A “Full Stack” Approach to Public Media in the United States Sanjay Jolly and Ellen P
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Policy Paper July 2021 A “Full Stack” Approach to Public Media in the United States Sanjay Jolly and Ellen P. Goodman Washington, DC Ankara Belgrade Berlin Brussels Bucharest Paris Warsaw Policy Paper July 2021 Summary Over the course of U.S. history, and especially in turbu- pushes them toward disinformation and discord.1 The lent times, the federal government and civil society problem is so bad that the U.S. Surgeon General has have sought to promote civic information. They have issued an Advisory on health misinformation.2 Disor- sought to make it easier for citizens to get accurate, dered information flows are a global phenomenon local, and timely information, and for suppliers of and some of the responses will require coordinated that information to reach citizens. Exposure to civic effort to change the incentives and characteristics of information and engagement with it is what makes social media and digital advertising. But there are also self-rule possible, which is why the First Amendment distinctly U.S. responses that are available, drawing on is the cornerstone of democratic liberties. As a policy the country’s decentralized public media tradition. matter, the United States has treated civic information This paper outlines what a “full stack” approach as a critical infrastructure—one that should be resil- to new public media might look like. The “full stack” ient and decentralized. The infrastructure built at the involves all the layers in communicating information, nation’s founding started with the postal service. After from production through distribution. In considering the authoritarian surge in Europe around the Second what a reinvigorated infrastructure for civic infor- World War, the focus turned to modifying a highly mation might look like, the paper asks anew what concentrated commercial system of information have always been questions for media policy: How production to shore up democracy. Amid the turmoil can community anchor institutions like libraries and of the 1960s, the commitment to civic information universities participate? How can we ensure robust infrastructure powered the creation of a decentralized and resilient physical infrastructure everywhere? public media system. What technical and regulatory protocols will free citi- Today, the challenges to democratic practice and zens from exploitative commercial control? How can governance are as severe as they have ever been. Many we support accurate, high-quality content that the Americans live in separate realities, lack access to local market does not produce? news, distrust expertise and institutions, feel antago- The United States needs to invest in a new digital nistic to tens of millions of their fellow citizens, and public sphere—a new civic infrastructure—if it struggle to access or accept credible information. They hopes to sustain democratic practice and informed are manipulated by a digital advertising machine that participation. 1 See Matthew Crain and Anthony Nadler, “Political Manipulation and Internet Advertising Infrastructure,” Journal of Information Policy 9 (2019). 2 U.S. Health and Human Services, Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment (2021). Jolly and Goodman : A “Full Stack” Approach to Public Media in the United States 2 Policy Paper July 2021 Introduction attend to their own particular information needs and A half-century ago, the United States embarked upon a contribute to those of the national polity. Supple- remarkable democratic experiment. In the mid-1960s, menting this diverse, pluralistic base of communities the Carnegie Commission on Educational Televi- were initiatives for research, innovation, and profes- sion conducted a major study to research the role of sional training. The system was, according to its noncommercial television in U.S. society.1 Broadcast authors, a distinctly U.S. approach to social progress television had by then established itself as a break- and technological innovation. The Carnegie Commis- through technology, enabling unparalleled forms sion’s report formed the basis for the Public Broad- of communication and, in its ubiquity, presenting casting Act of 1967, initiating a lasting experiment in profound implications for social life. Observing that distributed and democratic media. television was “a miraculous instrument,” the Carn- More than 50 years later, the United States suffers egie Commission’s task was “to turn the instrument from an information disorder. The business models for to the best uses of American society, and to make it local media are all but defunct. Although the market of new and increased service to the general public.”2 for digital advertising is worth hundreds of billions The power of television, in other words, could be of dollars, the platforms’ market power means that harnessed for more than just commercial value. It had content creators collect a tiny share of ad revenues.3 the capacity to remake civic life for the better. The Throughout the country, once-vibrant media ecosys- Carnegie Commission sought to design a new system tems serving local communities have collapsed, leaving as an alternative to existing commercial networks, one vast news deserts in their wake. As outlets shutter or that would use broadcast technologies to enable free look to cut costs, the production of high-quality infor- and open expression, serve the diverse information mation like local news reporting and investigative needs of the public, and foster connection and mutual journalism is often the biggest casualty.4 Meanwhile, understanding among communities. when a user accesses content on a platform through search functions and content feeds, opaque artificial Throughout the country, once-vibrant intelligence algorithms prioritize information based media ecosystems serving local not on whether it will inform the user but on whether communities have collapsed, leaving it will maximize “engagement,” often in the form of vast news deserts in their wake. outrage. By capturing a user’s attention, the platform can monetize greater volumes of personal informa- tion, generally without meaningful consent.5 So while When the Carnegie Commission published its final high-quality information languishes, low-quality report in 1967, it laid out a grand vision for public information like clickbait, racist and misogynist abuse, media. The report’s recommendations proposed a conspiracies, and disinformation abound. major network of community infrastructures, imag- ined not just as a collection of uniform broadcast stations but as an interconnected system of varying institutions and technologies. At its foundation were 3 Ranking Member Maria Cantwell, Local Journalism: America’s Most Trusted News Sources Threatened, U.S. Senate Committee on Com- the talents and energies of local communities that, merce, Science, and Transportation, October 2020, p. 16. with adequate technical and financial support, would 4 David Ardia et al., Addressing the Decline of Local News, Rise of Plat- forms, and Spread of Mis- and Disinformation Online: A Summary of Current Research and Policy Proposals, UNC Center for Media Law and 1 Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, Public Television: A Policy, October 2020, 11. Program for Action: The Report and Recommendations of the Carnegie 5 Luke Munn, “Angry by Design: Toxic Communication and Technical Commission on Education Television, 1967. Architectures,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 7:53 2 Ibid., p. 11. (2020). Jolly and Goodman : A “Full Stack” Approach to Public Media in the United States 3 Policy Paper July 2021 This situation has already proven profoundly refer to a layered, interconnected network comprised harmful to U.S. democracy, from undermining trust of information infrastructures—“hard” technologies in elections to fueling xenophobia to hindering public and “soft” institutional arrangements—operating health responses. One positive sign is that there does according to civic principles. Through technolog- appear to be a public consensus that the problems ical characteristics such as open-data protocols and facing the U.S. information environment are real and accountable-governance principles, the public media serious. In recent years, the digital platforms have stack should be designed to devolve decision-making responded primarily through content-moderation powers to end-users, while amplifying local infor- regimes. Put most simply, these systems rely on often mation, opportunities for cultural exchange, and elaborate frameworks to discern and then sift good constructive engagement in the democratic process. information from bad.6 Content moderation, however, By decentralizing control over the flow of information gives a few platforms excessive power to punish and through the network, the public media stack should silence, as well as to ignore and condone. Content empower users, rather than platform authorities, with moderation as a focus of the information disorder the tools to “boost the signal of good information” and elides the problem of private platforms controlling the “dampen the noise created by bad actors and disinfor- flow of important information. It is readily apparent mation.”8 While public media commentary has long that new approaches are necessary. focused on content decision, technical and gover- Strangely, public media has not figured prominently nance design choices that encourage informed civic in the discourse surrounding information disorder,