By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project
#SamFrescoe
Introduction
On 12 Dec 2016, I posted a blog entry introducing the News
Media War Theory. My intention was to briefly examine the media news
industry in America through a “purpose of war” lens in order to better
understand industry behavior. To that end, I leveraged the wisdom of Sun Tzu. Soon
after uploading the article, a Facebook reader, Kim Doxey, posted an unexpected
comment. (Thank you, Mr. Doxey.)
“After their resounding defeat in
the 1968 TET Offensive, the generals in Hanoi realized that the battle field
for the fight over South Viet Nam was not on the Mekong Delta, the Ho Chi Min
trail or the Plain of Jars, it was on the 6 o'clock news in America.”
I find this comment interesting for two reasons: 1) the reference
to contemporary war; 2) the observation about the influence of the “6 o'clock
news in America.” The Viet Nam War was a contemporary conflict; and, given the
context of the “news” comment, the news media has a coercive capability. – How
could a news media war theory be derived leveraging a relatively contemporary
war theorist to better understand the coercive behavior of the industry?
So What?
In order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of Government powers[1],
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.[2]
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.[2]
Why should The People care about news media behavior at
all? – Answer: If freedom of the American discourse is under attack, then a
fundamental ideal of the American Way of Life is under attack. In this case, because
freedom implies power (the liberty to choose), and human nature seeks to secure
power to one’s self (to choose a pursuit of property and resources), then it
seems likely that the struggle for a “dominant discourse position” (to influence
choices) is timeless.
“The last right we shall mention
regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the
advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion
of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready
communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of
union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into
more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.” – First Continental
Congress in 1774
Why should The People better understand the behavior of
the news media? – Answer: Given the influential power of the news media on
the American discourse, harnessing of that power remains the focus of those
that wish to localize messaging in America. Because it’s human nature to make
choices (liberty), the struggle over this “influential power” will continue
well into the future.
“The liberty of the press is not
stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure.” – Antifederalist #15
“And finally we shall henceforth
and forever leave all power, authority and dominion over our persons and
properties in the hands of the well born, who were designed by Providence to
govern. And in regard to the liberty of the press, we renounce all claim to it
forever more, Amen; and we shall in future be perfectly contented if our
tongues be left us to lick the feet of our well born masters.” – Humble,
Antifederalist #27
“I might proceed to instance a
number of other rights, which were as necessary to be reserved, such as, that
elections should be free, that the liberty of the press should be held sacred.”
– Antifederalist #84
My Intent
Given the rise of aggressive media, coupled with the
increase in dogmatic ideologies, I believe understanding the behavior of the
Press is critically important. In other words, because information (true/false,
subjective/objective, opinion/fact) is readily available, the duty of The People
to possess a framework for critical thinking is vitally important; otherwise,
the few will have a mechanism to unjustly manipulate the many.
It is my intention to briefly examine the media news
industry in America through a contemporary, coercive, “purpose of war” lens in
order to better understand industry behavior. Given the nature of this blog, I
will not attempt to fully unpack this subject. However, I will attempt to gouge
the surface a bit.
Getting Started
In my view, it seems clear that the American news media
industry believes in providing tailored information to the modern discourse,
and the useful life of that information is believed to be finite. To that end,
the news media industry actively seeks to provide new content to that
discourse. It happens that the news media industry is a conglomeration of
businesses.
Composition
of a News Media War – In my view, this type of war is comprised of
actors that are willing to employ violence, hostility, or unrest across a
spectrum of ideas to achieve a more favorable arrangement of resources within
the marketplace of ideas.
Framing
There is no shortage of contemporary war theorists. However,
there is one theorist that remains as highly influential today as in his time: Carl von Clausewitz
(a Prussian general and military theorist). What draws me to Clausewitz are the
facts that he remains required reading for modern American military leaders,
and he focused on the “meaning” of war in political (coercive) terms.
