Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOn the Media
Michael Copps, a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), stops by The Nation offices every year to talk about what is happening to our media landscape. Invariably, he let's us know that no matter what a person considers his or her #1 issue - whether it be fighting poverty, ending the war, affordable health care, or anything else - the #2 issue better be media matters.
As he recently said in an interview with Salon: "Your No. 2 issue has to be this media issue, because all those other issues you care about... are funneled and filtered through big media, if they're lucky enough to get in that funnel at all.... Then they're covered with the slant of a few particular companies."
Copps is currently battling FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's attempt to circumvent public comment and rush through an anti-democratic plan that would make it easier for a single company to own multiple media outlets in a single market. Though Martin claims he would only allow companies in the top 20 markets to own both a daily newspaper and a broadcast outlet, Copps points out that that represents approximately 43 percent of US households, and there is a major loophole allowing companies to do the same in "just about any market on the basis of meeting a few loose criteria." Martin's consolidation not only would weaken an already lacking diversity of voices in the media as well as in media ownership, it would also deepen the political crisis of our time - our downsized politics of excluded alternatives.
It's worth noting that the FCC attempted an even more extreme consolidation makeover in 2003 and an outpouring of transpartisan grassroots, citizen opposition defeated its efforts. (That proposal would have allowed a single company in one town to own up to three TV stations, eight radio stations, the daily newspaper, the cable system and the Internet service provider - so it's not just old media that Martin has set his sights on.) The response in 2003 was a model of citizen activism that can work again. But at this crucial time, it's also important that presidential candidates show leadership, speak out, and educate the public on these issues. Some are doing that, and most are at the very least cosponsors of the bipartisan Media Ownership Act of 2007 which would prevent Martin from holding a FCC vote on the new rules - scheduled for December 18 and sure to win approval - for at least six months. Below is a look at what most of the democratic candidates are doing - or not doing - to address these issues.
Joe Biden: His campaign office directed me to this press release, in which Senator Biden stated his opposition to Martin's effort to repeal the rule which prevents a company from owning both a newspaper and a television station in the same city. "The Federal Communications Commission's plan to lift its anti-monopoly regulations could have dangerous consequences," said Biden. "If this plan goes forward, two or three media conglomerates could end up controlling every broadcast medium in the country. From a safety perspective, what happens if one company controls the television, radio and internet services in a region and its servers go down during a natural disaster or terrorist attack? From a constitutional perspective, what happens when one company owns all of the airwaves in an area and it refuses to broadcast certain content? These are important security and constitutional issues best addressed by keeping the current rules in place." Biden is a cosponsor of the Media Ownership Act.
Hillary Clinton: Her campaign press office sent me this statement: "Senator Clinton is very concerned about the manner in which Chairman Martin is attempting to change the media cross-ownership rules. There has been insufficient time given for public comment. Also, the Chairman is promoting media consolidation without attending to more pressing matters: increasing women and minority ownership of media, and preserving localism in media. Accordingly, Senator Clinton is cosponsoring the Media Ownership Act of 2007 which requires that an FCC rulemaking aimed at relaxing the consolidation rules be preceded by: (1) a thorough review and comment process, (2) a rulemaking on the preservation of localism, and (3) FCC action to promote female and minority media ownership.... In 2003, she co-sponsored legislation that aimed to limit consolidation of TV stations; and in 2004 she voted against the Omnibus Appropriations Conference bill in part because it included measures that would have increased media consolidation." It's disappointing, however, that there is nothing about these pressing matters on her website - in contrast to the other "top-tier" candidates.
Christopher Dodd: Sen. Dodd is a cosponsor of the Media Ownership Act. His campaign directed me to his statement on Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal takeover in which he said, "The power of the media is swiftly being limited to a few controlling hands, which poses a serious threat to our democracy. The foundation of our democracy rests in our ability to hear from a diverse array of sources so that we can make informed decisions." The campaign also referred me to Dodd's YouTube video response to the question of what he would do to protect independent voices in the media. Dodd discusses the impact of media consolidation, the importance of net neutrality, and expanding broadband access in this video.
John Edwards: Sen. Edwards speaks out strongly about media consolidation threatening free speech; tilting the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns; and making it increasingly difficult for women and minorities to own a stake in our media. His campaign forwarded me this link, which offers a very detailed take on the issues, including trends and statistics regarding media consolidation; impact of consolidation and deregulation on public interest and localism; and the need to maintain net neutrality and keep corporate media from blocking access, as well as provide universal broadband. Edwards has said, "The basis of a strong democracy is a diverse and dynamic media. It's time to take away the corporate media bullhorn and let America's many voices be heard."
