Brand: Neither Fox or MSNBC are Serving the Public Well
Heated public conflict continues over which major media outlet is objective, which one isn’t and which is therefore more professional and trustworthy. This debate often centers around Fox News, MSNBC and CNN.
Social commentator, comedian and actor Russell Brand wanted to talk about Fox and MSNBC and primarily MSNBC and did so in an pointed, scathing 16-minute video.
His contention: both are failing the public, terribly and MSNBC is no less unethical or less corrupt in its practices than Fox. He questions what is happening with the leadership of these outlets.
“Do you think this is the best we can do for American people?”
“My perspective is that all mainstream media outlets are so beholden to corporate and commercial interests that they will not give you the type of information you need to make valid decisions about the way that systemic power operates.”
And doubts and criticizes a common narrative that one network clearly holds the higher ethical and moral ground.
“If MSNBC is better than Fox, it isn't better enough.”
Some additional excerpts of Brand’s commentary are listed below, before a Communication Intelligence interview with Subramaniam Vincent, director of the Journalism and Media Ethics program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, at Santa Clara University.
Fox News and MSNBC are “mouthpieces for their affiliate owners in BlackRock and Vanguard,” referring to controversial investment firms.
“Do you think you can improve America by determinedly and avowedly condemning Fox News without acknowledging that you’re participating in the same game?”
“This is what I believe is possible for the media: you can have transparency, accountability, authenticity, integrity, an open conversation with your viewers that is not based on piety, pomposity, judgment and condescension. We are together looking for better ways to organize society, create better systems, hold the powerful to account and create systems where they aren't so powerful. Address many of the many legitimate issues in American contemporary life that are causing division and conflict.”
Subramaniam Vincent is the director of the Journalism and Media Ethics program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, at Santa Clara University.
From a macro viewpoint, Brand has a credible point when he claims the public is not being ideally served by the national media. Vincent first comments to the claim that media is a single entity. It is made up of differences in outlets, standards and professional approaches.
“It is relatively easy to make general and sweeping statements on the national media,” he says. “There are scores of journalists and teams doing an admirable job in ethical journalism serving their communities every day.”
Vincent does dive into the complaint that a segment of the media is part of the problems in society, maybe a microcosm of the conflicts, and is not always as objective as it projects.
“Russell Brand does have a point at the level of narratives. The bipolar narratives from Fox News and MNSBC about where Americans are today and going tomorrow are selective, incoherent and exclusionary,” Vincent says. “They conveniently serve business first. Reality is more complicated — and they know it.”
There is uncertainty about what percentage of the public understands what Brand believes and is communicating and Vincent has communicated about the corporatization of big media and how it affects the crafting of the news.
“At the common sense level — everyday comprehension — my guess is that most people have understood that commercial media runs on ratings, to make money,” he says. “People implicitly acknowledge that structural problem on eyeballs (attention and following) versus journalism.”
He provides a mention of research to illustrate.
“Pew reported some interesting findings in 2020, that Americans see their news organizations as opaque on financing, on conflicts of interest, etc. Russell Brand brings up some of this in his criticism of MSNBC.
“So I'd say the public gets some of this, but the Big Media hardly has a segment every day or week with public editors for example talking openly about how business interests in a given week, did or did not impact sourcing, to cite an angle that shows the need for far more transparency.”
There is a courageous, ethical answer to what is transpiring that would prove helpful and be judged as credible.
“If the news media would open itself up more to scrutiny consistently, there would be a far richer discourse on corporatization, news and how public media fits into all this too,” Vincent says, providing a link to his point and what Pew has studied and written about.
There are critics who counter Brand's criticism of MSNBC as being a false equivalence, and presume that in the process he is defending what is judged as a far right-wing outlet — Fox News. Yet Brand clearly communicated, if MSNBC is better, “it's not better enough.”
“There is a narrative now that Fox News and other pro-MAGA media have gone anti-democratic,” Vincent says. “This connects to their propagation of the stolen and rigged election narratives and even Tucker Carlson's recent attempt to undercut the insurrection frame of January 6th. So in that, they see that MSNBC is not anti-democratic and supports liberal culture — and hence abortion and LGBTQ rights and so forth. So it's easy to start from that frame and allege that Brand is indulging in false equivalence.”
