or painstakingly check the sources. A sensational article does not require any effort, it "sells" itself. In contrast, journalism that deals with important social issues requires a lot more work and talent if we want it to be attractive.

There is a close relationship between moral journalism and professional journalism. It can even be said that moral journalism is professional and professional journalism is moral. Lack of professionalism manifests itself in escaping from the fundamental topics on which the future of a given society depends, as well as adopting popular opinions without attempting an in-depth analysis. The journalist gives up the field by forfeit. He forgets his service. We see this both in the way we approach some topics and in avoiding others.

This is more than bad journalism. Lack of professionalism is detrimental not only to the media but also to democracy. Poor media does not allow people to be real citizens, which is dangerous. The fair treatment of society by the media and politicians is not only moral but also prudent from their own point of view.

Superficiality and trivialization. The already discussed trends lead to the fact that the media increasingly shy away from topics that are really important for society, which is especially visible in the case of television. All over the world, the newscasts are filled with secondary news and generally quite gloomy: a murder here, a scandal over there… It's all depressing, but it doesn't reflect the realities of the world in any way. They may not be too pink, but still, a lot of decent people work in them for the common good.

As early as 1996, in his excellent book "Sur la télévision" (On Television), the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu noted that secondary news (faits divers) increasingly took hold of television, taking up time that could be used to say something else. The author implies that there is a method in this madness and that we are dealing with a policy of deliberately stupefying society. If such precious minutes are used to talk about secondary things, it is because they are treated as very important - because they hide what is really important. Bourdieu concludes: by emphasizing secondary messages, filling precious time with nothing or almost nothing, we reject essential information that a citizen should have in order to be able to exercise his democratic rights. In America, the recently deceased, brilliant journalist David Halberstam spoke in a similar vein, speaking of "trivialization of our agenda".

Technical progress and the quality of journalism. We live in a time of fantastic advances in the field of communication. It is hard for me to believe that even 20 years ago I had to order telephone calls at the head office, wait tremblingly if I would get a call before closing the number in Paris, and at the end painstakingly dictate an article to a stenographer who wrote down Polish names with the greatest difficulty.

At the Harvard Symposium, Ted Koppel expressed the controversial view that advances in technology had not only benefited his profession. The fact that he can comment live on what is happening anywhere in the world is - as he said - a technological tour de force, but it reduces the quality of his work. He can broadcast direct reports from every point of the globe, but he does not have time to refer to the documentation, think and correct.

Likewise, the "personal" diary that everyone can get on their computer every day, or the possibility to choose "own" TV programs, paradoxically reduce the diversity of information. Man chooses only what interests him and gets only messages from selected areas. So maybe, if he wants to watch football or fishing programs 24 hours a day - there is no question of opening his mind.

When I look at all of this, I feel a great longing for what the media was not so long ago. I was lucky to start a job in journalism at Le Monde under the guidance of a great media man, Hubert Beuve-Méra, the founder of the newspaper (today's Le Monde has little in common with that magazine). He had a clear vision of the media's mission. According to him, it was impossible to start a journalistic career without a sense of a special calling.

One day - I was in the editorial office for only a few weeks - he called me over, which he never did. He wanted to teach me a lesson. I was fresh out of college at the time, working for the largest French newspaper, and felt great. I have just prepared an article about Poland. I wrote in it that it seems to me that our Polish friends are making such and such a mistake, that in my opinion, they should do this and that I think they do not notice this and that ... When I entered the editorial office, Beuve-Méry waved from a distance to me with a piece of paper, asking: what is it, sir? I approached, a bit nervous, and had to admit it was my article. Then I heard: Exactly! What a language! "I believe", "I think", "I think", "I think" ... You must understand that our readers are not interested in what Mr. Margueritte thinks. This is not journalism. (He added, however, that may be in thirty years, if I gained the trust of my audience, I would be asked by someone for my own opinions.)

- Do you want to know what journalism is all about? Beuve-Méry continued. It is very simple. Something happened, the Lord describes it using the Five Ws that Americans talk about [who, what, when, where, why - who, what, when, where, why] - but this is not enough. It is also necessary to say where it came from, what are the economic, sociological, or historical sources of this event, and then to inform about what Mr. X or Y, party A or B are proposing to solve the problem. And then, sir, the reader will have everything necessary (and not just everything he wants to have) to understand what is happening around him: in his city, country, in the world. Then he will be able to form his own view. And then, sir, he will be a citizen. And then, sir, we will live in a democracy. That was, for this great man, the fundamental mission of the media.

