Their Media War And Ours
Media went from becoming a complaint to being an issue in 2003. The pathetic cheerleading that called itself TV coverage of the war in Iraq, and the battle to stop new FCC rules demonstrated that there is a large constituency for media activism and organization.
Progressive activists led the fight. More than 2000 of us converged on Madison Wisconsin to signal a commitment to make media a central concern. It was impressive, energetic and a strong statement. There were members of Congress. top journalists like Bill Moyers, and legends like Studs Terkel. Comedian Al Franken was there along with other best selling authors, pop stars and a whoâ€™s who among media reformers.
The analysis was as powerful as the passion. But the follow up has yet to result in a new organization or coalition. And follow up is key. The conference was not important as an event in itselfâ€”it was important as staging ground for a new offensive on media issues.
Political maneuvers and compromises in Congress blocked the total rebuke to the FCC in 2003 that many hoped for the. The tricks politicians play seems to have taken the wind out of the pressure activists mounted. It was a set back but not a total defeat because the campaign showed that media has become a mainstream issue and will not go away.
What its impressive mobilization should signal to the other activists who have tended to denigrate media activism as somehow secondary to the â€œreal problemsâ€ that it is one of the few issues with national traction, and an ability to galvanize support across the spectrum. The FCC battle was the first that the Bush Administration threatened to exercise a veto against. It was the first that brought Democrats and some Republicans together. It signal that progressive concerns are not marginal or marginizable.
Whatâ€™s next? One email I received recently asked: â€œWhat do we do when our TV and newspapers tell us lies but insist we should regard this information as truth? What do we do when the vast majority of people in our society accepts these lies as truths and ridicule us when we call these statements lies?â€
These are good questions but there are also some good answers. They involve heard work and real action, day to day work in the trenchesâ€”not just sending checks to candidates in hopes that dumping Bush will be a panacea. Bear in the mind that part of the mess we are in goes back to the Telecommunications â€œreformâ€ Act of l996 backed by the Clinton Administration and many liberal democrats. The bill was supposed to foster competition. It led instead to a massive wave of media concentration.
Notice how few candidates even focus on media concentration or slanted coverage. All fear that will lose their fifteen seconds of fame if they piss off think skinned media moguls.
If you recognize, as many in the global justice movements do that real power is exercised today not by governments but by private interests, then a focus on corporate interests make sense. If that is the case, the corporate media deserves more attention.
For one thing, it needs to be pressed to cover protests like the ones in Miami and Mexico that were seen worldwide but not in the United States.
For another, media institutions which report on the corporate irresponsibility of others, like the endless stream of indicted Wall Street operators, need to turn the cameras on themselves. How socially responsible and accountable are they? How transparent? Had activists been paying attention, there would have been a protest against revelations in 2000 by the Alliance for Better Campaigns that showed how many local TV stations violated federal laws by overcharging candidates while reducing their electoral coverage.
What this points to is the need for activists themselves to become better informed about the way big media worksâ€”and the way the government works with it. Thatâ€™s where websites like Mediachannel.org and Mediareform.net and the research of groups like FAIR and Media Tenor come in.
Are you paying attention to the latest research and analysis of media manipulation? Are you aware of how media drives politics and why we can now speak of America as a â€œmediaocracyâ€ in which media rules, not a democracy in which the people decide.
At yearâ€™s end, Rupert Murdoch was given a thank you present for services rendered by the FCC in the form of a go ahead to take over DirecTV, the largest satellite TV service in the United States. It was owned by Hughes Electronics Corp. which had been bought by General Motors ),
As Space News explains. â€ The deal gives News Corp. a television-distribution platform in the United States, where it already operates TV stations, the Fox television network and several pay-TV channels. â€¦News Corp. immediately transferred its stake in Hughes to its majority-owned Fox Entertainment Group, which owns TV stations and other media properties in the United States, the statement said.
