Stop the FCC Now!

In 2007, the Democratic Party's agenda will be smothered in the cradle without meaningful reform targeting the concentration of the corporate media. The Democrats must stop the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from pursuing the course of accelerating the obscene consolidation of media corporations that has gone on unabated for thirty years. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin should be run out of town on a rail!

Because the media define, frame, and give visibility or meaning to the pressing problems of our time -- from global warming to voting irregularities, from government spying to corporate corruption -- reforming the media must be a top priority. Unless the Democrats move aggressively to reform the corporate media, break it up, and put an end to the "Media Industrial Complex," the crucial debates on the key issues will continue to be slanted, skewed, and distorted through a corporate lens that values the bottom line of Disney or News Corporation far more than what is in the country's best interest. Either we take that course or we just turn the whole system over to Rupert Murdoch.

Vice-President Dick Cheney said on videotape he expected a short war in Iraq because we "will be greeted as liberators," and President George W. Bush said repeatedly there were links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Their televised remarks were as real as the videos of the planes slamming into the World Trade Center. Yet the corporate media offer no context other than commercials and the selling of audiences to advertisers. Cheney and Bush can claim their words were "taken out of context" because there is no context for them to be taken out of.

Eighty years ago, Walter Lippmann wrote: "There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies."

Twenty years ago, in Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman wrote: "We are presented not only with fragmented news but news without context, without consequences, without value, and therefore without essential seriousness; that is to say, news as pure entertainment." Fox News anchor Brit Hume pretends to be a journalist instead of a Republican mouthpiece; Dana Perino pretends to answer questions the members of the supine White House press corps pretend to ask her. President Bush pretends to know and care about what he is doing. Maybe David Gregory and Karl Rove can dance for us again.

"Disinformation does not mean false information," Postman continued. "It means misleading information -- misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information -- information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing." The Bush administration more so than any previous administration in U.S. history is dedicated to spreading this kind of disinformation.

We know more about Tom Cruise's baby, the runaway bride, or a pedophile who claimed to have killed JonBenet, than we do about the NSA wiretaps, the CIA's secret prisons, or Maher Arar. Frank Luntz's "focus groups" have given us the "death tax" and "personal accounts" for Social Security just like Archer Daniels Midlands is the "supermarket to the world" and GE "brings good things to life."

College students enter their freshmen classrooms having watched 16,000 hours of television and some 500,000 commercials. They've seen Disney movies and purchased the tie-in products at McDonald's and Burger King. Beginning in infancy they have had visual, audio, and even tactile bonds to corporate America. And David Horowitz, that boil on the ass of the body politic, claims that humanities professors are the ones doing the "indoctrinating?"

And now, even with Bush's approval ratings in the toilet the FCC's Kevin Martin and his gang of cronies and free market ideologues want to make our currently horrific media environment even worse by allowing more corporate consolidation. You've got to be fucking kidding me!

There are at least five steps that might begin the process of breaking up the corporate media's doctrinal system of control:

1). Enforce anti-trust laws to break up the media oligopolies;
2). Greatly expand the public broadcasting system, (especially news);
3). Publicly finance all political campaigns;
4). Implement a total ban on all political commercials on television;
5). Restore the FCC's fairness doctrine on the public airwaves.

Comments

[TruthSlayer]

PBS refused to publicly air “ISLAM versus ISLAMISTS” program. They just recently gave in after a huge public outcry and congressional pressure. However, since PBS has Liberal Washington Dolts controlling it they figure the public is to stupid to realize PBS did refuse to allow it broadcast in ANY of the 10 major cities or markets. http://www.current.org/doc/doc0707crossroads.shtml

[ihavenobias]

Do you profess to know the motives of PBS?

According to the link you posted:

"...Crossroads creator Pack, who declined to comment on the Islamists fuss, brought on Gaffney’s team as part of his goal to incorporate new voices and perspectives into public TV, he says. “I knew they had a point of view,” Pack says. “But I also always said that they had to meet the journalistic standards of PBS and of the profession, period.”

