March 20, 2004

Third Rail News

by Gregg Brazel

Mass Media: Consolidation, Censorship and Democracy

In today's "democracy", if you don't have money, you don't have a voice.  Sure, many say, we can vote for the candidates of our choice, expressing our opinions and wishes through our votes.  But if our elected officials don't represent the people, the first Tuesday in November is all for show, a fig leaf to cover a banana republic.

On the other hand, if you have lots of money and spend it in the right places, you have a very big voice.  This undermines the fundamental concept of democracy: one person, one vote.  While hardly a new concept, the current proliferation of lobbyists, PACs, and special interest groups hauling bags of cash to the Hill indicate that we are approaching a critical mass. 

To cover their tracks, the media propaganda machine ensures that you get the messages their corporate owners and sponsors want you to get, while censoring out the stories that conflict with their interests.  So this important issue, like many others, is largely ignored by the mainstream media.  They spin large campaign donations and other payments to government officials as "free speech."  They are kidding themselves, and us ~ it is today what it always has been ~ plain-old, run-of-the-mill corruption.  To preserve our democracy, we must extract it from the political system - now. 

If democracy, patriotism, and a love of the political process motivates these contributions, they could be made under an anonymous system.  This would get the money to the politicians and parties of choice ~ without creating any conflict of interest or undue influence.  While very popular among activists, this proposal doesn't garner any attention from either the donors, press, or most politicians.  Huh... wonder why not?

What these "donors" and lobbyists are really doing is buying access and policy.  Though we prefer not to openly admit this, most everyone knows it.  The media continues to spin it in their own favor... hence the 2003 FCC ruling for further media consolidation - against the wishes of 90% of the population.  This is democracy?

No, this form of government is known as plutocracy,  aristocracy, or perhaps polyarchy.  Democracy (see def. 5!) implies majority rule, which is continually overlooked, ignored, or when too undeniable, just run over.  Seeing this coming over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson noted, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

The mass media has largely succeeded in their efforts to keep the population distracted with useless infotainment and a constant pursuit of the latest gadget, designer-drug, or style.  Hence, twenty minutes of Kobe, BenLo, Janet, new products, weather, sports, and diet fads versus two minutes on Economy, War, Poverty, Failing Schools, Corporate Crime, Corruption, and Environment (if any).

It is impossible to understand complex, inter-related issues through 15 second sound bites that are devoid of context and history.  Exactly the point, as the media is no longer the fourth estate watchdog of democracy, but now simply a for profit enterprise... nothing more, nothing less.  This was not, of course, the intention when we handed over our airwaves, our commonwealth, for free in exchange for the networks serving the public interest and greater good.

Guarding and protecting the public interest is supposed to be central to the FCC's mission.  Knowing from the start that television would have enormous power in forming public opinion, the FCC was established to ensure that all points of view were heard.  The serious concern was to prevent a monopoly on thought by any one - especially extreme - group.

Michael Powell is the current FCC chairman.  When asked what he thought the term "public interest" meant (press conference, 2/6/01), he responded: "I have no idea. The public interest at its core is the same thing as my oath of office: a commitment to making sure the American consumer is benefited.… I try to make the best judgment I can in ways I think will benefit consumers. Beyond that I don't know. I'm still trying to figure it out."

This quote is enormously disturbing.  First, is anyone else yet tired of their government referring to them as a "consumer"?  While seemingly minor, this goes straight to the heart of the matter.  Though charged with protecting America's democracy and citizens, Powell is only capable of understanding his job as a function of capitalism and consumerism, with an undoubtedly pro-business slant.

Second, Powell admits he doesn't even grasp the primary mission of his job - he's "still trying to figure it out."  Unfortunately for our nation, in terms of importance, issues don't come much bigger.  This is not a good place for inexperienced novices to be learning on the job. 

Was there really not a single qualified individual available for this position in 2001?  Did he get his job because of his knowledge and qualifications, or because he would represent the interests of capital, and just happened to have a convenient bloodline? 

For another example of the total collapse of media's primary function in our democracy (and complete obliviousness to the fact), we can look to Lowry Mays, founder and CEO of Clear Channel.  Mays oversees 1,233 radio stations with some 100 million listeners across all 50 states, and runs a company with $8 billion in revenues.  In an interview with Fortune magazine, he unwittingly summed up the current media crisis and failure nicely for us: "If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn't be someone from our company.  We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products." 

In other words: we're here to serve our corporate sponsors, period ~ not our audience, and certainly not the greater good of the nation. 

Clear Channel is also the fine company that brought us pro-war rallies, mass censorship, and the banning of artists who voiced opinions contrary to their own. Not only don't they support democracy, they actively work to crush it.  Welcome to the machine.

If the Great Experiment is to continue for another generation, let us hope that government and big business do not succeed in their efforts to strangle the Internet and resurrect it in their own image ~  as they've already done with TV, radio, and newspapers.  Better yet, let's take back the entire media and require it to act as watchdogs of democracy as originally mandated by we the people.

Imagine how much better informed, and therefore stronger, our nation would be if responsible, concerned citizens - promoting diversity and free speech - were in charge of the media.