Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
- State Dept. Releases Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement
- Obama Offers to Cut Social Security, Medicare and Popular Programs (Again)
Popular content
Today's Top News
The End of Peter B. Collins and the Need for Media Reform
We may have to get progressive talk shows put on the Endangered Species List, now that the president has reinstated it. Otherwise there won't be any voices on the air except the voices of the right, whether "centrist" (corporate) or explicitly far-right (corporate). As Brad Friedman notes in his report on Peter B. Collins's forced departure, the economic crash is threatening to finish off those last few figures who have managed somehow to resist the oligopolistic tide that has by now all but submerged the US media.
That purge, now near-complete, has actually been in the works for years. It was the purpose of the vast "de-regulation" of the media begun by Reagan back in '87 (soon after the corporate press obligingly refused to look too deeply into Iran/contra) and continued by Bill Clinton nine years later (and a fat lot of good it did him.)
Those grand strokes were the eventual result of a big semi-covert effort that had started up much earlier, when, in the early Seventies, the US Chamber of Commerce and the top tier of its membership (some dare call it "the ruling class") resolved to take the country back from all those citizens who had been acting up against the war, for civil rights for all, for the environment, etc. Such was the groundwork for the Reagan/Clinton hand-off of our airwaves (and the cable system) to the likes of GE, News Corporation, Disney and Time Warner, and the aptly named Clear Channel. With that network in charge, and quite absolved of any public obligation, those trying to tell some truth out loud soon found that they were struggling to be heard.
So now Rush Limbaugh's voice -- along with those of Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham and the aptly self-named "Michael Savage," among others -- bellows inescapably from coast to coast, while those who are at least as talented, but honest, rational and well-informed, have got to work like hell to find, and build, their audience (which is, increasingly, on-line).
This can be done: Thom Hartmann, having now left the implosive Air America, is doing it and Mike Malloy is doing it. (Now Randi Rhodes is also off the air.) That such talents have to work that way, while all those lethal gas-bags come in loud and clear, is a clear sign that the US media is in dire need of change, of just the sort that Team Obama promised us last year.
For the dominance of all those rightist blowhards is not based on the market, although their fans keep saying that it is, in countless fuming posts and letters to the editor. Contrary to that talking point, the crackpot views of Rush et al. have only fringe appeal -- as we, and all the world, saw clearly on Election Day, and as we see especially clearly now that the economy's collapsed. Most people out there were quite thrilled to see Jon Stewart clean Jim Cramer's clock. So where is that big audience for Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, and all the other hirelings out there channeling Herbert Hoover?
Let's face it: There's been no such big audience for quite a while. When sharp progressive talkers have been able to compete, they've done quite well -- just ask Phil Donohue, who lost his show five years ago despite the fact that it was MSNBC's top-rated offering. (Internal memos shortly made it clear that he was dumped because he was against Bush/Cheney's war.) And now that network has Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow in prime time, with Joe Scarborough shunted to the mornings. Meanwhile, Thom Hartmann has been besting Rush in markets where he's had the chance -- but, by and large, he hasn't had the chance; and neither has Peter B. Collins, or any other able dissident.
So what this country needs, ASAP, is media reform; because the media culture now in place is not a genuine expression of our real opinions or desires, but a gigantic corporate imposition on us all. For far too long we have assumed that what we see and hear (and read) comes mostly from the right because Americans are mostly on the right: not just throughout the "heartland," but, ludicrously even in New York, L.A,, Chicago, San Francisco. Thus we must reform the US media -- break the oligopoly, restore the broadcast code, and build a genuinely non- commercial public system) so that we'll know not just what's really going on, but also, even more important, who we really are.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
6 Comments so far
Show AllExcellent diagnosis and perfect prescription!
The first and most vital step in media reform must be the decentralization of news from corporate control. As Miller points out, we need to forcibly break up the big media conglomerates and tighten up the ownership rules to the point that Rupert Murdoch squeals like Ned Beatty's character in "Deliverance."
q
Media reform will work when it goes on OFFENSE. This means attacking the Corporate Media openly and making it the issue NOT JUST TRYING TO GET SOME SHOW WITH THIRTEEN LISTENERS . WE NEED A WAR OF DELEGITIMATION. Of course that is not going to get any so called progressive journalists grants from the Ford Foundations so......it will probably not be embraced by MR Miller. And the Media Reform movement will continue to spin its wheels for another dozen years.