Gaffney says the film did that. “The idea that this is a point-of-view film or anything other than compelling journalism,” Gaffney tells Current, “is deeply offensive.”

The film follows moderate Muslims — a lawmaker in Denmark, a journalist in France, a physician in Arizona — and their occasionally life-threatening interactions with Muslim fundamentalists.

According to letters and production notes released by the filmmakers, PBS and WETA had problems with the disjointed newsmagazine structure of early cuts, the lack of context and journalistic rigor and a tone that was often “alarmist and overreaching.”

When the producers’ changes didn’t satisfy PBS, they began charging suppression. It was “the film PBS does not want you to see,” Alexiev wrote on the conservative website familysecuritymatters.org. “Has radical Islam found fertile soil within our national public broadcasting system?” he wondered.

Islam and Islamists, in present form shown to Current, potently evokes the rift between moderate and militant Muslims, but it lacks some common amenities of TV journalism.

There are no third-party commenters — non-Muslim government officials, journalists or religious scholars — to give context or clearly distinguish among the fundamentalists, extremists and terrorists. Gaffney says the filmmakers omitted such talking heads because they wanted a story told by Muslims in their own words.

As for the doc’s tone, the chilling narration and soundtrack at times veer toward the histrionic. The producers repeat a slo-mo shot of malevolent-looking cleric swatting at the camera. Did Gaffney understand how a viewer could think the style was occasionally overwrought?

“Let the viewers decide,” he said."

[ihavenobias]

Did you even read the link you posted?

If you did you'd see that there are two sides to this story, not just "PBS is biased so they wouldn't show this documentary".

[LittleBrother]

"Unless the Democrats move aggressively to reform the corporate media, break it up, and put an end to the 'Media Industrial Complex,' the crucial debates on the key issues will continue to be slanted, skewed, and distorted through a corporate lens that values the bottom line of Disney or News Corporation far more than what is in the country's best interest."
__________________________________________________

Hate to be a back-seat editor, but you could've left out the phrase beginning with "Unless" and ending with "'Media Industrial Complex'".

It does not compute.

[GeoNorth]

As a member of the radio broadcast industry for over 35 years, I find the state of radio today to be appalling. Small market radio is a sham. Local stations do nothing for the community because they don't want to "offend" anyone. Instead, they play "Babe" by Styx three times a day, give movie tickets to the 10th caller and expect you to be a loyal listener. This is all so they can hornswaggle local businesses to advertise. Then they'll run a Honda ad next to one for a Ford next to a Chevy next to a Toyota. Each conflict negates the other spot and the advertiser gets nothing. The community gets nothing, the advertisers get nothing, and the stock holders just get cranky if they don't get dividends.

When was the last time you heard a lost dog announcement? It's a small thing but it's indicative of the mindset running the show. They say, "It makes us sound small market". Guess what, brainiac. You are small market.

I remember a time when the local radio station could move opinions in a town. They were a platform for change. You, a citizen, could have your voice heard.

Clear Channel, Cox, Infinity, Emmis, Nassau and a few other companies have messed up a once great medium.

[PerryWhite]

"Media over-reach"? There's a term worthy of Big Brother.

If you mean that the radio and television stations of the CORPORATION for Public Broadcasting have low listenership/viewership, then why not just abolish them? It wouldn't have anything to do with their content being reliably socialist would it?

[ihavenobias]

I look forward to your numerous examples of PBS/NPR socialistic content(audio/video/transcripts)!

[JoeyP]

Yeah, that person who thinks anyone can just go out and buy a media outlet, like we're all a bunch of Rupert Murdochs or something, is really on cloud nine. Also, banning television political ads is the only way to slow our cash-drenched politics because the vast majority of Hillary's money or McCain's money goes to paying television corporations for ads, so the networks have no incentive to cover political news because they want to make the candidates pay -- the networks and cable channels should be required to provide an equal amount of free air time to the candidates -- I guess there are people out there who just love the fact that money dominates our politics -- the political system has failed us and needs to be fixed -- Republicans know they'll lose elections if the playing field was more even.

[PerryWhite]

Under your theories of media concentration, why shouldn't we break up the public broadcasting system?

[Unsean]

Because, I suspect, the idea is as almost nonsensical as your suggestion. What does the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) have to do with media over-reach?

[dadw5boys]

BUSH HAS DESTROYED THE CONSTITUTION, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, RAPED THE ECONOMY, AND NOW HANDING OVER THE MEDIA TO CORPORATIONS.
WHAT A GREAT FREEKIN AMERICAN G.W. BUSHWACKER HAS TURNED OUT TO BE.

[TruthSlayer]

Dadw5boys, I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY YOUR WOMEN DID NOT EXERCISE HER RIGHT TO ABORTION. I MEAN WITH GLOBAL WARMING, RAPING OF ECONOMY, AND OTHER THINGS GOING ON, I REALLY DON’T THINK YOU SHOULD BE HAVING CHILDREN.

[JustifiablyParanoid]

Just goes to show, Mr. Palermo...one comment on this excruciatingly important post of yours...

Perhaps there really is too much shi** going on in the world right now to care about this.

You know...like waiting for American Idol to start again...

Somebody help us.

[ihavenobias]

Exactly.

I was thinking the same thing. It's sad how such a *crucial* issue barely gets any comments.

I mean, in the mainstream media, I'd understand. But you'd think on Huffpost it would AT LEAST get a decent amount of comments? We can only hope it has a decent amount of views...

[JustifiablyParanoid]

Ah, yes. Hope. In this day and age, I had almost forgotten that it exists...

Well, here's hoping.

[xpectu2b]

Just when you think, it couldn't get worse.

Less than 25 percent support (some mandate!) and legislation for yet more concentrated power consolidation.

How much more undoing will have to be done after this scorched earth trend.

These guys are using their last hurrah to make it so there's nothing left to save.

Thanks for your plea. Just hope it's not to late already.

[ihavenobias]

There used to be a firewall between the news and sales departments at the various tv/radio networks.

In those days you could run a story that might reflect poorly on a corporate sponsor and if that sponsor questioned it, the sales department could say "sorry, but we're separate from the news department, by law".

However once those laws/standards/regulations were loosened (again, initially by Reagan and then Clinton), the floodgates opened.

CBS was the first major network to bring it's news department under the umbrella of it's entertainment division, now accountable to the sales department. This gave rise to what many of us today refer to as 'infotainment'.

A perfect example of this is the morning 'news' shows where you're likely to have far more segments on fluff celebrity news and pseudo-commercials on "hot new gadgets" than you are segments on REAL news (relevant domestic and foreign policy issues).

I don't WANT a stenographer that just repeats what he/she is told.

For example, a "story" that says (basically) "The president says Iran is a huge threat and pursuing nuclear weapons...but the democrats disagree" is NOT a story.

People read that, and if they already supported the president they think "yeah, Go Bush! Let's go after Iran!"

People who already supported the democrats read the same thing and think "Yeah, Go democrats! Let's NOT go after Iran!"

*Actual* reporting looks into who is telling the truth *and making a judgment based on those facts* rather than just repeating the talking points of EITHER side as fact OR repeating the talking points of BOTH sides as if that's "fair" and asking the viewer/reader to "make up their own mind".

Huh? What? How can I "make up my own mind" when all you did was state the *opinion* of some democrats vs. some republicans?

PS---There is also that fake "fact checking" that goes on where they don't provide any real context for the viewer/reader and they *pretend* like they totally debunked something.

This is a PERFECT example(short video clip):

youtube.com/watch?v=vwU90B3d6e4

[Plowboy]

The winners love the way things are when they win. So please tell me why would they want to change things.
(And doesn't this explain the "strange" inability of the Democrats to effectively oppose ANY of the recent Republican initiatives?)

[jqcitizen]

Polermo-
Sure would be nice if the owners of this nation (All 303 million of us) would somehow become aware that the resources of the land, including the broadcast frequencies -Radio and TV, are under control of a small group of political appointees.
In recent times this Commission has ruled much like the Administration has. They cannot deny that are Government Employees, but certainly like to use even C-SPAN to convince us that they are the 'Deciders' and we work for them, so just 'Shut-up'.
The White House mouthpieces from Fleisher to Perino are no different than the former Chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell (Gen. Powells son), who fell real important being part of the Royal court of King George.
The 5 points you brought up are excellant, but it is almost a sure bet the Supreme Court will be terrified to even consider any one of them. Nor will Congress.

