CONTENTS:
1. Introduction
2. "Freedom to be Heard" by Normon Solomon
3. One Link
4. Who Owns the Media?
5. A Decline in Media Quality
6. Deregulation Speeds Concentration
7. Media Reform
8. Reader Mail: Important Information on Conscientious
Objection
9. About the MoveOn bulletin and MoveOn.org
INTRODUCTION
Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western
World, more powerful than the
legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask; by
whom has it been elected and to whom is it
responsible? — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
FREEDOM TO BE HEARD By Norman Solomon
MoveOn strives to "help create a culture of civic engagement." Such
goals are crucial. But the big obstacles include the major
news media of the United States.
These days, in theory, just about everyone in the country has freedom to speak. But freedom to be heard is another matter.
Varied sources of information and genuine diversity of viewpoints should reach the public on an ongoing basis. But they don’t.
The planned war on Iraq is a case in point. All kinds of claims take
hold in U.S. mass media while rarely undergoing direct
challenge. Newsrooms and studios, filled with hot-air balloons, are
apt to harmonize with the pronouncements of official
Washington as long as sharp pins don’t get through the door.
The huge gap between freedom of speech and freedom to be heard also
helps to explain how fervent belief in Uncle Sam’s
intended benevolence remains so widespread among Americans. Laid on
thick by the dominant voices of mass
communication, the latest conventional wisdom swiftly hardens and calcifies.
Along with heavy doses of Pentagon Correctness, the mainstream media
are saturated with corporate sensibilities. The effects
are so routine that we usually don’t give them a second thought.
At networks owned by multibillion-dollar conglomerates like General
Electric, Viacom and Disney, the news divisions solemnly
report every uptick or downturn of the markets. In contrast, when was
the last time you heard Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather or
Peter Jennings report the latest rates of on-the-job injuries or the
average wait times at hospital emergency rooms?
While many viewers assume that coverage reflects the considered judgment
of journalistic pros, those journalists are enmeshed
in a media industry dominated by corporate institutions with enough
financial sway to redefine the meaning of functional
professionalism.
In theory, noncommercial TV and radio outlets are insulated from the
inordinate power of money. But across the country, each
year, "public broadcasting" relies on hundreds of millions of dollars
from corporations that are pleased to provide underwriting
to burnish their images among upscale viewers and listeners. Whatever
other benefits accrue, those firms buy some valuable
PR with their de facto commercials, known euphemistically in the trade
as "enhanced underwriter credits."
Along with the politically appointed board of the nonprofit Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, corporate donors exert hefty
influence on programs by "underwriting" -- and, in some cases, literally
making possible -- specific shows. Private money is a
big determinant of what’s on "public" broadcasting.
Without corporate funding for specific programs, many current shows
would not exist. Public television airs the "Nightly
Business Report," but viewers can search in vain for a regular show
devoted to assessing the fortunes of working people. At
PBS, no less than at avowedly commercial networks, the operative assumption
seems to be that wealth creates all labor, not
the other way around. Back in the 1770s, Adam Smith articulated a more
progressive outlook, writing: "It was not by gold or
by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally
purchased."
Years ago, National Public Radio initiated "NPR business updates" to
supplement newscasts many times each day on stations
nationwide. Listeners will be disappointed if they wait for an "NPR
labor update." Various public radio stations feature the
daily national program "Marketplace" and the weekly "Sound Money" show,
but there is no comparable broadcast such as
"Workplace" or "Sound Labor."
At the same time, big money tilts reporting and punditry. On major networks,
we rarely hear a strong voice speaking against
the outsized power of large corporations.
Overall, the main problems with media are profoundly structural. The
airwaves are supposed to belong to the public, but
they’ve been hijacked by huge companies. With the government assisting
the monopolization process, all the major forms of
media -- such as broadcasting, cable, newspapers, magazines, books,
movies, the music industry and, increasingly, the Web --
are now dominated by the interests of capital, devoted to maximizing
private profit. Some investors benefit; the public gets
shafted.
Any successful movement for basic progressive change will need to push
big money off the windpipe of the First Amendment.
For democratic discourse to thrive, freedom to speak must be accompanied
by freedom to be heard.
Norman Solomon’s weekly syndicated column -- posted and archived at
www.fair.org/media-beat
-- focuses on media
and politics. He is executive director of the Institute for Public
Accuracy (http://www.accuracy.org).