Dennis Kucinich: He has a strong record addressing this issue. Rep. Kucinich wants "to create a greater diversity of viewpoints in the media by breaking up the major media conglomerates, encouraging competition and quality as well as diversity. We should place new caps on media ownership and ban the granting of exceptions to those caps. We should limit the number of media outlets one corporation can own in a given medium, such as radio, print, or television. We should strictly prohibit cross-ownership and vertical integration.... Funding for public broadcasting channels on television and radio should be greatly expanded, assuring the existence of media outlets free of the influence of advertisers.... I have a strong record on media reform. I filed formal objections with the FCC to their deregulation of the media. I held hearings on Capitol Hill on what the media weren't telling people about the war."
Barack Obama: A cosponsor of the Media Ownership Act, Sen. Obama has also written previously to Chairman Martin (along with Sen. John Kerry) - "to address the issue of minority media ownership, and the impact that new rules would have on opportunities for minority, small business, and women owned firms." He also co-authored an op-ed with Kerry addressing minority ownership and diverse viewpoints. His website states that "the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity.... As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum. An Obama presidency will promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve." His detailed plan also includes protecting net neutrality and universal broadband access and his internet policies have been praised by well-known digital figures like Lawrence Lessig and Matt Stoller.
Bill Richardson: The campaign sent me this statement, "Growing media ownership consolidation is a problem, and Governor Richardson will work hard to ensure that this trend does not continue along the current path. Governor Richardson will re-invigorate both the FCC and the Department of Justice to make sure that our democracy is not undermined by excessive control of the media being placed in the hands of just a few. In that vein, Governor Richardson is adamantly opposed to Kevin Martin's proposed rule-change. We must remain vigilant in preventing media consolidation, whether by law or by loophole. Our democracy depends quite seriously on it."
While there are good, strong statements, and some detailed plans from the likes of Edwards, Dodd, Obama, and Kucinich, what is lacking is the integration of this message into the candidates' basic stump speech - the kind of thing Copps battles for every day: to make citizens realize that without a free, diverse media, we're up a creek if we want the issues that matter most to us to receive a good public airing and debate. It will take strong presidential leadership, continued congressional attention, and citizen vigilance to ensure that media consolidation doesn't further erode our democracy.
As Michael Copps recently wrote in an op-ed, "I say this is hardly the time to rush headlong into more of what we know has not worked given the wreckage caused by our decades-long flirtation with the notion that Wall Street always knows best when it comes to journalism." Here's a modest proposal for the candidates: how about Michael Copps as a pro-democracy FCC Chairman come 2009?
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
© 2007 The Nation
17 Comments so far
Show AllRichM says:
"DD - Let's hear you try to argue why the Democrats are NOT also a party of corporatists."
Nah, they already hear enough from me--arguing my own thoughts, rather than your concerns. Why don't you keep blasting the Dems with all you've got? They think here that I'm a broken record---always on one side of this issue. The best antidote for that is hearing from others of you always doing the broken record thing from the flip (or flipped) side-- which is mostly the advocacy of third parties that aren't formed and ain't coming this year. That's good enough really.
As I recall, the bill that changed everything was never mentioned in the media, as it was literally passed at 4 am after being tacked onto a bill that both parties were aligned and agreed to.
What is the CRIME OF THE CENTURY that corrupted our Democracy to the core?
It was the revision of the law to permit Political Action Comities (PACs) to exit and essentially made every politician the best that money can buy
If would were to repeal that EVIL law, and engender real champaign reform, with accountability, instead of hidden ATM gov't access - where the bribes go in and the good-ol-boy's overpriced no-bid contracts come out.
_ W A K E __ U P __ A M E R I C A _
_______ W E __ T H E __ P E O P L E ___________
have no longer _ A N Y _ Representation in DC,
as long as the criminal "ATM" payola continues
Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
The media's influence is greatly enhanced by the electoral college farce. Their influence on the average citizen is monolithic. Only those who seek alternative discourse read the sources of less biased news on the web.
Runoff elections would allow a much larger slate of candidates to be presented to the public, and to be winnowed by the voters rather than the media. Each candidate would have a leveler playing field.
Corporations as persons ties right in there. If the corporate contributions could be curtailed, large contributions from individuals would tell the story about where the candidates are coming from.
DD - Let's hear you try to argue why the Democrats are NOT also a party of corporatists. What specific measures have they taken, in the last 40 years, to rein in the power of corporations?
You do see, don't you, that simply naming some corrupt Republicans is NOT the same as making a case that the Democrats are any better? (Incidentally, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until 1948. The Democrats were the party of Southern racists & segregationists, until the mid 1960's.)
Yeah, the Democrats are definitely to blame for the power that corporations now exert over our citizens.
If we had an overwhelming majority of Democrats in The White House and Congress, this would undoubtedly get worse too. What we need is another good strong Reagan, with another "hammer" like Tom Delay to fix Pelosi's mess at the House, and the ghosts of John Tower and Strom Thurmond to run the Senate. We miss Jack Abramoff on K-Street too. Good ole Grover Norquist could coach 'em all from the sidelines. Oh, for the giants of the good ole days.