In short, Vincent says how a person views what is being said by Brand, “...really depends on the frame of reference.”
Brand, he says, is not defending Fox News.
“His frame of reference is power and more specifically, he's using the term systemic power.
“Those words should be very familiar to the left-leaning public that uses the term systemic racism. Brand's focus is the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations in every area and hence this is all impacting everyday life in America: medical insurance, transportation, television news media and so forth.”
Brand’s dissatisfaction and rhetoric states what has been communicated before.
“His concerns are not new. Media scholars, e.g the late Ben Bagdikian, who wrote the book The Media Monopoly in 2000, and others have articulated these concerns years ahead of him. But he is in a sense, popularizing them for the social media era, through his substantial following,” Vincent says.
“His point is that the mega-corporatization aspect is actually common to both sides of the political aisle and he's calling that American reality out, because he says there are newer stories and exposes to do there to help Americans become better informed.”
Brand was not afraid to question what he sees as the media’s shortcomings and abject failings and how it impacts everyday life.
“Bickering about which propagandists network is the worst is not going to save a single American life, not improve the life of a single American child, not going to improve America standing in the world — and the world needs a strong America, I’ll tell you that.
“Do you think this is the best we can do for the American people?
“We are together looking for better ways to organize society, create better systems, hold the powerful to account and create systems where they aren't so powerful. Address many of the many legitimate issues in American contemporary life that are causing division and conflict.”
Vincent addresses the question of whether Brand is expecting too much from big media when it comes to the blame and calls for responsibility.
“I don't think it is a question of expecting too much or too little,” he states. “The news media — MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc., serve the public. And they have power.
“Business power, agenda-setting journalistic power and the power to hold public officials accountable. But who will hold them accountable?
“All types of power need checks and balances in a democracy. The press has power and in return for protections and privileges under free speech, they should exercise their power responsibly.”
It’s a expectation of high-standards leadership and reasonable industry conduct, he explains.
“They hire professional journalists who are obliged to follow codes of ethics, which include commitments to accuracy,” Vincent says. “Brand is essentially critiquing that MSNBC has its own accuracy issues, errors of omission if you will.
“So this has always been a reasonable ask, given the role the news media play in democratic decision-making and in helping protect a democratic way of life.”
Despite angry criticism about Brand’s claims that MSNBC, like Fox, could operate more ethically and responsibly and thus serve the public at a higher level, Vincent says there is validity to it.
“I would not say Brand or so many others who come at his critique from equally other frames of reference are wrong in expecting too much from the big media,” he says.
There are steps the media could take, arguably should take, to improve its belief system, journalistic and talk show process and its ethics.
“There are many things the news media can do. I'll keep it short,” Vincent begins to explain.”
Explain your sourcing, who did you call to your panels, their full arc of affiliations, relevant history and interests.
Highlight your sources of revenue, especially your biggest advertising customers and showcase a list of stories relating to them where your reporters were actually independent.
Have an independently run “watch the press” accountability segment — daily or weekly — where you openly allow public critique on facts, frames and angles that were missing in your stories and explain what follow-up actions you might take.
Publish a website on this for the public and researchers to track.
Identify stories that center non-expert people and communities in lived realities and connect the dots from there to the power structures that prevent changes to policy and law to remedy chronic issues.
Quoting well-intentioned experts is helpful, but experts often do not live the actual life of struggling communities and lack the authenticity to be centered in powerful narratives.
Quote more impacted people, their democratic aspirations and authentic solutions rather than politicians, especially with convenient partisan framing.
Vincent summarizes his analysis, professional opinion and advisory:
“Overall, if the news media operate with the practice and the idea that ethical journalism is inherently pro-democracy, they don't need to beat their chests on being pro-democracy in a tribal chant,” he asserts.
He has a recommendation that might sound strange yet could move the needle forward towards more productive journalism and public debate.
“Instead, complicating the overly simplistic narratives would be a start. Many journalism watchers have pointed this out, e.g. Amanda Ripley.”