ONE LINK
This is a wide-ranging and valuable invective against the current state
of the mainstream US media. Some issues that are
highlighted include the decline of foreign news bureaus, the focus
of news programs on entertainment issues such as movie
profits, and the outright subservience of the media to the interests
of corporations and the US government. Several
organizations that are working to explain and fight media concentration
are also specifically mentioned.
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen0425.html/
WHO OWNS THE MEDIA?
Media concentration, also known as media convergence or media consolidation,
basically comes down to the fact that fewer
and fewer companies own the media.
Mediachannel.org has created a comprehensive chart of exactly who owns
what.
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml
Colombia Journalism Review provides a clickable list of the major media
companies and their holdings. This web guide
demonstrates the exceedingly far reach of these companies.
http://www.cjr.org/owners/
This is a clickable chart of the ten largest media companies in the
world, current as of Dec. 20, 2001 (it is important to note
that media concentration is not only an American problem). It includes
US companies such as the Walt Disney Company and
AOL Time Warner, as well as international giants Bertelsmann and Vivendi
Universal.
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html
A graph of media ownership shows the number of corporations in control
of US media plunging from 50 in 1983 to only six
now. It is followed by a really useful list of links, which includes
the major media reform advocacy groups.
http://www.corporations.org/media/
As FAIR explains, "Almost all media that reach a large audience in the
United States are owned by for-profit
corporations--institutions that by law are obligated to put the profits
of their investors ahead of all other considerations. The
goal of maximizing profits is often in conflict with the practice of
responsible journalism."
This brief introduction to corporate ownership of the media is followed
by a number of links to resources on the topic,
including Normon Solomon's columns.
http://www.fair.org/media-woes/corporate.html
EXAMPLES OF A DECLINE IN MEDIA QUALITY
Michael Massing of the Columbia Journalism Review evaluates the press
coverage immediately after the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015&s=massing
Print and broadcast media in the US have severely cut back foreign news
coverage, leading to a poorly educated American
public. This may be one of the reasons that Americans were so shocked
by the events of Sept. 11--they have little to no
knowledge of politics, ideology, and religion in the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, coverage of crime, violence, sex and scandals
has greatly increased.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0927-03.htm
FAIR answers the question "What's Wrong With the News?" with a clickable
list of very short introductions to the following issues:
- corporate ownership
- advertiser influence
- official agendas
- telecommunications policy
- the narrow range of debate
- the PR industry
- pressure groups
- censorship
- sensationalism
http://www.fair.org/media-woes/media-woes.html
DEREGULATION SPEEDS CONCENTRATION
This is an excellent and brief summary of the new push for deregulation
of the media industry by the FCC. Generally, a source
like this might be expected to take a sympathetic view toward any efforts
to deregulate, but this article is surprisingly skeptical.
It is particularly useful in briefly critiquing the almost utopian
hopes of web advocates. Websites may be relatively cheap, but
good (or at least flashy) content costs money, and the big media companies
have used this fact to insert themselves as the
dominant presence on the web.
http://www.moveon.org/r?11
This article discusses the FCC's move towards deregulation in more detail.
Deregulation is based on the perspective that the
media is a product only, a "toaster with pictures." There seems to
be little or no recognition of any need for policies that
maintain a diversity of opinion, thus serving the interests of the
public as citizens; rather, the public is regarded only as a group
of consumers. The results of this deregulation will most likely be
an even more acute concentration of the media into the hands
of a few big corporations. However, there is still time to fight it,
and the article includes information on writing to the FCC.
http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/mediaownership
FCC Chairman Michael Powell is currently the driving force behind the
continuing trend of media concentration. Nor does he
seem very concerned about the creation of media monopolies. According
to Powell, "Monopoly is not illegal by itself in the
United States. People tend to forget this. There is something healthy
about letting innovators try to capture markets." And what
about diversity? Well, Powell believes that "[d]iversity and all that
stuff is very important, but it's hard to get a consensus on
what it is, other than that the goals are worthy."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/mergers.html
MEDIA REFORM
This excellent article makes the case for media reform and gives some
examples of what must be done to institute such reform.
According to the author:
"For democrats, this concentration of media power and attendant commercialization
of public discourse are a disaster. An
informed, participating citizenry depends on media that play a public
service function. As James Madison once put it, 'A
popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring
it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or
perhaps both.' But these democratic functions lie beyond the reach
of the current American media system. If we are serious
about democracy, then, we need to work aggressively for reform."
