MEDIA RANTS
By Tony Palmeri
Media Criticism
Brain Drain
From the July 2016 edition of the SCENE
The Walker Era in
Wisconsin has witnessed an unprecedented brain drain as UW faculty and staff
actively seek opportunities to work in states where government leaders value
teaching excellence and the search for truth.
The brain drain
recently hit media studies as Dr. Christopher Terry, a former student of mine
who has been teaching and doing research at UW Milwaukee’s Department of Journalism, Advertising, and Media Studies announced that he had taken a
position as an assistant professor of media ethics and law at the University of
Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Chris is an outstanding
teacher who also does cutting edge research in media law and other areas. He’s
exactly the kind of young teacher/scholar that Wisconsin should be trying to
keep.
I asked Chris to
respond to some questions.
Media Rants: What will you miss most about the UW
Milwaukee Department of Journalism, Advertising, and Media Studies?
Chris Terry: I will miss the relationship I had with my students. I feel that one of my strengths as an instructor is that I can speak to students on their level, and as a result, I can convey the complicated concepts of media law and policy to them in a practical way that makes it useful to them.
Media Rants: Describe your new position at the University
of Minnesota.
Chris Terry: I will be an assistant professor of media ethics and law in the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication.
In addition to teaching media and advertising law, this position
is a research appointment. My appointment at UWM was primarily a teaching
position.
Media Rants: Back in June of 2014, Alec MacGillis
of the New Republic wrote an article called "The Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker." Your quotes in the piece on how Milwaukee area right-wing
radio operates ended up getting you trashed in the wingnut echo chamber. What
has it been like to be the target of the animus of people like Charlie Sykes
and Mark Belling? If you had to do it over again, would you still talk to
MacGillis?
Chris Terry: I would do the article/interview again. Although I was heavily criticized for
the things I said, I certainly think that time has proven my prediction about
Walker correct. Although the talk radio hosts (and others beyond Belling and
Sykes) suggested the article and my comments were an attack focused on them, they missed my larger point. Talk radio in this town has
supported Walker most of his career, and although he is an experienced politician,
he hasn't had to regularly deal with a hostile press. I suggested that because
Walker had done such a great job using the friendly outlets that when the
scrutiny of the national press was focused on him, it would be a difficult
challenge for him. By the way, that's exactly what happened.
The hardest part of the whole experience was having people I worked with for more than a decade pretend they didn't know who I was on the air. It was a bit surreal, and at one point I actually was texting back and forth with one of my old co-workers during commercial breaks in an hour where he was in full outrage mode about the things I was quoted as saying in the piece.
Media Rants: Many people enjoy your Facebook posts that start off
with, "I know journalism is hard work, but . . ." before you launch
into a scathing critique of media sloppiness, under reporting, etc. Why do you
think modern mainstream journalism has so much trouble doing the hard
work?
Chris Terry: I don't believe there's an easy answer to this question. Having been
a member of that media for some time, I can tell you there are always gaps in
the items that will get coverage due to resources or space, but my point in the
"I know journalism is hard work" posts are to point out that
journalism isn't really hard at all. The questions the press should be asking
are very easy to identify, but I think our current class of pundits fears
asking them.
Journalists have a social responsibility to act as a check and balance on our elected officials. The best way to do that is ask tough questions of those officials, and not accept the answers when those answers are obviously spin or worse. Our current media seems to have forgotten this basic principle.
Journalists have a social responsibility to act as a check and balance on our elected officials. The best way to do that is ask tough questions of those officials, and not accept the answers when those answers are obviously spin or worse. Our current media seems to have forgotten this basic principle.
The questions the press should be asking are very easy to identify, but I think our current class of pundits fears asking them.
Media Rants: Donald Trump is openly contemptuous of the
media, and is the first presidential candidate in my memory to suggest he might
push for limits on the First Amendment. What in your judgement would a Trump or
Clinton presidency mean for media and the First Amendment?
Chris Terry: Both of the major party candidates give me substantial pause when it comes to
free speech issues. Trump has been very forthcoming with his opinions that
libel protections are too strong. When he said that a few months ago, my
response was that I wasn't laughing anymore.
Clinton gives me a different concern. Her husband signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which fundamentally restructured our media system by allowing for massive consolidation of broadcast ownership. In doing so, their was a substantial loss in the availability and diversity of viewpoints, and the voices of minorities and women were also heavily reduced. Our society is best when we, as citizens, have access to the widest range of the diversity of viewpoints, and a healthy marketplace of ideas can flourish. I'm concerned that Clinton, like her husband would choose media economics over public service, and in today's day and age, logically that would mean a reduction in viewpoints on the internet.
Clinton gives me a different concern. Her husband signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which fundamentally restructured our media system by allowing for massive consolidation of broadcast ownership. In doing so, their was a substantial loss in the availability and diversity of viewpoints, and the voices of minorities and women were also heavily reduced. Our society is best when we, as citizens, have access to the widest range of the diversity of viewpoints, and a healthy marketplace of ideas can flourish. I'm concerned that Clinton, like her husband would choose media economics over public service, and in today's day and age, logically that would mean a reduction in viewpoints on the internet.
Media Rants: Your main areas
of expertise are media policy and regulation of new media. What's happening on
those fronts that the average media consumer should be aware of?
Chris Terry: There are three. The first is very wonky, but the spectrum auction
that the FCC is executing is going to restructure our media system over the
next 3-5 years.
The second is the decision about two weeks ago in Prometheus Radio Project vFCC. This case, which is the third round in court, could have the potential to
shake the foundations of the broadcast licensing system to its core,
essentially resetting the last 90 or so years of media regulation. The Third
Circuit warned the FCC that there was a short timeline to develop a new policy
to increase ownership of stations by women and minority groups. The FCC has
been dragging its feet for a decade on this policy, and there's little chance
they can wrap up the proceeding and repair 20 years of regulatory negligence in
a few months. The Circuit suggested that if the agency can't meet the deadline
(essentially the end of this year) the panel would consider throwing out all
media ownership rules, relying on Section 202(h) of the Telecommunication's
Act.
But the most important will be the DC's Circuit recently released net neutrality decision. Every Tuesday and Friday, the collective telecom nerds gathered waiting for the decision. The FCC's move to reclassify broadband under Title II was a major move, and the court's upholding of the policy will dictate, probably more than any other single factor, what the internet will be moving forward. Because the rules were upheld, citizen access to the internet content will not be controlled by non-state actors. That's a huge deal. You have no first amendment protection against a private company limiting your speech or your access to speech. This regulation, which is not without its problems, will provide a social democratic approach to regulating the relationship between you and your ISP, and make it hard for them to keep you away from legal content.
But the most important will be the DC's Circuit recently released net neutrality decision. Every Tuesday and Friday, the collective telecom nerds gathered waiting for the decision. The FCC's move to reclassify broadband under Title II was a major move, and the court's upholding of the policy will dictate, probably more than any other single factor, what the internet will be moving forward. Because the rules were upheld, citizen access to the internet content will not be controlled by non-state actors. That's a huge deal. You have no first amendment protection against a private company limiting your speech or your access to speech. This regulation, which is not without its problems, will provide a social democratic approach to regulating the relationship between you and your ISP, and make it hard for them to keep you away from legal content.
Media Rants wishes Chris Terry the best of luck in his new position!