As Mr. Miller well knows from his colleague at NYUs J school Brett Gary, the intelligence agencies did their work by DEFANGING THE LEFT MEDIA AS MUCH AS BY PROPAGANDA IN THE CENTER AND RIGHT. SEE THE EXCELLENT BOOK BY BRETT GARY NERVOUS LIBERALS: PROPAGANDA AND ANXIETY FROM WWI THROUGH THE COLD WAR. After that you will not scoff so much when you hear people mention the historical reality of so-called "left-gatekeeping"
---
Please read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, or people will remain thinking that the Presidents Chosen by Wolf Blitzer will change everything, and we-- as a species will devlove into quivering lime Jello, and not even cold quiverin
MCM misses a few points. First, liberals, progressives, etc simply do not listen to talk radio, unless it's funny - and even then, not in mass quantities. We prefer music - plus, we can't stand listening to some schmuck angrily rant for hours on end, especially if he/she is telling us what to think.
Second, the reason right-wingut radio is so popular with the wingnuts is because, culturally, they offer nothing else. They don't make movies, write great fiction or beautiful poetry, make awesome music, they don't paint or sculpt, etc. Why? Because to make art, one has to be able to look in the mirror, to feel a wide range of emotions, to passionately question everything, to embrace change, etc.
The same corporations pushing a right-slant in certain media are, simultaneously, pushing a left-slant in others, like film - notice how neither FOX nor Viacom nor even Disney is releasing a slew of right-leaning flicks or, for the most part, TV shows? That's because they know their audience, and they know who it's not, and it's not the Beck and Savage followers...
Most will turn their TVs off before their computers, which is why I see TV as a dying media type with many networks soon to be forced to compete with 100% web-based media and its very lean business model. Become the Media as IndyMedia promotes and concentrate on your locale while networking with others in their locales, which has proved very effective South of the Border. And by all means, breakup the conglomerates.
I agree with 'quickstepper' that the " first and most vital step in media reform must be the decentralization of news from corporate control." Having said that, it's easier said than done. Our corporate media doesn't allow our political system to offer up any candidates that might actually make an attempt at media reform. Even if some politician did buck his corporate sponsors and go for it, the rest of his fellow representatives would soon demonize him.
While the internet has really taken off, the vast majority of Americans still turn to the T.V., newspapers and radio for their "mainstream media". I'm afraid it will take more than a few mavericks out there to wrest control from the vested interests.
I also agree with 'frank1569' that many liberals and progressives don't listen to talk radio, however I believe it is because progressive talk radio is rare or non-existent in most of the U.S. Canada has CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) who routinely places 'lefties' and even anarchists on their radio programs while enjoying a huge audience.
tnmoderate suggest "to take a look at the arbitron ratings for the portly one" to realize that Rush Limbaugh does not appeal to a 'fringe audience'. I couldn't agree more. At least 70 evangelicals alone think that Rush is almost the equivalent of the second coming, but this precisely the point; truly progressive alternatives aren't available and won't be available anytime in the foreseeable future!
oujiQualm34 says "Media reform will work when it goes on OFFENSE. This means attacking the Corporate Media openly and making it the issue..." And how can we do that when all the stations, major publications and airwaves are dominated by a handful of corporations? Scream in the streets? Blog on the internet? We can't complain to our elected reps because they had to facilitate the system to get elected in the first place. The silenced majority is not silent out of choice as much as the fact that they're shut out of the MSM. Alternatives do exist, but realistically any options of "mass appeal" are not available to us.
On an individual or grass roots approach, the best we can do is to steer people away from the MSM, be vigilant in how our schools educate students on the methods of propagating falsehoods, promote alternative internet sites and publications in local papers and any other public/private venues any finally participate in any organized public protest that is directed against corporate dominance. Besides that I'm hard pressed on how to reach more people.