Media Reform and Media Revolution

In five years, with no foundation or corporate funding, Indymedia has grown to a global media network with almost 200 local collectives spanning 36 countries and 20 languages. Their websites receive an estimated 30 million page views per month. Indymedia has many problems (lack of age, class, gender, and racial diversity are frequently cited, and some see its chaotic nature as a weakness), but its successes are undeniable. 

The point I’m making is not that Indymedia is superior to less radical media reform efforts; it is that being uncompromising and being wildly successful are not mutually exclusive. Success at the grassroots level sprouts from other criteria, of which solidarity, democracy, and local relevance are examples. 

Looking at the mandates of the reform-minded Free Press and the revolution-oriented Indymedia, there is a lot of room for agreement. In principle, Free Press seeks to open space for the grassroots—and so do Indymedia, Prometheus Radio, Community Wireless, and hundreds of other initiatives—to reach an audience without being shut down or marginalized by the government and corporations. So why is there a problem? 

Structure of the NCMR 

I t has been said that, “Whatever your first issue of concern, media had better be your second, because without change in the media, the chances of progress in your primary area are far less likely.” This seems to have become a sort of mantra for Free Press organizers, but they have carried it one step further. Media reform, they have said repeatedly, is the issue of concern here and we shouldn’t get distracted by other political fights. 

Their concern is understandable and no doubt well intended. If the movement is dominated by infighting, it could lose momentum. As Free Press would have it, we need to stay focused on policy reform and then we can have independent media. Unfortunately, this concern betrays a lack of understanding of this movement in particular and politics in general and could ultimately stifle the emerging resistance instead of accelerating and empowering it. 

Let’s look at the format of the conference. Friday: speakers address the conference, followed by pre-planned panels, workshops, and films, punctuated by breaks. Panels were followed by a short question period during which audience members were asked to keep things short and told to “please ask your question.” Saturday: pre- planned panels, workshops, and films until 4:30, at which point there were caucuses, the one official time that people could speak directly to each other. This was followed by a two-hour “Media Democracy Showcase” where various organizations set up tables. Soon after, there was a star-studded keynote session featuring Al Franken, Jim Hightower, FCC Commissioners, and others. The final day made time for “action clinics,” followed by a plenary session where there was a packed five minute summary of concerns with the conference—a rare moment of questioning. 

I attended the Independent Media Producers’ Caucus and was surprised to find that instead of participating in a discussion among peers, I was subjected to an agenda, set ahead of time, of discussing ways in which the full room of independent media producers could advance the agenda of media reform. It felt insulting. 

In hindsight, I should have been more careful in reading the conference program, which states: “The objective for these caucuses is to allow participants from specific stakeholder constituencies to meet other conference participants from their constituency, allow participants to articulate this group’s stake and role in media reform, and to discuss ways this constituency can engage more deeply in media reform.” 

This language, and my experience of the “caucus,”  in which attendees’ protests were repeatedly glossed over, reflects a fundamental confusion on the part of Free Press organizers about how popular movements function and what feeds them. 

Whence the Movement? 

I t’s important to note where popular movements do not come from. They do not come from a concern with policy or with a desire to democratize federal bureaucracies and regulations; 99.9 percent of Americans do not dedicate a significant part of their day to thinking about policy qua policy. However, a clear majority do think there is too much advertising, do want better news coverage, do want their communities accurately represented in the media. A significant number have tried to make their own media only to be shut down—by corporations, the government, or both. 

It is likely that the majority of these people have not heard of either Indymedia or Free Press. The media reform policy agenda is important, and thousands of people have recognized it as such. But to sustain its growth, the movement (and its self-appointed leaders) must recognize where it comes from. It comes from being misquoted. It comes from an attempt to start a radio station or community wireless network that is shut down by Clear Channel or Verizon. It comes from Fox News. It comes from a lack of community reporting. It comes from a lack of critical coverage of Social Security “reform.” It comes from propaganda for war. It comes from the stereotypes of Muslims or women (for example) that are cultivated by the media. 

If one accepts that this is the case, then the way to cultivate a movement many times the size of the current one is clear. Rather than enlisting the (relatively small) existing pool of people into policy wars, the goal should be to make sure as many people as possible have the experiences that lead them to become active in the fight against corporate media and then help them fight their own fight. And win. 

The National Conference on Media Reform facilitates this in a limited way, but it seems to do so despite itself. The U.S. part of the global justice movement that marched in Seattle, Washington DC, New York, and San Francisco has been learning that asking people to sign on to your agenda because you know best isn’t the way to build a movement; it’s the way to limit it. Free Press can learn this too. It needs to. 

How Does Reform Happen? 

N ow that hundreds of thousands of people are concerned enough to act, how do we channel that concern into concrete change on the ground? The question should be asked before an answer is provided. 

The MoveOn.org/Howard Dean/Free Press model of turning concern into action, whereby widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo is channeled into focused campaigns to change specific policies, has become popular—though concerns about the lack of accountability or democracy in this model (e.g., who decides what campaigns to take on) have been voiced. While no one can deny the power of uniting millions of people in favor of one cause, we must ask: is that enough? Not nearly. The model is simply a way of harvesting the existing discontent, not building, connecting, and expanding it. For reforms to be substantial, the threat of revolution must be real. 

If we want to reform the media, we must undermine their credibility and their very existence from one end, while providing a “reasonable” way out on the other. If they do not heed the call of reform and we replace them, so much the better. 

In the U.S., the right understands very well how to use its more militant factions to move the debate in their direction. I remember hearing Republican leaders on NPR calling attention to some “challenging” proposals—by more far right House Republicans—to legislate the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions. They may have little hope of passing such legislation, but calling attention to it as an imminent threat helps to move the debate in their direction and further their anti-abortion agenda. In the case of the right, cultivating a base of uncompromising militants has only helped them accomplish their political objectives. 

The liberal left in the U.S. has yet to figure this out. Democrats wouldn’t be caught dead saying, “Well, some people are calling for the breakup of the media monopolies and local democratic control over the electromagnetic spectrum, but we’re making the much more reasonable request for more spectrum for LPFM stations in cities.” But there’s a good reason: broadcasters fund the Democrats and control the news coverage about them, too. Thankfully, Free Press is non-partisan. 

In Front of the Parade 

O n many levels, Free Press recognizes these facts remarkably well. (I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t think they do good work.) However, the organization’s tendency (by no means monolithic) to try to constrain the movement and keep its own agenda at the fore will be damaging in the long term. Having placed itself at the front of the Media Reform parade, it is in danger of confusing being in front with being the reason the parade is happening—just as liberals confuse the fact that they were forced to implement a social safety net by the threat of social movements taking power with the idea that it was their leadership and benevolence that made it happen. 

The Response? 

W hether Free Press embraces these (and similar) suggestions or not, their decision will help organizers and activists decide how to respond. Do we put our energy into other gatherings to fight corporate media? There is considerable momentum in this direction already, but Free Press will decide to what extent its National Conference on Media Reform will stay relevant to the movement as a whole. If it exists primarily to further one agenda, rather than to build a movement, it’s better for everyone that we know sooner rather than later. 

If Free Press decides not to broaden the conference to achieve political goals and remains focused on a narrow reform agenda, their resources and formidable organizing power will be missed, but the movement will ultimately be better served by cultivating gatherings (the Allied Media Conference is one example) that focus on formulating a mass-based political challenge to corporate media. 

That said, if there’s anyone who claims that defeating corporate media is possible without a broad based movement that takes social justice into account, that’s a dialogue I’m keen to participate in, as are many others. Now all we need is a venue.