Volume 5, number 5, June 2003 Freedom (of the Press) Isn't Free The Federal Communications Commission is primed this month to relax regulations that limit media consolidation. By the time you read this, those changes may already have been implemented. Among the sweeping changes is a proposal to eliminate cross-ownership rules, which would subsequently allow a single company to own as many as two TV stations, eight radio stations, and one newspaper in a single market. The FCC rule-making process is remarkably complex, but a little basic history of the press in this country informs why these changes are such a bad idea. At the time of this nation’s birth, the function of the press was quite different than what we think of today. Newspapers were almost always published by political parties; they contained very little actual "news," but rather served only to disseminate political views and beliefs. The framers of the Constitution recognized that placing limits on the press had the very real effect of restricting political speech (a fear soon realized by the profoundly undemocratic Sedition Act of 1798 which constrained free speech and criminalized dissent). Media critic Robert McChesney notes freedom of the press was written into the First Amendment to satisfy a very real and immediate need: the survival of democracy. Yet the media giants seeking to consolidate their power and influence today would have us believe that Messrs. Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison dreamed up this concept to protect the rights of AOL and Time Warner shareholders to make obscene amounts of money. Freedom of the press has become a bastardized concept. Where it once rightly served to protect and promote a diversity of ideas—and still does when it works as intended—the concept now doubles as a profiteer’s dream. This constitutional freedom allows a newsroom to fire half its reporters, produce bland and meaningless "news," and still rake in advertisers’ dollars because there simply is no other game in town. The FCC is buying—no, propagating—this line that our current media system is somehow ordained by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in our Constitution. Proponents of the corporatization of the media further argue that freedom of the press works for everyone, that America has the freest press in the world where no one is censored. But unless you’re a billionaire with the means to widely distribute your message, nobody is going to listen to you. Sure you can set up a soapbox on the corner of Second and Cushman, and no one’s going to haul you away to some detention camp. But this freedom of expression and the commercial foundation that dictates today’s media are diametrically opposed to one another. The FCC has a responsibility to protect diversity on the publicly owned airwaves, yet the media giants are deliberately confusing the First Amendment’s prohibition on governmental interference of the press with governmental regulation of it. What is the practical effect of the FCC rule change locally? The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner is poised to exercise an option to purchase KTVF Channel 11. Dean Singleton, the owner of the News-Miner, recently boasted to Congress that combining the news staffs of the two outlets would improve coverage and benefit Alaskans. Yet media consolidation elsewhere has resulted in a homogenization of coverage that is bland, uninformative, and largely ignores community needs. It’s also profitable to produce and easy to distribute, which is the real appeal for Singleton and his fellow media executives. Sadly, the local news market is already suffering under such a malaise. The News-Miner, KTVF, and other media outlets have consistently collaborated on all manner of news coverage. Cross-promotion abounds as print reporters offer commentary on televised news broadcasts. This "media cartel" becomes the narrow end of the funnel through which all news must pass. When collaborating on election coverage, for example, a handful of news directors suddenly exert incredible influence over which candidates and issues receive coverage and which do not. Can you name any of the third-party candidates for governor from last fall’s election? Don’t be embarrassed if you can’t. The local news media all but buried their names and viewpoints. What do you do if you’re an Alaska Independence Party candidate and the print, radio, and TV newsrooms, acting in concert, decline to interview you? Where do you go? More important, if you’re a citizen trying to decide for whom to vote, where do you learn about this AIP guy? Here again is where the bogus "free press" argument arises. While the news media feature only the major party candidates, that AIP guy should just be happy to live in America where he has the freedom to put up a website that gets thirteen hits a month. Wow, what a deal this FCC has given us! Finally, I am reminded of a passage in Kurt Eichenwald’s The Informant, a riveting account of the Archer Daniels Midland price-fixing scandals of the mid-1990s. Eichenwald notes anytime you see half a dozen middle-aged white men in business suits going into a hotel suite, that can’t be good. They’re certainly not gathering to work for social justice. Similarly, if the largest media corporations in the country are lobbying the FCC to relax its regulations, you can be certain better journalism and a higher standard of public service are not foremost on their minds.
| ||
 | | |
