Media trust-busting--how to do it?

[jpgray]

The FCC rule changes first have to be rolled back and eliminated, but what then? Bring back the fairness doctrine? Regulate news organizations to eliminate parent company conflicts of interest? I'm curious to see what DUers think should be done, because it's something I was never quite able to get my head around--I know the problem, but I can't see a realistic way to fix it. The problem isn't necessarily a conservative bias, but it is a sensationalist attitude, and a toadying up to the powers that be, whether its the toadying to President Bush and the Republican majority now, or the Republican majority from 1994. If there is a conservative bias, I suspect it has more to do with parent companies' concerns about profit and corporate regulation than what letter is next to someone's name. Thoughts?

[Newsjock]

1. You got it right there: "profit"

That's what it's all about. Not conservative bias, not liberal bias. Money bias.

Right now, big media thinks the way to higher profits is by kowtowing to the Bush line -- partially because that's what people are buying, and partially because they get payback in the form of revised FCC rules when they play nice.

But their loyalty is fickle. The moment big media thinks there's more money to be made by going against the administration, they will turn on a dime.

Alas, I don't see that moment coming any time soon, but it could.

Why has this become such a big thing? The big media companies are responsive to shareholders (yes, you and me sometimes), where the old family papers and small groups were responsive to a much smaller circle of people -- people who were quite satisfied with lower profit margins, rather than the 20% and up that all newspapers now must achieve (or the 40% to 50% that some TV stations pull).

What's the long-term solution? Return news media -- particularly in print -- to their constitutionally-protected position of public service, with profit the secondary motive. No, I don't have any clues about practical and legal ways to do this.

[jpgray]

2. I'm afraid your last sentence will be representative for everyone

;-)

But thanks for your comments--we will be going into an election year *always* at a disadvantage if we can't offer a profitable alternative to the GOP. And to do that and maintain Democratic values means to lie, and if a candidate tells those lies, no one in the left base will want to vote for that candidate.

[Tansy_Gold]

3. Corporate regulation and the media

Just an odd and perhaps interesting side note --

When Bill Moyers focused attention on Michael Powell and his attempts to allow greater media concentration, one of the guests on NOW was Barry Diller, formerly of the USA network, etc. Diller spoke out forcefully against media concentration. (see http://www.takebackthemedia.com/newspro/arc46.html -- you'll have to scroll down a ways, but I like the fact that this is posted on TBTM's site.)

However, Diller is also himself a large mover in other areas of media control, namely Ticketmaster, which is described in a recent Mother Jones article as "What do you call a company that has preserved its near monopoly for more than a decade despite numerous antitrust lawsuits, that charges exorbitant fees to its captive customers, whose CEO is said to revel in the fact that he "crushed" one of America's most beloved rock and roll bands when it dared to take the company on, that (for these reasons and more) is near the top of most Americans' list of companies they love to hate?" (See http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/notebook/2003/11/ma_579_01.html)

One way I think we can make some impact on the continued consolidation of corporate media is to stop supporting it. Maybe that's our only real weapon.

Tansy Gold, who scared the sh** out of her husband yesterday when she started screaming because he was getting football highlights and scores from the local Faux news outlet. . . . :grr:

[jpgray]

5. Very intresting article, thanks for posting it (nt)

[dweller]

4. DENNIS KUCINICH'S PLAN FOR MEDIA REFORM

Kucinich will, as President, work for serious media reform, including substantial free air time for
candidates and parties. Given the high cost of campaigns, the power of corporate special interests,
and the fact that the networks are given free use of the public's airwaves, Kucinich will require that
the networks give something back other than "reality" shows.

Media conglomerates are currently among the most powerful lobbyists against media reform, but
Kucinich believes that were the media to provide substantive coverage of politics it would actually
boost both media ratings and voter turnout.

In addition to requiring free air time for political campaigns, Kucinich will create a greater diversity
of viewpoints in the media by breaking up the major media conglomerates, encouraging
competition and quality, as well as diversity. Kucinich will place new caps on media ownership and
would ban the granting of exceptions to those caps. Kucinich will limit the number of media outlets
one corporation can own in a given medium, such as radio, print, or television. He will strictly
prohibit cross-ownership and vertical integration.

Kucinich will involve people in the maintenance of their airwaves, creating public media outlets controlled by community boards similar to the model of Pacifica Radio. He will greatly expand funding for public broadcasting channels on television and radio, assuring the existence of media outlets free of the influence of advertisers.

Kucinich will promote knowledge of the public process through which citizens can challenge the licenses of local broadcast outlets failing to provide local coverage and coverage directed at the whole community, or outlets airing excessive violence.

Kucinich will allow not-for-profit groups to obtain low-power FM radio-station licenses. He will encourage the development of new, community-based, noncommercial broadcasting outlets.

Kucinich will work to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization, which media companies are currently lobbying for the creation of trade sanctions against countries that fund public broadcasting, limit foreign ownership of media, or establish standards for local content. For similar reasons, Kucinich will block US participation in the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas.

source: http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_121303.php

dp

[jpgray]

6. I'm already well-aware of Dennis' plan. :-)

But as great as it is, it *will* not be implemented unless there are already some serious changes in the system. For example, if one of the other candidates is the nominee, they will not have the courage to take this kind of line with the media. I would hope they would get Kucinich in the cabinet in some capacity--I can dream, can't I? :)

[LWolf]

7. So the answer is:

to get out the vote for Dennis! ;-)

[Merlin]

8. You ask a very good question. Kucinich isn't the answer. What is?

We had better get a grip on this, but fast.

Kucinich of course is not a viable candidate, despite the dreams of many. Further, his plan--even if adopted by the winning candidate--is way, way too intrusive to be accepted. Politics (remember) is the art of the possible.

If a Dem beats Bush, he will have maybe the first year to get some kind of media reform through congress. We had better know exactly what that should be.

In the absence of something better, let's at least Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine!