WHY WE NEED A MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY ACT

[paineinthearse]

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.
(MediaChannel.org)

Excerpt: "My idea: A Media and Democracy Act to package proposals for an anti-trust program to break up media monopolies; a funding strategy for public broadcasting and the independent producing community (perhaps financed with a tax on advertising); reinstatement of an updated fairness doctrine; free broadcasts for political debate across the spectrum; limits on advertising and monitoring for honesty and accuracy; guarantees for media freedom in the public interest; media literacy education in our schools; provisions for free wireless; media training and access centers; more support for media arts, etc."

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert380.shtml

Why We Need A Media And Democracy Act

By Danny Schechter
MediaChannel.org

NEW YORK, MAY 23 — The National Conference for Media Reform held last week in St. Louis was a smashing success in generating the momentum that the organizers from Free Press hoped for. Bill Moyers's powerful sermon of a speech during the closing session on Sunday morning was aired on C-SPAN and hurtled through cyberspace faster than that proverbial speeding bullet. The threat to PBS was put on the agenda – as it should be – with a powerful challenge to Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson. Tomlinson's big-foot strategy at PBS and NPR is being exposed for what is – a right-wing coup that will, if it is successful, drive what remains of more diverse or outspoken programming off the public airwaves. That came through very clearly.

What has yet to penetrate the progressive community is a deeper understanding of the structural problem here, and the institutional stagnation that PBS has suffered from for years. Unmentioned at the conference was the fact that it was Bill Clinton – not Attila the Hun or Bill O'Reilly – who appointed Tomlinson and, for that matter, Michael Powell. As a TV producer with years of experience producing programming for the PBS that we are now trying to save, I can tell you how flawed the system has been, how timid, and how difficult to work with. But I won't.

Suffice it to say, anything less than reinventing PBS and imbuing it with a new more courageous spirit and mission will not have the desired effect. I know. I've been there and done that. We all like Big Bird, but I am not sure how many adults will go to the mattresses for him. (Well, maybe for Miss Piggy!) Remember, too, it was the Clinton administration that supported the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with the deluded expectation that consumers would benefit by breaking up media monopolies to achieve more competition. What we got instead was more media concentration.

What was not appreciated then was how powerful media power is. We have to recognize that the media industries have shoveled oodles of moolah into political campaigns on both sides of the aisle. They are bi-partisan and equal-opportunity power brokers. They are about their bottom line, not advancing democracy. So, the media problem is not at its heart a partisan one – it's about interests, not issues. Reforms can't be based on slogans because they have to try to transform structures. As one critic of half-way incremental reformism put it in a newspaper circulated at the conference, we don't want to end up "painting lipstick on the pig." This is why I believe we need a comprehensive approach, an umbrella strategy that can translate what we really want into a legislative package that many different constituencies can sign onto with the principle that unity is better than disunity, à la the Contract for America. (Note how Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich are now best buddies.)

more..........

— "News Dissector" Danny Schechter is the "blogger-in chief" of MediaChannel.org and director of the film "WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception)," on media coverage of the Iraq War.

[paineinthearse]

1. Is there a DU pox on Danny Schecter?

It amazes me that all posts about Danny Schecter's work (MediaChannel.org, the film "WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception), etc.
consistantly receives no response.

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

2. I so totally agree that we need reform.....like yesterday!

"What was not appreciated then was how powerful media power is." I particularily agree with that statement. I think it is only just dawning on many of us.

but I don't necessarily believe this excerpt as described here (maybe I am parsing words)....."They are about their bottom line, not advancing democracy. So, the media problem is not at its heart a partisan one – it's about interests, not issues. "

I believe that much of the media is controlled by corporate interests...which therefore, makes them partisans that favor the Republicans (due to GOP tax stances & hand off regulation).

So yes, they are about the bottomline; but because their bottomline is corporate at heart (with interests beyond media holding profits, e.g., General Electric), which this in turn, makes them partisans. Even if not by nature, this partisanship practice yields the same the results, regardless of its reason for it.

Of course they don't give a damn about Democracy....which is the real danger in the end. "Freedom of the Press" was included in the Bill of Rights for a reason....and that reason was to make it the 4th estate that would "safeguard" our Democracy. That is the crime being committed......the fact that Democracy means nothing to them!