The Tipping Point for Media Reform

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/08/9494/

The Tipping Point for Media Reform
by Megan Tady

There are moments in every decade when monumental struggles for social change finally tip in favor of the public interest. We’ve seen the relief of a 40-hour work week, the long-awaited arrival of women’s right to vote, and the even longer fight to end segregation.

This decade — now — we’re facing another tipping point. Our fight is to reform our broken media system, and to stop heavy-handed corporate control of what Americans read, watch and hear.

Ensuring that our press act as watchdogs for the American people is at the heart of a thriving democracy.

In late May, in an historic victory, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to overturn rules that would allow one company to own both a major daily newspaper and a TV or radio station in the same community. The Senate rejected a Federal Communications Commission decision that would have had disastrous effects on local news.

snip//

More than 3,000 people converged in Minneapolis to strategize on how to take back the media, and capitalize on the momentum of the Senate victory. Media luminaries Bill Moyers, Dan Rather and Amy Goodman joined forces with students, community members, journalists, bloggers, and activists — everyone who’s fed up with Big Media.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about hope. Americans want to see social change. But we have more than hope on our side in the battle for a more diverse and divested press — we have the power of a growing people’s movement and the burgeoning political will of our leaders.

This fight isn’t in the bag — in fact, it’s far from over. But the scales are tipping in our favor, and before long, there will be an avalanche to reform the media and transform our democracy.

We need to ignore the stupid, ignorant, corrupt sons-of-bitches. You will never get the news you need from TV, and it's a waste of time to try. If you want to know, you have to read. If you must watch, you must watch stuff that does not cost a zillion dollars a second to produce.

Reading alone's no remedy if the press is also owned and the companies like Comcast are free to censor and discriminate in affording access on the internet.

Here's some info I put together a while ago:

http://www.corporations.org/media/

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

http://www.stopbigmedia.com/

http://www.monthlyreview.org/301rwm.htm — note, this article was first presented in 2000 so presumably summarizes the situation based on statistics from even earlier; I’d bet money that, overall, considerable further consolidation has occurred.

The following is from http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/06/05/ed-whitacre-gone-but-not-forgotten/ ; see also http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/05/theres-a-problem-its-called-net-neutrality/ for partial text :

Ed Whitacre: Gone But Not Forgotten
AT&T chief Ed Whitacre handed over the keys to his replacement Randall Stephenson yesterday, but not before giving a rousing pep talk to fellow executives in the company’s San Antonio board room.
Watch the Video
“There’s a problem. It’s called Net Neutrality,” Whitacre told the heirs to AT&T’s telecommunications empire. “Well, frankly, we say to hell with that. We’re gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission.”
This statement echoes those made in the press by Whitacre and Stephenson over the last two years.
Despite claims of poverty whenever pressed to offer better services, these AT&T execs are privately gloating over more than $35 billion in gross profits over the last 12 months. Moreover, Whitacre (and now Stephenson) are pressuring Congress to allow them to provide privileged Web access to their customers to companies that pay them a special fee.
The phone and cable companies claim that this sort of discriminatory “double dipping” — charging both consumers and content providers — is necessary to provide the high-speed services that Americans demand. But it’s a fundamental shift in the neutral way the Internet has always worked. In essence, it takes away user choice — the most basic tenet of the Internet — and hands it to AT&T.
“Will Congress let us do it?” Whitacre asks his colleagues. “You bet they will — cuz we don’t call it cashin’ in. We call it ‘deregulation.’ ”
‘Deregulation’: AT&T Code for More Handouts
It’s Whitacre’s brand of “deregulation” that has left the United States behind other nations in providing fast, affordable Internet to more people.
Recent broadband data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) had the U.S. slipping to 15th out of 30 nations in per capita broadband use. Our free-fall will continue as long as we allow phone and cable companies to dictate broadband policy in Washington and monopolize broadband access across the country.
* * *
Whitacre remains intent to defy public opinion, funnel cash into Washington and win over control of the Internet once and for all.
“With all of our generous campaign contributions, I’m quite certain that Congress will see it our way,” he said during his farewell speech. “Who else they gonna listen to? The public?!?”

http://c-cyte.blogspot.com/2007/04/free-nation-wide-wi-fi.html >

and last but not least, here’s a blog post with some add’l info about why we shouldn’t ignore threats to the openness inherent in our internet as currently structured and regulated:

http://c-cyte.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-end-in-sight-to-efforts-to-end.html

Again, I don’t know a total solution, but I think the following measures would go a long way toward solving the problem:

Restore restrictions on media ownership consolidation.

Adopt conflict-of-interest regulations to the effect you can’t directly or indirectly own more than a small percentage in any media business or serve in any senior management position in such a business if you are in or running for an elective office or if you also own more than a small percentage of any other kind of business or are a member of senior management in such a business.

Adopt the equivalent of anti-trust laws but concerned directly with control over information and the outlets for it, rather than with control over commercial resources.

Enforce existing anti-trust laws.

I'm not against the "fairness doctrine", but it is no panacea, as a scrutiny of the press' role in US, even when it was in effect, will make clear. There is no substitute for an informed and critical citizenry, as the founders knew well more than 200 years ago. But TV is not a suitable medium for exposition, it is much better for dramatization. But nothing is going to do the job when it is hedged about with money and the need to make a high profit. The medium is the message, as McLuhan said.

We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Also, re-think multiple station ownership, where one corporation can own every radio station in the country (Clear Channel)