Critics lamenting the vast changes in American news media
continue to mutter throughout the land, and my voice has been among them for
some time. The main concern is the disappearance of investigative reporters as
newspapers continue to decline and die.
We oldsters reason that without ethical media watchdogs to create
awareness of government, corporate, or ideological excesses democracy cannot
flourish, or perhaps even exist. But recent events bring hope. Perhaps the old
dogs simply are being replaced by a whole new breed that may prove capable of
doing a better job of guarding the public interest.
Recent events in Indiana
show that internet media can expose unsavory political actions and force change.
And they can do it with remarkable speed and effectiveness.
On March 26, Governor Mike Pence expressed pleasure as he
signed into law a "religious freedom" bill that supposedly had the
benign purpose of defining rights
generally protected by the U.S. Constitution. The measure had overwhelming
support in the legislature. Laws in one-party states, such as Indiana , enacted by wide margins and
enthusiastically supported by the governor usually are impossible to overturn
or modify without major electoral upheaval or campaigns that can take years to
develop.
 |
| Justice was served remarkably quickly. |
Yet the Indiana
law bit the dust in a matter of weeks. The opposition said the law clearly would
allow discrimination against a minority, in this case LGBT people, and that was
intolerable. A huge storm of protest erupted within days. Statements by
individuals on blogs and in social media led the way. Facebook and Yelp
participants played major roles in the outcry. Businesses and organizations
took action to penalize Indiana
economically by canceling meetings, postponing investments, or threatening to
pull operations out of the state.
Gov. Pence quickly went on television to explain that the
law really did not promote discrimination. He failed miserably to make the
case. As criticism and punitive actions mounted, he surrendered and backed a
change in the law to make it clear it will not permit discrimination because of
sexual orientation.
The fallout from the protests was dramatic. Pence's approval
rating within Indiana
plummeted. He went almost instantly from consideration as a presidential
candidate to a man fighting for his political life.
I doubt any such change would have happened in the past when
newspapers, radio stations, two press associations, and three television
networks constituted our media.The Indiana
law signing might have rated a couple of paragraphs in the Indianapolis Star. The Associated Press might have condensed that
to a few sentences if its editors decided to circulate the news at all. Chances
of the item drawing any national media attention would have been extremely low.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which keeps an eagle eye
out for injustices, perhaps would have launched a protest. And probably few people
would have paid any attention to it. It is doubtful the law would have become any
sort of factor in Indiana
or national politics.
Our traditional media developed over many years. Internet
media still are the new kids on the block. The newcomers just proved they can
work magic in righting a wrong that the institutions being replaced could not
match.
Many questions of responsibility and ethics surround the
internet as a news purveyor. But there always were similar issues with
traditional media. Perhaps we critics of media change should relax a bit and
just watch the new kids grow up and see if they mature into solid citizens.