According to Clausewitz, the purpose of war is to make an
opponent comply with the will of the nation or state in order to achieve an end-state
different, and hopefully better, than the beginning-state. Granted, given the
volume of study aimed at understanding his writings, this is a simplified
statement to be sure. However, for the purposes of this discussion, this generalization
offers some useful insight.
Actors – War requires opposing
parties willing to employ some form of violence, hostility, or unrest. In his
view, those parties are a people (a society) or territorial government (regional
ruler) and its adversary (challenger or rival). Or, simply stated, an aggressor
and a defender.
Intent – The driving principle of
war is compliance of an opponent to accept a set of conditions. Simply stated,
achieve coercion by use of force. In other words, war is a forceful act of an
aggressor aimed at compelling a change of behavior relative to the defender.
Because the aim is to compel, the act is intentional.
Risk – Clausewitz seems to issue a
warning when he suggests the following: in order to achieve an end-state
different, and hopefully better, than the beginning-state. In my view, this
recognizes that war is an uncertain and dynamic endeavor. General Mattis summed up this
reality by observing, “The enemy gets a vote.”
Interestingly, Clausewitz commits a great deal of effort to
discuss wartime objectives and their subordinate arrangement. He advocates that
war objectives can be characterized as political or military; and, the military
ends must be aligned to achieve political ends.
Political Objectives – A political
objective is intended to render an opponent politically harmless (to limit
their aims). In other words, the aim is to reduce or portray an adversary as to
make them less meaningful in a doctrinal, ethical, or societal manner.
Military Objectives – A military
objective is intended to render an opponent militarily impotent (disarm the
opposition). In other words, the aim is to cause an adversary to be incapable
or ineffective within a battlespace.
In summary, relative to the news media, Clausewitz’s theory
about war could be restated as follows: the purpose of war is for an aggressor
to intentionally employ a forceful set of acts aimed at compelling a favorable
behavior change in the defender in terms of doctrine, ethics, or society; or in
reducing the capability or effectiveness of the defender in terms of competing
business interest. Because war is an uncertain and dynamic endeavor, the
defender is expected to counter-act the aggressor.
Leveraging the News Media War Theory
Option-1: Commercial Attacks
In my view, given the news media
industry context, a “military objective” is commonly observed as a commercial
attack. – Because the news media industry is conglomeration of competing
businesses, a commercial attack is one in which the “scarcity calculus” of a targeted
business is affected.
Scarcity is the ever-present
situation, a universal phenomenon, in all markets whereby either less goods are
available than the demand for them, or only too little money is available to
their potential buyers for making the purchase.[3]
Obviously, I believe the nature of
this type of attack is couched by the assumption of scarcity. It is understood
that the consuming public is willing to exchange a finite amount of resources (money
and time) for a media product, and the demand for media products is greater
than the ability to provide those products. Therefore, there are strong
incentives to compete in terms of products (commodities) and the means of their
delivery (media platforms). It’s on this premise that the news media war theory
can be useful to better understand or explain marketplace behavior.
The primary aim of a news media
outlet is to remain present in their marketplace(s). In other words, to stay in
business. To that end, outlets expend resources to garner loyal consumption of
their particular products as presented on respective their platforms. On the other
hand, because marketplaces are competitive, outlets also actively seek ways to
curtail or eliminate competition. In other words, aggressive media outlets will
actively attempt to seek to expand their presence, or seek to reduce the presence
of others, in their markets according to their aims. So, how might an observer
go about assessing this type of activity?
- Step-1:
Is an aggressor seeking to change the composition of a marketplace? If yes,
then identify the aggressor(s) and defender(s), the media platform(s) affected,
and each means of change.
- Step-2:
For each platform, does the change increase or decrease the number of
competitors and/or the number of consumable products? If yes, then estimate the
change.
- Step-3:
For each means, how does the change affect the composition of market-level
decision-makers in terms of quantity, financial power, and social-political
(cultural) influence?
- Step-4:
In your view, does the sum of your assessment align well with the Constitution
of the United States, American principles (life, liberty, property, pursuit),
and a free-market economy?