So what kind of reform is needed? Some suggestions from the article:
- reduce the current degree of media concentration
- create special incentives for nonprofits
- maintain and enforce broadcast regulation
- make public broadcasting public
- enforce antitrust laws
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR23.3/mcchesney.html
This excellent article outlines a "12-Step Program for Media Democracy."
http://www.moveon.org/r?12
Granny D, an activist, gives some practical suggestions for media activism
in this earthy speech, in which she says that
alternative media sources "are like the secret short wave transmissions
that an occupied people can turn to for the truth and for
hope." She also critiques the current state of journalism very effectively.
According to Granny, "The news is not something that
comes into a city like a parade and can be reported by simple observation
and description. Oh, traffic wrecks, house fires,
bankruptcies and murders are lovely distractions and can fill some
pages. But such items, compared to the more highly evolved
stories of real journalism, are like the stooped-over half-man, half-ape
precursors on the evolution scale. A self-governing
people require the more highly evolved arts of journalism."
http://www.grannyd.com/speech20020810.htm
READER MAIL: MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
Dear Susan,
As a public draft registration resister, a long-term member of the War
Resisters League National Committee, a former staff
person at the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, and a
current counselor on the GI Rights Hotline, I congratulate
you for drawing attention to this very important issue.
I want to correct a minor inaccuracy I noticed (although I know you
got the information from what is, usually, a reliable
source), and then raise some wider issues.
Your alert says that those born, "after Jan. 1, 1963" are required to
register under current Selective Service Law. Actually,
those born on or after January 1st, 1960 are required to register.
In practice, this is a distinction almost without a difference
since all those born between 1960 and 1963 could no longer register
if they did not do so, because they are beyond the age
26 time limit. However, it could matter for men born between those
years who did not register or refused to register, as they
are still denied Federal student loans, Federal job training, and most
Federal jobs.
I wish your alert had mentioned that the Selective Service System continues
to try to convince state legislatures to add
additional penalties to draft non-registrants (http://www.comdsd.org/alerts_archive.htm#defeat7-02),
as the struggles to stop
the increase in state penalties are on-going and directly impact young
people deciding whether to register or not now. And it
would have been great if you would have mentioned the Fund for Education
and Training, http://www.nisbco.org/FEAT.htm,
because people wishing to help aid non-registrants can contribute to
this fund to help provide student loans to those deprived
of them by the government's coercive response to their conscience.
At the international level, the alert did not mention The Right to Refuse
to Kill Project, the only list-serve and web-site that I
know of which sends alerts to people world-wide on how to send letters
of support for conscientious objectors world-wide.
This project operates out of the War Resisters International office
in London at http://www.wri-irg.org/en/index.html
A larger issue I want to raise with you is the cursory treatment of
military conscientious objectors. They are currently the only
ones in the United States who can currently apply for C.O. status,
and so any alert focusing on these issues, I believe, should
really focus on their needs, as well as the concerns of those facing
a potential future draft. Unfortunately, from my point of
view, this alert only tangentially mentioned their needs. When it did
so, the website it referred folks to contains outdated
addresses and phone numbers for the nodes of the GI Rights Hotline,
which can be reached directly through
www.girights.org."I personally am currently
working with four conscientious objector applicants or potential applicants,
and
each of their stories is poignant, powerful, and inspiring.
Perhaps you could put out a future alert regarding the violations of
the rights of members of the military, starting with the
poverty draft which amounts to economic conscription in this country,
continuing through widespread military recruiting fraud
(see the countering military recruitment sections at www.objector.org,
(among others) which I'm glad you did provide a link to
in a different context), and then into the military itself where brutality,
discrimination, harassment, rape, battering, racism,
sexism, homophobia, and general abuse of military personnel are still
so ubiquitous as to constitute standard operating
procedure. As a result of these abuses, the GI Rights Hotline continues
to expand exponentially, receiving 15,000 calls on the
hotline last year. Bringing attention to these neglected issues would
be gratefully appreciated.
Thanks Again For All Your Work,
Sam Diener
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free, biweekly email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important
political issues. The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin;
you can subscribe to it
at that address. The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org
does not necessarily endorse the views
espoused on the pages that we link to, nor do we vouch for their accuracy.
Read them at your own risk.
The MoveOn Bulletin is made possible by a dedicated team of volunteer researchers and editors.
MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect
our lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the
Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan
agenda, raising public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating
grassroots advocacy campaigns to encourage sound
public policies. You can help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by
participating in the discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223