23
May
Why We Need a Media and Democracy Act
How do we put media reform on the political agenda? Many ideas have been proposed and the News Dissector has one too: The Media and Democracy Act of 2005. Last week Danny discussed the Media Reform Conference. Now he steps up to the plate with his own approach.
The notion of a Fourth Estate whose constitutionally-mandated existence operates as a check on federal power and secrecy needs to be re-vitalized. This cannot happen when the press views its own output through the lens of profit or loss, or when conglomerate executives act as fine-mesh sieves to strangle every reporter’s story that (they feel) might offend the powerful or their social peers. Let the Media and Democracy Act restore the firewall between News and Entertainment, and publicly fund the former while allowing the latter to do what they do best, go after profits by creating Lowest Common Denominator pablum.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:37 amDanny, you are so right. I have studied and taught media law for years, and little things like the fairness doctrine, the one-to-a-market rule, integration of ownership and management, equal time provision, non-trafficking in licenses, the public interest, convenience and necessity, helped keep broadcasting from the awful state it’s now in. Can we fix it? Your proposal for a legally mandated Fourth Estate sounds better than anything I’ve heard so far. Keep on keepin on my man, there are a lot of us out here who count on you…TW
May 23rd, 2005 at 12:58 pm“a funding strategy for public broadcasting and the independent producing community (perhaps financed with a tax on advertising)”
Danny -
This is perhaps both the thorniest issue, and also, if executed properly, the most poltically advantageous opportunity….
I am a Media Studes student at NYU, and prior to returning to academia, I spent 15 years as an investment banker (yes, it is an attempt to get my soul back). As part of a project on public television, I had proposed the following financing mechanism:
Instead of regressive taxes, which woul be opposed by powerful lobbying groups, a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) needs to be created, similar to SLMA or FHLMC (perhaps TLMA?) which would be a source of funds for Public Broadcasting Stations. Similar to SLMA or FNMA or FHLMC, the particular Public Station would borrow funds using guidelines as estbalished by the GSE (e.g. maximum amount of loan, repayment policy, etc). The loans would be issued by banks/investment banks, and implicitly guaranteed by the US government; implicit guarantee merely means that in the event of complete default, the US government makes good on the loan.
Without getting into the intricacies of securitization, the banks who make the loans accumulate the loans and put them into a “package” for sale to investors, typically pension and mutual funds. The “packages” are usually in demand, as the US government implicit guarantee assures a “AAA” rating, also keeping them very liquid and also results in broad participation of market participants.
Politically, this mechasim aligns the interests of public broadcasting with Wall Street, temporarily. That is, Wall Street always welcomes new opportunities to make a buck, and in this case, it is a democratic allocation of capital with free market mechanisms to ensure sustenance. The SLMA and FNMA/FHLMC programs have benefited individuals immensely while also allowing Wall Street to generate revenue. By aligning with Wall Street lobbysits, it might just be the political clout that is needed to fight the NAB and political appartchiks.
There are flaws in this suggestion, and I do not intend it to be the salvation nor solution we all seek; rather, it is a starting point to explore ways in which existing structures can be utilized toward a goal of democratic ideals. Other ideas that can fit into this structure would also be a mechanism to finance minority-owned/operated television stations, both public and private.
Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated, and I hope that we collectively find solutions to the nightmare facing our media structures and democratic processes.
Robert Wosnitzer
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:06 pmbobbywos@mac.com
Mr. Wos makes a lot of sense. The USA needs genuinely publicly funded radio and TV paid for by a tax on advertising. That way, the more money Clear Channel makes, the more is available for the good stuff. Why is prostitution illegal and commercial broadcasting legal (just wondering) — Tom
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:01 pmThe piece entitled Why We Need a Media (sic) and Democracy Act, was misguided on two levels, one an annoying piece of trivia, the other an annoying misunderstanding about our last great president. You can’t say, Why We Need “a” Media,” because Media is a plural term. Secondly, the author twice attempts to disabuse the reader for supposing that it wasn’t conservatives that put Tomlinson in, or supported the “Telecommunications Act of 1994,” it was Clinton! The trouble with this hot story is that it’s as cold as a corpse. Clinton was a conservative democrat. It’s a little late for people to be understanding this painful truth. Clinton was an impressive president, but he was a conservative, not the liberal that the News Dissector implies, and believes, he was.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:06 pmDanny–I like the idea of breaking up the monopoly power of the current big five media companies. However, the legislation that helps create the dynamic for bigness is two-fold:
May 23rd, 2005 at 7:18 pm1) estate tax laws, which force the smaller publishers, like Mr. Johnson of Ebony, etc., to sell basically for tax/estate reasons;
2) and sale to publicly-owned companies. Somehow, the Pacifica network has been able to resist these pressures, so it might be fitting to mandate sale to a privately-held entity, such as Pacifica, etc., would be a better way to go.
One restriction, therefore, would be to sell it to a chartered organization, where the charter could be revoked if the stations failed to live up to provisions of the charter.
Here, I would go even further that Ralph Nader and Citizen Watch, or whatever the name of his group is, who favors federal chartering of corporations. My belief is that Native American Indian Tribes should be the custodian/trustees of these airwaves. First off, the US has broken so many treaties with them, it’s time for some form of reparations.(Just go to the new Native American Museum in Washington, DC, and look at the display of a sample of the treaties broken!) And the airwaves were part of the territory seized. Plus, their belief system makes them better trustees of harmony with the earth than many Americans, especially of the political variety.
The suggestion above for securitizing stations in order to find money for the ventures is fine as a concept. But the wily political mind is likely to leave a few loopholes in the legislation, which can be then exploited when the federal employee goes to the political consultant phone booth on K street, and emerges with as must lust for money as any Pirate of the Carribean. I trust neither the law nor the lawmakers in Washington, DC. Plus, if the airwaves were put in the custody of the Tribes, the law would have to legal force of a Treaty, and thus would avoid frivolous legal challenges.
As an added touch, I would make the date of the signing subject to be set by the Tribes (we might actually have to retire Columbus Day), and make it a federal holiday, so that people would be reminded every year how important freedom of speech is.
Some great ideas! Breaking up the various monopolies — the five or six mega-corporations that virtually own/control the media — will not be easy, nor likely to be looked upon favorably by a bought-and-paid for (relatively cheaply, I might add) Congress. We are fast approaching the time in our nation when the “will of the people” is routinely ignored, all the while it is being vigorously manipulated by the very corporate media and politicos we seek to influence. Indeed, it is my depressing perception that we are teetering dangerously on the brink of recapitulating 1930s Germany and Italy. At the same time, one must not — and I haven’t — give up on the grand experiment in self-government that is the United States. I like Danny’s notion that a properly crafted campaign for the Media and Democracy Act can have a non-partisan appeal. Such is necessary if we are to overcome the drive and drivers for absolute power that are afoot in our nation today. If we DON’T embark on such a plan, they’ll surely win, condemning our nation to the ash-heap of history, just as every other totalitarian state has ended up.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:14 pmMedia depends on consumers for existence. These consumers can be of both parties. So..we might say only a few Americans have a voice right now. That is the 25% that elected this President and his administration.
The 60% who don’t vote because they feel no one represents them have no voice. They are completely ignored like they belong to those in power, when they do not.
So…we might say, the media ignores the political opinion of the majority. The Fourth Estate ignores most the country for their few elite.
This violates their FCC contracts as well as the very concept of democracy and free speech. Without a voice or information we can not make thoughtful decisions and even if we do…we aren’t consulted as to what should be done. We are even silenced and accused of being “unpatriotic” when we disagree with the agenda of the few in power.
They feed us lies and manipulate the facts to divide us. The Fouth Estate is now a propaganda machine for the few elite in power.
They use our money and power to do so. How dare they!!
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:22 pmThe radical right has strategically devised how to use our public places, spaces and insitutions as channels for their messages — this includes the airwaves and our public schools — and we need to counter their messaging with our owm. Kids in public schools are being buried with NCLB mandates while civics, the practice of being an informed and acticve citizen, is being shunted aside — we don’t want to teach our kids critical analysis and how to question government authority that would threaten the idealogical control structure. We have to EDUCATE the youth of today to fight the repression that is barreling down on them. Get kids and teachers involved with this Media and Democracy Act and I guarantee it will fly and Senators and Congressmen will want to be associated with it if not just for good publicity, but to make th press take a long hard look at it’s role!
