Do the media revolution

As another bitter and hysterical U.S. election draws to a close, it's important for mainstream media consumers to take a step back and recognize the incredible shift that has taken place in American journalism during this election. If you've been reading newspapers and watching the endless TV coverage over the past several weeks, you've probably noticed that journalists aren't exactly hiding their view that Barack Obama will win.

Most media outlets have shuffled their coverage from "Obama is winning" to "what will Obama do when he wins?" to "how will Obama be successful in doing what he does when he wins?" These outlets aren't necessarily advocating or celebrating an Obama victory; instead, they are simply predicting the outcome by interpreting polls and capitalizing on the sense that Obama has unstoppable momentum.

After weeks of this, Americans are starting to wonder aloud: Has the mainstream media gone insane? It follows that among the flurry of Obama-will-win stories are an increasing number of opinion columns questioning the media's news judgment, and trying to figure out just what the hell is going on with American journalism.

Industry veteran Michael Malone, in a column last week, equates the trend to a wholesale media sellout -- a blasphemous slap in the face to all that is good and holy about professional journalistic standards. Malone attributes the slanted coverage to burned-out newspaper reporters and editors realizing that the Titanic newspaper industry has officially hit the iceberg, and the violins are playing a very sad song.

Politico, meanwhile, says the McCain campaign is at fault. The Web-based media outlet contends that its coverage is simply reflecting the tone and progress of the election campaign, and it would be disingenuous to manufacture "artificial balance." The coverage, according to Politico, is slanted negatively toward McCain simply because McCain isn't doing well in the election.

Well, journalism professors and media purists, light your torches and prepare the cross, because I offer an alternative perspective: The natural de-evolution of the mainstream media to their original roots and a widespread revolt against sensationalism. But before I explain this outrageous theory, it's important to note some media history.

Before the 20th century, American newspapers weren't much different from today's fledgling Internet news machine. Much like blogs and political Web sites now exist for every social issue or political ideology, so it was for newspapers from the dawn of the United States through the late 1800s. Today, if you disagree with a political blog, it's as simple as moving on to the next one, or better yet starting your own. It was the same during the glory days of American journalism: Newspapers were so numerous -- and it was so easy to start your own -- that readers could find a new viewpoint by picking up the next newspaper or even establishing a new one.

Keep in mind that although newspapers in this period were primarily driven by ideology, they weren't necessarily prone to sensationalism or outright fabrication. The idea, according to journalism scholar Robert McChesney, was to "persuade as well as to inform" -- not lie to generate sales or sway the public. The media environment was viewpoint-driven and highly partisan, but it was so saturated that it allowed for incredibly effective information gathering.

That is, until market-driven commercialism saw an opportunity for profit.

In the late 1880s, during the roots of the Gilded Age, society's wealthiest individuals started to distort what was a vibrant system of informing the public. Suddenly, journalism turned into a highly profitable enterprise, and newspapers transitioned from "persuade and inform" to "sensationalism equals sales." Vast corruption, driven by the desire for profits, transformed newspapers into agents for propaganda and outrageous tales of sex, crime and "yellow" journalism. With the concentration of media power and the money flowing into the industry, it was no longer possible for people outside the elite to launch their own media outlets and compete. Commercial interests began consolidating newspapers and collecting vast profits from sensationalistic stories. Journalism, in its early greatness, was dead.

A few decades later, as the 1800s dwindled and the 1900s roared to life, American journalism was reborn. After years and years of hysteria and greed, people started to realize that newspapers were the lowest form of discourse. Conservatives lamented the use of immoral content -- sex and crime -- to generate sales, while progressives decried the corrupting influence of capitalism in the media. Fearing a revolt, newspaper publishers created what McChesney calls "Professional Journalism" -- the idea that to be legitimate, journalists must obtain an education at an established school and learn basic tenants of objectivity and fairness. The goal was twofold: convince the public that media conglomeration was a good idea as long as certain standards were followed, and keep making money by the truckload through monopolization. After all, the publishers concluded, why would America need a variety of media options when the few that exist adhere to a strict code of neutrality?

Unfortunately, this "professional" model, while pure at its face, had serious flaws. The most dire shortfall was that objectivity simply doesn't exist: All news decisions are an expression of some form of bias. With the rise of "Professional Journalism," not only did people have fewer news outlets, but these outlets claimed the impossible dream. What was sold as a breakthrough in promoting democracy was actually an ingenious cover-up of what was essentially the corporate takeover of the U.S. media.

Another problem with "Professional Journalism" that McChensney notes -- and one we're seeing daily during this election -- is the notion that journalists "who raise issues no official source is talking about are accused of unprofessional conduct and of attempting to introduce bias into the news." That is, under the tenants of neutrality, journalists are being unethical if they provide any form of their own news analysis to "objective" stories. Sound familiar?

The big question, then: What has changed so fundamentally about this media model that has led newspapers to abandon professional standards, especially during this election? Three words: Internet media revolution. What is happening today is what the industrialists squashed after the Gilded Age: a sweeping revolt of media consumers. People have grown so weary of sensationalism in the "objective" mainstream news -- Britney Spears, terrorism, celebrity crime -- that they are turning to the Internet and the escape from conformity it provides. Except this time, a sweeping reform of journalism won't save newspapers, because corporations will never own the Internet. The damage has been done.

With the infinite market of viewpoints available on the Internet, it's of little surprise that Professional Journalism in the mainstream media is starting to falter, with more focus put into news analysis over strict objectivity. Internet bloggers and political Web sites may approach issues with a general sense of neutrality, but they certainly won't maintain this impossible, suffocating ideal when it comes to interpreting the news. And to compete with this increasingly popular Internet model, the mainstream media are adapting with standards reminiscent of American journalism's birth.

We're not facing a format revolution, from print and broadcast to the Web. We're facing a revolution of information gathering. We're facing a massive shift in media expectations. We're facing the death of objectivity. Finally.

The coverage of this election signals the final death twitch of the dying newspaper industry; a last, desperate attempt to be relevant. Despite their rules of objectivity, newspapers are slowly being forced by the Web to give readers what they actually want: an acknowledgment of their beliefs and assumptions about the world.

Sadly, newspapers can't possible win this battle. Readers are so conditioned to expect an impossible standard of objectivity that they will continue to abandon print if newspapers keep blurring the lines. Yet, if newspapers stay dedicated to objectivity, readers won't get the variety they can easily obtain on the Internet. News objectivity simply can't compete in a nation of people who are inherently incapable of viewpoint neutrality.

That's either a tragedy, or the most beautiful thing I've ever realized.