[rwoodsathome]

Tell me you just put together this list without thinking it through. Please.

1 - break up the media oligopolies - there's nothing stopping you and your buds from pooling your resources and purchase a tv and/or radio station and putting on the air the programming you like. If the public likes it, it will grow and like magic you too will be a member of the oligopoly.

2 - expand public broadcasting - you want the government to provide the news and political commentary? Insanity!

3 - public financing of all campaigns - so the kooks (Kuchinich, Paul, Sheehan, ...) of the world can be heard? That's what the internet is for. If you want to reduce the cost of elections remove the money from DC and return it to the states.

4 - ban all political tv ads - why? Are you afraid the general public is too ignorant and may be swayed one way or the other? Why don't we just ban all commercials while we're at it.

5 - restore the fairness doctrine - why? I don't know about other households, but in mine the radio or TV doesn't come on unless I push the little button. And then I have other buttons so I can CHOOSE to listen/watch what I judge to be informative and entertaining. The fairness doctrine is nothing more than the government force-feeding its wishes upon me. No thanks, I can manage quite well myself. Thank you!

[ihavenobias]

1)-The whole point of monopolies or oligarchies is that the effectively squash any real choice. Arguing that Joe Blow can simply start a show out of his basement is not only absurd and insulting, it's also an incredible oversimplification.

For starters, where does Joe Blow get the MONEY to advertise his product?

In large part success is determined by demand and perception which depend upon marketing and advertising (not to mention large staffs of writers, producers, editors, etc).

2)-WE are 'the government'. That even includes YOU, someone who apparently can't stand the government and thinks of it as some abstract third party out to get him.

The irony is that you oppose public financing of elections which is the *single best way* to ensure that *good* government is restored in America, regardless of your particular political party preference (or lack thereof).

3)-Public financing of elections has nothing to do with "kooks". A smart system would ensure that a particular person running for office would require a certain level of existing support (proven by signatures and small donations for example).

You'd have people running for office that GENUINELY CARED about representing the wishes of the people rather than caring about how much money could be raised by caring about special interest groups.

Furthermore, a person shouldn't be elected into office simply because he/she can afford to plaster their face all over the TV or their voice all over the radio. This isn't Prom King and Queen or American Idol.

They should win on the merit of their ideas, period.

[rwoodsathome]

ihavenobias,

For some, reading comprehension is a challenge.
1 - I didn't say "Arguing that Joe Blow can simply start a show out of his basement". I said purchase an available station. They are up for sale all the time - not the 50K watt frequencies, but the small, local frequencies are always changing hands.
"where does Joe Blow get the MONEY to advertise his product" - the same place as everyone else. They sell advertising time on their most popular product, pool resources with their buds or get a family member to provide seed money. Progressives belief they have the 'pulse of the country'. If so, seed money should be easy to find.

3 - "A smart system would ensure that a particular person running for office would require a certain level of existing support (proven by signatures and small donations for example)". And who is the final arbiter of what makes a 'smart system'? The government? Harry Reid? Nancy Polosi? Harry Potter? Only a sheep would depend on the government to make the rules for fairness in political thought.

Fringe candidates have the entire resources of the internet to get their message out. If they can't get momentum from the internet, then they are hopeless.

[ihavenobias]

4)-This ties into the financing issue. And it's an issue precisely because special interest groups (that tend to favor things that go against the average citizen in one way or another) have more money and leverage to put on potentially influential commercials.

Republican Teddy Roosevelt had it right when he put the 1907 law on the books stating that politicians couldn't receive a single dollar from a corporation (of course that law is basically gone now, and has been for some time).

5)-It's ironic that you talk about choice yet you seem to approve of media consolidation.

How much choice is there when a handful of giant corporations own most of the news outlets (in their various forms, tv, print, etc) and have many of the same stories?