Let The (Mind) Games Begin! June 4, 2007
Posted by littlebangtheory in Politics and Society.Tags: internet, Maurice Hinchey, public radio, WAMC
trackback
One of the things I value most in the “Information Age” is, well, information. Not spin or hype or press kits or “leaks” from the Whitey-House. I’m thinking more of the unfettered exchange of facts and ideas which is the hallmark of the Blogosphere.
Yeah, I know, that’s a double-edged sword: there’s enough spin in here to demonstrate the right-hand rule. But still, there are plenty of independent voices and perspectives, and that abundance of unfiltered viewpoints gives me lots of jumping-off points for my own investigations of things which interest me.
Public Radio has for most of its existence been a similarly independent voice in a sea of Media Behemoths, but if you’ve been paying attention, you’re probably aware of the gradual shift which has been taking place. It started with NPR sweating bullets over their funding, an issue which got pretty out of hand during the ascendancy of the “Moral Majority” debacle and continues only slightly less precariously to this day.
An outrageous example of The Right’s efforts to suppress your First Amendment rights occurred in New York a couple of years ago, when then-governor George Pataki tried to zero out the budget for WAMC Public Radio out of Albany, and only WAMC, in retaliation for their reporting critically on his administration. The public outcry was immense and the effort went down in flames, but he tried.
The clammy, crawly feeling of being swallowed whole by a grinning serpent continues with the appearances of NPR mainstays such as Juan Williams on M$M outlets where the smell of money is less subtle. Does anybody else wonder if maybe, just maybe these gigs might influence the kinds of leads Mr. Williams might or might not be willing to pursue in his good-guy job?
Maybe we should.
Now we have news of a Brave New World of broadcasting independence and integrity: WFCR, public radio out of Amherst, MA is teaming up with Clear Channel to bring The Whole Truth to the people of the greater Springfield area.
Don’t get me wrong here; I’m not saying that the unwashed masses shouldn’t have the benefit of hearing NPR’s version of the news. I think more people should be listening to that (admittedly increasingly insipid) feed instead of watching Faux sNooze. It just creeps me out to see the Rupert Murdochs and the Clear Channels of the world devouring everything in their paths. And I wonder how many other “public radio stations” outside of my sphere of consciousness are Crossing Over.
New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey is working on The Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA), an important and long overdue piece of legislation which I believe is crucial to preserving freedom of speech, and ultimately democracy itself in My America. I would like to urge you to check out the above link, think about it, and encourage your own legislators to sign on and fully support this bill.
And tell your friends to get on it, too. While you still have a voice.
Hinchey’s bill is far from a good idea and I would be impressed if through government regulation he could remove all opinion and perceived bias by “Guarantees Fairness in Broadcasting.” No matter what is aired, some group is going to claim bias, exclusion or soem other complaint.
I do some consulting with the NAB on some media issues and have been following the clamor for the return of the “fairness doctrine.” The doctrine wasn’t fair prior to it’s repeal in 1987 and it would be exponentially more unfair in today’s media marketplace with so many choices. The doctrine was in fact unfair in that it only applied to broadcasters and the FCC found that it actually led to less diversity of opinion and discouraged open debate. The incentive for broadcasters was to avoid controversial topics rather than face complaints that all sides of an issue hadn’t been addressed.
Additionally, as I mentioned before, with the growth in cable/satellite TV and especially online we have more options than ever to get news, entertainment and information. The FCC needs to address these changes in their review of the media ownership regulations and allow individual broadcasters the ability to compete with the large online sites for the advertising revenue they need to survive.
You know Chris, I’m not a big fan of the Fairness Doctrine either, though probably for different reasons than yours. I think that given the current trend toward media hegemony, the mainstream media would use the law to force independent voices to spend fully half their time and resources spewing party-line pablum. Kinda like telling a biology professor that he has to give equal class time to creationism, even though it’s totally baseless bullshit.
But the Fairness Doctrine does have it’s good side, and besides, it’s only ONE of the five points covered in Hinchey’s bill.
What I’m really interested in is points two and three, regarding media consolidation and a lack of diverse viewpoints.
It seems to me that having five large corporations control all of our media would be like having five large corporation control all of our oil.
Now we wouldn’t do THAT, would we???
Apologies for the delayed response. I agree with you and as I noted there are enough media outlets that the creationists and the evolutionists can each make their case without having it mandated that broadcasters cover both sides of an issue. Also, who is to say there are only two sides and it seems today some group will always perceive their viewpoint to be slighted. I understand your concerns and the intent but we saw that the doctrine was not fair.
As for media consolidation, I also understand your concerns, but IMO you underestimate the influence and power of cable and online media that give us more options and viewpoints. As Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, notes in this article there is a “media cornucopia”,
Throughout most of history, humans lived in a state of extreme information poverty. News traveled slowly, field to field, village to village. Even with the printing press’s advent, information spread at a snail’s pace. Few knew how to find printed materials, assuming that they even knew how to read. Today, by contrast, we live in a world of unprecedented media abundance that once would have been the stuff of science-fiction novels. We can increasingly obtain and consume whatever media we want, wherever and whenever we want: television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the bewildering variety of material available on the Internet.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_media.html
We are merely asking the FCC to recognize the abundant changes in the marketplace and update the ownership rules accordingly. Thanks for the response.
Wow, a conversation! Good to have you visiting here!
I really think the only serious challenge to media hegemony in this country is the internet, and unfortunately a good many of the “have-nots”, have not got it! People with the time, energy, curiosity and resources to seek out information on the web are better informed than ever before in history, but a majority of Americans spend their time rooting for the next America Idol and getting their news from Fox or Clear Channel.
I only know about this recent and local incursion of for-profit radio into Public Radio, but I bet there are many more examples nation wide. The main thing I’m arguing against here is media consolidation. It scares me, because we can’t make the right choices if we don’t have a choice.