|
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.)
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.
This list is endless. No one group has the clout to put its priorities
on the agenda without support from others, so why not make everyone a
stakeholder in the process? Politics is the art of compromise. That's
why a Media and Democracy Act that incorporates all these concerns can
have appeal across the partisan divides of politics as well as the
political divides within the media and democracy movement.
It is not my job to write the Act. That work can be done by media
reform advocates and by members of Congress and their staffs who know
the arcane world of legislation. All I know – or remember –
is a chart I first saw in elementary school on "How A Bill Becomes A
Law." As I recall, it made no reference to the power of lobbyists,
lawyers and snake-oil salesmen on K Street.
One purpose of such an Act is not to expect to prevail the first time
out, but to show what is needed and is possible, how government policy
shapes the regulatory framework, and how national priorities and
funding could be used to make a media system that can truly serve the
public interest and informs our democracy.
A Media and Democracy Act is an idea that can help move this movement.
It underscores the importance of working together to make media matter
and to show a diverse range of interest groups that we can win if we
work together.
It's an idea whose time is coming.
I would prefer for it to happen in our lifetimes.
 Share your thoughts. Post a comment!
—
"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.
=
= = = = = =
 SUBSCRIBE
to
Media Savvy,
MediaChannel's free daily news update.
= = = = = = =
SUPPORT
MediaChannel's
2005 campaign by donating to MediaChannel.org
= = = = = = =
RETURN
to
MediaChannel's Homepage
= = = = = = =
|
