On January 12, 2003 two media related articles appeared side by side in the Sacramento Bee. Although their topics were quite different, what they imply, taken together is chilling.
Geneva Overholser's essay ("Cowed Press Ignores World at Public's Peril") explained the lack of reporting on world-wide responses to W's constant saber rattling. She reported a survey that showed that Americans were far less supportive of attacking Iraq if the US was to go it alone. The EU is opposed to attacking Iraq unless substantial evidence of WMDs is found. The real European response is not much talked about here in mainstream media. One has to read foreign newspapers or access their web sites to begin to get a sense for Europe's opposition to a preemptive attack. Overholser argues, "The reason . . . is that we in the media are cowed. We are deflected from our driving purpose--to keep readers informed. Our newsrooms are market-driven and profit-oriented, our staffs are poorly trained and dispirited. We dread being called liberal, we hate to be seen as unpatriotic. We fear making our readers unhappy, we don't want to insult powerful people--indeed, we seem to yearn for their favor." Such a description of journalism and journalist is depressing. The word "fear" is a prominent descriptor. What happened to the notion of the courageous, hard-bitten journalist whose only goal was the truth? Perhaps that notion was a useful fiction in its time.
The effect is less context for and less information to be used in public or private debate on what we should do as a country. Whether or not we like it, most of us rely on the mainstream media for our news and information and it is important that those outlets survey global news and provide us with a wider perspective on the news than re-writes of Whitehouse or Pentagon news releases.
The second, related article by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel reported on FCC plans to allow more concentration of media ownership. Given what I described above, further concentration of media ownership and a corresponding diminution of editorial diversity and opinion, we appear to be moving to almost totalitarian control of media. Michael Powell and co. seem to think the internet will solve that problem. But the internet is increasingly dominated by corporate news as well, simply repacked. The other problem is that of credibility of sources. We used to rely on mainstream sources as the most credible--we had to assume their truthfulness, but by and large that was an appropriate assumption. But when I stumble across a "news" source on the net, how am I to know its veracity unless I invest a great deal of time in analyzing the site? Not everyone has the time do such work nor does everyone have access to such alternatives, be they good or bad. The simple fact is, that mainstream media continue to hold sway over our access to news and our interpretation of it. If the journalists working in these companies are afraid to or unable to expand our context for the news, and if their employment options continue to shrink because they have nowhere else to go, our news system is corrupted and we are in danger of experiencing the kind of media control that Saddam exercises.
The FCC's toadying to corporate media interests is not just scary but will be damaging to all. Kovach and Rosenstiel note that, "Since the rules on ownership of radio were last relaxed in 1996, the two biggest companies went from owning 130 stations to more than 1,400." Such concentration does not serve the public "interest, convenience and necessity"--the value that led to the Radio Act of 1934. The airwaves are ours and I resent the actions of Michael Powell (Colin's son if you didn't already know) in service of corporate interest rather than the public's interest. There is little time to comment--the comment period ends as of January 31. Get directions to comment on the proposed rules by clicking on this sentence.