Option-2: Credibility Attacks
In my view, given the news media
industry context, a “political objective” is commonly observed as a credibility
attack. – Because the news media industry directly influences the American
discourse and marketplace of ideas, a credibility attack is one in which the
“credibility calculus” of individuals observing the discourse or those
participating within the marketplace.
In my view, actors within the news
media industry value credibility is if it were a critical asset. Given the
number of media platforms, quantity of media outlets and actors on each
platform, and their unprecedented availability to consumers, the incentives to
be viewed as the most trustworthy, reliable, sincere, and believable choice are
stronger than ever before. In fact, I’d be willing to double-down and suggest
that it’s likely that credibility is on par with, and may surpass, the consumer
value of media products themselves. As a way of presenting evidence, I invite
you to examine the business and production, or diligence and conscientiousness,
of your preferred media outlets against others within the industry at large.
Regardless of where your selections fall on your ideological spectrum, they all
want you to belief they are good, worthy, honorable and respectable information
providers, and that they are here to stay for your benefit.
The effects of the credibility
attacks among news media actors is most commonly observed across the
marketplace of ideas. Because of the marketplace, the bread and depth of this
type of attack can influence freedom of expression, the competitive
free-market, and the primacy of truth, individually or in any combination. So,
how might an observer go about assessing the effects of this type of attack?
- Step-1:
Identify the category of the attack as doctrine, ethics, or society. It is possible
for a single attack to touch multiple categories.
o
Doctrine – A policy, guideline, rule, or “ism” governing
thought
o
Ethics – A moral, belief, point of view, or
principle governing culture
o
Society – A petition, request, or appeal to individuals
or collectives
- Step-2:
For each category state the aggressor(s) and defender(s); what each respective
party is seeking to indorse, encourage, uphold, advocate, or propagandize; their
respective justifications, motivations, or reasoning; and the media platform(s)
affected.
- Step-3:
For each aggressor/defender combination, estimate how the aggressor intends to
reduce or portray the defender.
- Step-4:
In your view, determine if the sum of your assessment is well aligned with the
Constitution of the United States, American principles (life, liberty,
property, pursuit), and a free-market economy.
It is understood and accepted that a single theory cannot
fully explain the full range of dynamics present within the news media.
However, this theory is offered as a starting framework for better
understanding the behavior of the news media in America.
Going Forward
This cannot be overstated. – With the rise of aggressive media
and dogmatic ideologies, understanding behavior of the Press, and those that
seek to leverage its influence, is critically important. In my view, it is the
duty of each American citizen to possess a critical thinking framework capable
of pushing back “the news media fog” in order to see clearly.
Final Thoughts
“The last right we shall mention
regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement
of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal
sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of
thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them,
whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and
just modes of conducting affairs.” – First Continental Congress in 1774
To the members of the news media, the Press, you are
entrusted with what is good, true, and beautiful. To that end, you were set
apart and given special protections.
Do your job…properly.
Do your job…properly.
In order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of Government powers[4],
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.[5]
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.[5]
To the citizenry, my fellow Americans, we, The People, are
responsible for the preservation of our Rights. This responsibility cannot be
delegated. The People (the common
masses, not the appointed few) are ideally suited for this critical task.
-
We, The People, fight for our Rights, the
appointed few do not.
-
We, The People, suffer for our Rights, the
appointed few do not.
-
We, The People, die for our Rights, the
appointed few do not.
-
We, The People, own our Rights, the appointed few
do not.
If we, The People, don’t stand our ground against all
enemies of our Rights, foreign and domestic, then the appointed few will destroy
them to the sound of their own applause.
Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you
to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam
Frescoe Project on Facebook.
© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com
– All Rights Reserved
[1]
Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, Preamble
[2]
Constitution of the United States, First Amendment
[3] http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/scarcity.html
[4]
Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, Preamble
[5]
Constitution of the United States, First Amendment
No comments:
Post a Comment