Editorial 7.6, June 2005, by Deirdre Helfferich Sacrifice and the Commons The Federal Teat So practically every business and organization in town, including the University of Alaska and GVEA, gave people time off to go to the regional hearing of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner has yelled “Save Our Base” as loudly as it could, even resorting to annoying pop-up windows on its website that showed up on every page, reminding readers of the BRAC hearing and exhorting us all that “America Needs Eielson” and “Show your support! Attend the BRAC Commision Hearing.” The Save Eielson Task Force (which includes the publisher of the News-Miner) is working to get the population out in droves to support keeping Eielson as it is. Laidlaw donated the use of a fleet of school buses, according to the News-Miner, to schlepp all those base supporters to the Carlson Center for the hearing. (This assumes, of course, that the people who show up are in fact supporting the task force’s point of view.) So tell me, exactly HOW does this support our troops? Eielson isn’t going to be closed, it’s going to be reduced in staff. Those people aren’t going to be fired; they’ve signed contracts that a contortionist couldn’t get out of. They’ll be reassigned. What it will do is save money, money that will be used to buy little things like armor for vehicles, flak jackets, medical supplies, veterans’ benefits—you know, little unimportant things that all, apparently, pale in comparison to the need for Fairbanksans to get a few federal coins. Sort of like an able-bodied beggar unable to see that he can indeed make his own living. Think of it this way: American civilians (not counting the families of the troops), unlike in other wars, have not had to sacrifice anything to keep our military personnell and veterans safe and healthy. No victory gardens, no “Bike to work to help our troops” campaigns organized by employers eager to really support our military. No. Instead, we spend more than million dollars on hoopla so we can continue to suck at the taxpayers’ breast. For shame, Fairbanks, for shame. Jim Holm and Public Broadcasting “Unless we have control over what they print or publish, we can’t give tax dollars to it.” “It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion.” “Numerous politicians have seized absolute power and muzzled the press. Never in history has the press seized absolute power and muzzled the politicians.” Jim Holm is right out there with his view of what the media is all about. He’s tried oh, so hard to eliminate public broadcasting, believing that all broadcasting should be handled by the private sector—evidently because he can’t control journalism and would rather have propaganda. The government already has public relations people. Privatization is not a panacea. Unfortunately, our society tends to look for that single, simple Big Answer to Everything, and the capitalist’s dream of Everything for Sale is now getting applied to the public domain, including the airwaves. This process has been steadily converting our public right to a commons that we all share and benefit by into a private right to accumulate—or to lose. And this is what Representative Holm doesn’t seem to grasp: that journalism should be independent, and that radio and TV belong to the public. Those stations and networks using the air do not own the broadcast medium, and they shouldn’t. It belongs to all of us. Public broadcasting is essential to democracy. Public stations cover all kinds of boring but informative and essential news: the borough assembly and school board meetings, and the legislative sessions are just a few examples. They do it without commercials, which have been detested by the public since radio first came on the air. The corporate media have been consolidating, with the government’s blessing, becoming huge media trusts and operating to benefit the stockholders, not the public, and thus limiting programming, basing their restrictions on the bottom line. Public broadcasting exists to benefit the public—and the public approves: PBS was ranked in a 2003 national poll as the most trusted national institution, and has shown overwhelming support locally. Jim Holm won the last election by only twenty-seven votes, and the next election is still a ways off. Still, people are already voting against him, in perhaps the only way he’ll understand. An informal boycott of his greenhouse business, Holm Town Nursery, seems to be underway. When the subject of Holm’s attitude toward public broadcasting comes up, people I talk with invariably say, “Him? I wouldn’t shop at his greenhouse if you paid me. I’m taking my business to Ann’s, or Fred’s, or I’ll do without.” People care about public broadcasting here, and want to see it fully funded. They don’t agree with Holm that its budget should be cut in a time when the state is rolling in dough, and they’re mad. Holm should consider very carefully the ramifications of what he’s done by successfully pushing for funding reductions for public broadcasting. He may find that his own budget is cut. | ||
 | | |