However, he immediately added the second: the journalist is a "mediator". He is extremely lucky to get acquainted - especially when he is a foreign correspondent - with the lifestyle, problems, religion or dreams of "other people". His task is to try not to judge them, but to understand, and then convey this truth to his readers, listeners, and viewers. Then the recipients will have a unique chance to understand and respect, and maybe finally and love, an "other person" from a near or distant country. - In this way - emphasized Beuve-Méry - we - and only we, media people - have the opportunity to help build a world of understanding and peace. Indeed, if we have a world of hate, terrorism, war, and rape today, it is largely because we media people have forgotten our responsibilities.

At this point, it is worth referring to the teachings of John Paul II. In A Letter to Families (Gratissimam sane, 1994), he wrote that it can be said without exaggeration that the mass media, even if they try to inform correctly if they are not guided by sound ethical principles, do not serve truth in its essential dimension. Here is the drama: modern means of social communication are tempted to manipulate the message, falsifying the truth about man. Indeed, the role of the media was to be completely different. As John Paul II said in June 1991 in Olsztyn, the media should defend freedom, but also respect the dignity of the person, and support authentic culture.

Nevertheless, I believe that there are very serious reasons for optimism. There is a growing awareness among journalists themselves that they cannot continue their current behavior, that they have obligations towards society, that a lot depends on them, and above all - that each and every one of them has only one life and it is worth making it as dignified as possible.

However, a lot depends on the recipients of the media. Ultimately, they decide their image. Nobody is forced to watch a silly TV show or buy a tabloid newspaper. The future shape of the mass media depends on the choice of each reader, viewer, and listener. The first signs of positive trends are already there. In the USA, an extensive survey of audience opinions and preferences was carried out at 43 TV stations. The pollsters asked, inter alia, about what messages people want to receive: shorter or longer, problematic or unambiguous, local or international. The result was surprising: over 70% of respondents want to be taken seriously and comprehensively informed at a high level. The stations which changed their programming profile under the influence of the survey recorded an increase in viewership. It turned out once again that our audience is not as bad as it is often said and that it is not true that poor media quality is determined by the tastes of the audience. The results of the research initiated by The Committee of Concerned Journalists have been published under the meaningful title: "Quality sells".

Some argue that the fault lies with the owners of the media, who are only interested in profit. It turns out that this is not certain either. The media organization of which I am president, The International Communications Forum, organized a conference in London a few years ago with the Financial Times, attended by members of the House of Lords, journalists, and media owners. At the end of the day, the latter also admitted that everything should be done to improve the quality and easement of the media. They realized that media losing their credibility were in fact a threat to democracy. The man who no longer believes in the media loses interest in public affairs, does not even go to vote, contributing to the fact that democracy becomes an illusory facade. As one owner concluded: we cannot accept this not only for ethical reasons but also because it is in our long-term interest that democracy be resilient. Because when there is no democracy, there is also no need for media. If we want to be on the market in twenty years, we must take care of our good name!

I am convinced that there are also new factors that are forcing a return to the authenticity of the media. One of them is technological progress. People are no longer looking for messages. They are even "bombarded" with them; they get it all the time, from thousands of TV stations, from the Internet. They are lost, they don't know who to trust - which message is credible and which is not, what exactly this or that event means. They are not looking for news, but for their sense, deeper meaning. They need a credible person to help them understand what is going on, to present the news in their context, extracting their true meaning, providing various sources and interpretations - so that the reader, viewer, or listener can form their own view and become a full CITIZEN again. . In such a situation, it is not tabloids that can save and prosper, but valuable and honest magazines that treat the recipient with respect and serve him.

Last but not least, there is an even more fundamental reason to be optimistic about the future. Paradoxically, hope should be sought in the deep crisis of the present world, which is by no means a financial or even economic crisis, but even a civilization crisis. We no longer have a vision of the future. We don't know where to go. What do we need to overcome this impasse? First of all - conscious citizens, ready not only to demand that their rights be respected and to be fully involved in social life but also able to propose wise solutions. The problem is that we will not have such citizens if the media is not honest if it does not serve the audience and at the same time opens their minds. The circle is closed. Without ethical media, there are no citizens and no way out of the crisis.

But there is another necessary condition to overcome it: we must build a world of mutual understanding and respect. We can only solve current problems together. Globalization, not a problem, must become a solution. To this end, it must stop being globalization of business and money, and become the globalization of consciences, solidarity, and actions of conscious citizens. Again: how can this be achieved without genuine media? A Jew does not know a Muslim, and conversely, the French and Americans know nothing about each other except stereotypes. Who can really inform about another person, if not the media? In Beuve-Méra's time, we sent a journalist not only to places where there was a conflict, where blood was spilled on the streets but also to countries where apparently nothing was happening. He returned and wrote a series of articles thanks to which the reader "discovered" another person. It is imperative that the media return to this beautiful mission.

The need for ethical mass media is not a pipe dream of unlife idealists. Without them, we will have neither genuine citizens nor a world of peace. We will not be able to get out of the civilization deadlock together. Isn't it worth fighting for such media?