This is also part of a global strategy, as the trade newspaper explains: â€œIn addition to DirecTV, which claimed 11.85 million subscribers as of the end of September, Hughes operates a satellite hardware and networking company, Hughes Network Systems of Germantown, Md., and controls DirecTV Latin America, a satellite TV provider in Central and South America. Hughes also owns 81 percent of Wilton, Conn.-based satellite operator PanAmSat Corp.â€
Could this FCC decision have anything to with comments by FCC Chairman Michael Powell, (son of Secretary of State Colin and originally a Clinton Administration appointee by the way, that one reason we need big media is that â€œonly big media can cover the war the way this one has been coveredâ€?
Did you know that a dictionary website that tracks words found that â€œEmbeddingâ€ was the most used new word of 2003? During the invasion phase of the Iraq war, Jingoism fused with journalism and news biz while show biz morphed into what TIME magazine called "militainment."
Can it get any worse? You bet. Recently, tt took a week for us to learn for example that the capture of Saddam was not, as reported a US military coup but rather the work of Kurdish groups bent on avenging the rape of a woman, not the country. Lesson: You canâ€™t trust mainstream news.
We can expect more disinformation and misinformation next year with renewed efforts by the US government to leapfrog over any semblance of a critical media with news feeds bypassing the news networks and fed directly to local stations. Media control will intensify as perceived â€œbad newsâ€ threatens to disturb the domestic tranquility that the Administration is hell bent on preserving.
This is part of the privatization of and a synergization with a strategy adapted by the US military called â€œinformation dominance.â€ David Miller, editor of an important new book called â€œTell Me Liesâ€ (Pluto) explains:
â€œAs Col Kenneth Allard has written, the 2003 attack on Iraq â€˜will be remembered as a conflict in which information fully took its place as a weapon of warâ€™ The interoperability of the various types of â€˜weaponized informationâ€™ has far reaching, if little noticed, implications for the integration of propaganda and media institutions into the war machine. The experience of Iraq in 2003 shows how the planned integration of the media into instruments of war fighting is developing. It also shows the increased role for the private sector in information dominance, a role which reflects wider changes in the armed services in the US and the UK.
â€œ Information dominance provides the underpinning rationale for all information related work. As applied to traditional media management activities the key to dominance is that â€˜nothing done makes any differenceâ€™. In practice this means that the US and UK can tolerate dissent in the media and alternative accounts on the internet. Dissent only matters if it interferes with their plans.â€
It is important that progressive outlets educate their audiences about this type of insidious strategic planning, As important as exposing it is resisting it, Happily a cultural resistance is emerging with theater groups lampooning the news. The New York Times reports on a new play in New Haven which ridiculues coverage of a war that â€œ is being fought somewhere against an unknown enemy" because the Pentagon has decided that to reveal whom and where American forces are fighting would be a security risk."
The play, "A New War" by Gip Hoppe â€œsatirizes a television broadcast from a newsroom at a network very similar to CNN, is a ridiculing sendup of the Bush administration and a kowtowing news mediaâ€¦It owes a great deal to the "Weekend Update" feature on "Saturday Night Live,"â€¦ There is even a version of "Crossfire," here called "Crosshairsâ€¦â€ John Stewarts Comedy Channel news show and many articles in â€œThe Onionâ€ testify to how popular and commercially successful this type of assault on mainstream media has become.
We are all living in the crosshairs of powerful media institutions. Their fire is â€œincoming,â€ into our living roomsâ€”and then into our brains. We need more than self-defense. We need to collective action challenge those â€œcross hairsâ€ and push back. We need to support independent media, with our eyeballs, dollars and our marketing know how. We need to encourage media literacy education in our schools. We need to challenge candidates to speak out on these issues, and media outlets to cover them.
The short truism is: we can all do more than we are doing.
And incidentally. Mediachannel.org is launching a major new initiative called â€œMedia for Democracyâ€ to monitor and challenge political coverage in 2004â€”and to mobilize on this issue. Write to Tim@mediachannel.org if you are want to help and have time, resources or skills to contribute.
Lets not just say Happy New Year. Letâ€™s work for a Happ(ier) News Year.
News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org. His most recent book is â€œEmbedded: Weapons of Mass Deception: How the Media Failed to cover the war in Iraq.â€ (Prometheus)