I once didn't embrace cynicism much, but my counterparts at CD are helping me to learn that may have been an error.
Ooops, a typo. 1st sentence, 2nd para, should read, "...virtually everyone WHO sees the Democrats' spinelessness.... is perfectly aware"
Nader2000 (10:32 pm) amusingly tries to use the power of the media as an excuse for the spinelessness of the Democrats. "I wish all the people who were busy blaming the spineless Democrats for every evil understood that the mass media... is the most powerful institution and virtually controls politics in this country."
Actually, Nader2000, virtually everyone sees the Democrats' spinelessness for what it is, is perfectly aware that the corporatist agenda is pressed onto the polity by the 2-party system & the corporate media, working in tandem. So you're wrong that this is "not understood." But more importantly, it doesn't in any way alter the fact that the Democrats are one of the integral components of the 3-pronged system through which corporate power is exercised.
In other words, what you referred to there is not an excuse for the Democrats. It's part of the indictment against them.
It's not only in the US - pretty much everywhere. A Canadian site that keeps an eye on the Canadian media is On Green Island -
http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/ogi-home.html - and a book talking about the bigger picture is They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html
I wish all the people who were busy blaming the spineless Democrats for every evil understood that the mass media, and not any politician other than the president (sometimes not even the president) is the most powerful institution and virtually controls politics in this country.
No politicians dare to stand up to the barons of the media. If they do they will be knocked down. No politicians dare to speak for ideas that the media will marginalize and ridicule, because if they do they will be marginalized and ridiculed. Politicians may be corrupt or idealistic, but they are not stupid.
The media controls the agenda. The media controls the message. The media controls the eyes and ears of the people, including all the people in politics and in the media itself.
Who controls the media? The people who own it and the people who manage it for the people who own it. That's the corporate state we live in.
Media consolidation and the concept of corporations as "persons" may well be the two root problems facilitating the deterioration of our Constitution and political environment that has occurred over the past few decades.
Media consolidation because it allows a few entities to effectively control political dialogue allowing only the messages and candidates these corporate leaders tolerate.
Corporate personhood because it grants those freedoms - freedom of speech, in particular, enhrined in our Bill of Rights to corporate entities as though they were individuals. This position, emanating from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, has been cited to permit corporations and other organizations to make political contributions. This is the source of the funds that have turned the Democratic party into a second corporate party.
The third core issue is the construction equating money with speech. This esssentially grants the wealthy greater freedom of speech than the poor.
Reversing these conditions would immediately broaden political debate and force candidates of both parties to crat and support policies that benefit individuals rather than corporations.
NET NEUTRALITY IS NEXT
As the last refuge of unfettered free speech from the ground up, once this additional concentration is locked into law, Big Media will go after the internet's net neutrality.
The only reason net neutrality has faded into the background is because Big Media backed off a while till they could strike this deal, which could be seriously threatened if issues of net neutrality started hitting the front pages.
After this deal is completed, th c n ent of web pa ges wi l st rt to lo k lik th s.
The Nation? See Encounter Magazine c1952. By controlling the "left opinion" acceptable to the tweed-bearing middle classes a firewall in left movement can be created blocking more fundemental questions being posed to the population as a whole. The CIA funded Encounter. Thats history folks. See Francis Stonor Saunders, The Cultural COld War: the Cia and the World of Arts and Letters (New Press, 2000) Is the Nation similar? See Max Holland, who is on the nation's editorial board.
It's ironic that Vanden Heuvel, in an article titled "On the Media," chose to omit Mike Gravel from her remarks. The only reason Gravel is now officially an "unperson" is because NBC declared him one a few debates back. Yet Katrina seems to be allowing NBC to get away with that!
The Democrats are always, "very concerned", "very troubled", and "condem these attempts at further consolidation", and always acknowledge "the seriousness of the problem", but in the end never do anything to change things. I think any of us could even write the "very concerned" speeches for them at this point. Somehow the Republicans will push another thing through that makes our present problems even worse and knowing that the Democrats are "troubled" again isn't going to help now either.
Terrorism, gambling and child porn are some of the excuses the oligarchy is using to pressure ISP's to give them subscriber info. I understand they are now able to read every email and check on every site we visit. They are exerting control of the internet.
The warmongers are simply consolidating their hold on every conceivable means of public resistance. Get your thoughts out now; the internet is next.
It appears that all the democratic candidates are aware of and speaking out on this issue of media consolidation. Good. I like the idea of Copps as the FCC chairman. I am not sure Martin is as bad a chairman as Powell was but he isn't what we need. Our media oversight has been hammered during king georges imperial rulership. If now we could do to the 7 media giants as was done to ATT years ago we might see real news coverage again.