|
Pulse of the Twin Cities Login |
|
If you do not have an account yet
Create One.
|
|
|
Twin Town High (vol. 8) |
|
|
|
|
Grassroots Support for Independent Media
Wednesday 31 January @ 16:57:29 |
 by TONY NADLER
Illustration by Mark Linvere-Robinson
Big media corporations have got you by the cables, by the towers, by the satellites. Even with the growth of cable TV and the internet, the media channels most consumed by Americans are owned by a rapidly dwindling number of mega-corporations. Yet, big media companies still want more.
 In a recent example of media monopoly tactics, Time Warner handed over Minneapolis cable customers to Comcast. Comcast didn't buy this asset from Time Warner. With approval from their friends at the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), the two companies swapped certain territories in order to consolidate their power regionally. Corporate media greed also led to the recent sales of both major Twin Cities newspapers because they were not extracting quite enough profit margins. The result of these transactions will likely be cutbacks in staff and divestment from local reporting.
Still, corporate media powers have not secured total dominance. Independent media makers, activists and others envisioning a different media future have been pooling their energies and resources, giving birth to a media reform movement. Recently, more than 3,500 people from many countries and almost every U.S. state gathered in Memphis, Tenn., for the 3rd National Media Reform (NMR) Conference. Speakers at the conference included prominent personalities such as Amy Goodman, Bill Moyers, Danny Glover and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Free Press, a national organization dedicated to increasing informed public participation in media policy, organized the conference. But participants came with a broader agenda than just government policy; they also came to strengthen grassroots support for independent media. "It's absolutely critical we bring together all the independent media," Amy Goodman told an enthusiastic crowd. "In this time of war, independent media is the hope."
The tone of the 2007 conference was particularly urgent. Robert McChesney, a communications professor and co-founder of the Free Press, said this is a charged moment of opportunity and danger as new technologies are reorganizing the media landscape. According to McChesney, "In the next five to 10 years, policies will be made that will determine the institutions and structures of media that could go on for a generation or two. Once they are in place, they are difficult to change. They tend to be rigid. For most of us, now is the only time during our life when we can act and affect this process."
Here is a breakdown of four major issues addressed at the conference:
Save the internet – net neutrality
This once obscure and technical issue burst into mainstream politics last year.
Net neutrality means that all internet content and websites are treated equally by service providers for end users; it's a principle that has governed the internet since its inception. However, last year the big telecommunications companies that provide most internet service began talking about charging website operators for access to internet "fast lanes." If service providers are allowed to skirt net neutrality, the outcome could be that big corporations would pay tolls so their sites could be accessed at fast speeds. Sites run by bloggers and others who couldn't afford to pay would be dragged into "slow lanes," undermining the democratic nature of the internet.
A congressional bill requiring net neutrality did not pass last session. Still, over a million citizens' signatures supporting net neutrality led to threats of a filibuster that kept Congress from passing the telecommunications bill of 2006 because it failed to protect net neutrality. Media activists are optimistic that the new Democratic Congress can pass a net neutrality bill, but they still expect a tough fight against the influence of corporate lobbyists.
More information on net neutrality can be found at www.savetheinternet.com.
Media Ownership Rules
Under current law, the FCC reviews rules for media ownership every four years (like the seven-words-you-can't-say-over-the- airwaves rule). Other rules, such as ownership limits, are intended to preserve localism and prevent monopoly. In 2003, the Republican-controlled FCC attempted to give a green light for big companies to control local media even further. The proposed 2003 rule changes would have allowed one company to control up to three TV stations, eight radio stations, the cable system and a daily newspaper in the same market.
While the FCC voted 3-2 to approve these changes, over 3 million citizens contacted Congress in protest. Legislative action and lawsuits temporarily prevented most of the rule-changes from taking place in 2003, but rule-changes are under consideration again this year. One of the heroes of the media reform movement since that time has been the dissenting FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. "We're starting all over again at the FCC," Copps said, encouraging people to stayed tuned to the new round of FCC proceedings. "We know that big media is still interested in loosening rules."
Yet, Copps' larger vision went beyond simply holding back further consolidation. "There's a growing grassroots movement out there," he said hopefully, "to really infuse broadcasting with some public interest regulations like we've never had before."
Media Watchdogging
Media activists don't buy mainstream media claims of "fair and balanced coverage" or of running "all the news that's fit to print." Many watchdog groups have sprung up to monitor big media organizations--to document their biases and their failure to cover important stories.
David Brock worked for conservative media for over 11 years. Eventually, Brock says he could no longer keep up with "the ability to lie unflinchingly," which he saw as the dubious job skill his right-wing colleagues possessed. Brock had a conversion and founded Media Matters for America (mediamatters.org), a group that tracks right-wing bias in media and posts findings on their website. "We have seen real results, in some cases, from just dozens of thoughtful e-mails from consumers who register complaints with media," Brock said.
Bias surfaces not only in the way media organizations cover certain stories, but even more importantly, in what they ignore. "How media distort is often by leaving things entirely off the page," said Janine Jackson of the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). "There is a critical need for information sources that exist without any reference to elite definitions of the news. Not just 'Here's how the Time is getting [it] wrong,' but news sources that just come from a completely different perspective."
It's not only groups like FAIR and Media Matters or independent journalists who serve as media watchdogs. Bloggers have now become some of the greatest challengers to the authority and biases of mainstream media. NYU journalism professor and avid blogger Jay Rosen believes the internet can revolutionize journalism. "The tools for media production and distribution," he quipped, "have been redistributed to the people formerly known as the audience."
Media Justice
A 2006 report released by Free Press researcher Derek Turner showed that women owned only 4.97 percent of all TV and radio stations, and members of racial minority groups owned only 3.26 percent of all stations.
Many speakers at the NMR conference discussed how gross inequalities in media ownership have greatly contributed to the dismal neglect and demeaning representations of women and minority groups in U.S. media. "Media justice is about changing who is at the table at every level," said Deepa Fernandez of Pacifica's WBAI, "so that our communities are represented and have power in content production, ownership, policy and regulation. Disenfranchised communities don't just want to be invited in, and we don't just want a mic put in our hands. We want to own the mic and own the station."
Carla Brooks of Howard University made clear that media justice concerns not only news programming but also all forms of cultural expression. "If we are going to have a serious and honest dialogue about the state of hip-hop and its overt promotion of violence, sexism, ultra-consumerism and other harmful messages," Brooks challenged, "we must look critically at the larger structures of domination--in this case media concentration." She argued that selective FCC enforcement and corporate ownership of radio and big music companies minimizes the promotion of socially conscious forms of hip-hop in favor of music that stereotypes African-Americans.
Consistent with their message of accessibility, podcasts of all sessions of the conference are available free at freepress.net/conference. ||
Tony Nadler is a former graduate fellow at Free Press and currently is a graduate student in communication studies at the University of Minnesota.
|
|
 |
|
|
Comments -
Post Comment |
|
The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content.
NO comments yet! Be the first!
|
|
|