My 2 cents,
Sue
May 24th, 2005 at 10:29 amIt’s a Constitutional Problem
I’ve argued on the Kos blog that mass media are essentially ungoverned spaces that lie outside the conception of our Constitutional system.
Mass media bring us much of our common social experience; they host a great deal of commercial activity, and they are our primary venues for political discourse.
But our system gives society and citizens very few of the rights in the mass media spaces that we’ve evolved over millennia for physical spaces. Worse, media owners are protected from society and the citizens by our parchment-era rights of free “speech” and “press” that logically should apply to only a tiny fraction of mass media activity.
Absent the traditions of custom and law we’ve evolved for physical spaces, the mass-media function as vast private offshore territories where much of America goes every minute, every day to be free from our system. It should be no surprise that activity in such uncivilized spaces should go by jungle law.
So I argue that we need more than an act.
We need to recognize that information generally, and mass media particularly, are so fundamental to modern and future society and government that they must be addressed at the Constitution level.
I don’t have any simple prescriptions, but I feel comfortable arguing that we won’t make much progress until we begin to recognize the scope of the problem.
May 24th, 2005 at 11:40 amDANNY !
I fully agree with the needed solution to problem. But the “poetic justice” pipe-dream that we can legislate such evils away is too misleading. Just look at the “rape” of the american public by HMO’s. Our earstwhile Legistlators described the governmental immunity given the HMO’s
May 25th, 2005 at 5:11 pmas a “patients’ rights bill” for promoting the “flim-flam” they were perpertrating on the public. Surely, there is another, more ingenious, way that responds more to “grass roots” desires and interests.
Being from Canada, I watch KSPN out of Spokane, and while living in Vancouver watched KSPS.
Generally I do not watch PBS for any sort of news or public affairs. First it is very insular and myopic. Or dated.
Second, being Canadian I have the CBC, BBC, and the internet for news from around the world, without the American media bias and filters.
PBS does need to reivent itself, and stop chasing the same public affairs and commentary that the big three, CNN and Fox do.
That is why your viewership is dropping in the key demographic, and it is why the American and Canadian political system and scene has lost the generations under 35.
Chase the other stories.
When the scrums are here, go there for the story.
While taking my Journalism 101, some 34 years ago, the teached always told us to go for the story that lies beneath the surface, because that is where you will find the truth.
Why PBS is as connected as it is to the White House for its funding, could be why it is a dying presence in the lives of those under 35.
Why not lose that old man that reports on business, and put in someone who is young, and knows where the real growth in business is. Not on Wall Street, but in the ethernet.
The world is our oyster, and being as insular as the PBS is, is only feeding the all too familiar American view of the world. There is more to the world that the USA.
Maybe if you did this, your president would not have made his error, when boasting being the first to march into the Second World War shoulder to shoulder with the British.
Start exposing the Americans to the world.
There is more in the world than the way the White House looks at it.
May 26th, 2005 at 11:23 amBetter late than never?
May 26th, 2005 at 9:05 pmI am glad to see some of the ideas I was advocating at the Media Reform Conference are resonating with people. There had been what I consider an enormous oversight that neglected to actually address the problem of Big Media. I handed out my flyer to many key people, Danny being one of them, and am glad to see that he is talking along the lines of using legislative power like my proposal suggested.
I am working on the first draft of the Fair Media Act but I still would like others to contribute their ideas about what they would like these new TV channels to be.
As my web site explains: Fair Media is a grassroots media reform organization which advocates for a public media system established by a Fair Media Act. I had the opportunity to talk with FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and found that he is of the opinion that establishing new TV channels is still possible but we have to move fast because this summer the government will start to make decisions about what the spectrum will be used for.
“Establishing a Fair Media is powerful media reform, creating a true public forum on publicly owned airwaves. Offer this Fair Media solution to other media activists so they can contribute to it and help make the vision a reality.” FairMedia.org If anyone wants to help with these efforts please contact me.
May 27th, 2005 at 2:28 pmSomething that has always confused me. Why do people like, ‘World Business for sale,’ think for a minute anyone coming to this blog want to hear from them.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:48 amGreat post by Tom!
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:13 amWe are from http://www.pagerank-prediction.com/ carefully explained about pagerank.
paris hilton this Paris Hilton sex tape has been talked about for weeks and we finally tracked it down and are bringing it to the general public! freehost.ag/parishilton/
February 12th, 2006 at 2:23 am