Pages

Thursday, March 29, 2012

I Had to Pass this Along


Let’s Stop Big Media’s (B)AD Behavior

Over the years we’ve been reporting on how power is monopolized by the powerful. How corporate lobbyists, for example, far outnumber members of Congress. And how the politicians are so eager to do the bidding of donors that they allow those lobbyists to dictate the law of the land and make a farce of democracy.  What we have is much closer to plutocracy, where the massive concentration of wealth at the top is protects and perpetuates itself by controlling the ends and means of politics.  This is why so many of us despair over fixing what’s wrong: we elect representatives to change things, and  once in office they wind up serving the deep-pocketed donors who put up the money to keep change from happening at all.
Here’s the latest case in point. The airwaves belong to all of us, right? They’re part of “the commons” that in theory no private interest should be able to buy or control. Nonetheless, government long ago allowed television and radio stations to use the airwaves for commercial purposes, and the advertising revenues have made those companies fabulously rich. But part of the deal was that in return for the privilege of reaping a fortune they would respect the public interest in a variety of ways, including covering the local news important to our communities. If they didn’t, they would be denied their license to use the airwaves at all.
Alas, over the years, through one ruse or another, the public has been shafted.  We heard the other day of a candidate for office in a Midwest state who complained to the general manager of a TV station that his campaign was not getting any news coverage. “You want coverage?” the broadcaster replied. “Buy some ads and then we’ll talk!”
That pretty well sums up the game. But hold your nose: it gets worse. The media companies and their local stations – including goliaths like CBS and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp – stand to pull in as much as $3 billion this year from political ads. Three billion dollars! And most of that money will pay for airing ugly, toxic negative ads that use special effects, snide jokes and flat out deception to take us to the lowest common denominator of politics.
The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, which is supposed to make sure the broadcasters don’t completely get away with highway or, rather, airwave robbery has proposed to the broadcasting cartel that stations post on the Web the names of the billionaires, and front organizations – many of them super PACs — paying for campaign ads. It’s simplicity itself: give citizens access online to find out quickly and directly who’s buying our elections. Hardly an unreasonable request, given how much cash the broadcasters make from their free use of the airwaves.
But the broadcasting industry’s response has been a simple, declarative “Not on your life!” It would cost too much money, they claim. Speaking on their behalf, Robert McDowell, currently the only Republican commissioner on the FCC – the other one left to take a job with media monolith Comcast — said the proposal is likely “to be a jobs destroyer” by distracting station employees from doing their regular work. The party line also has been sounded by Jerald Fritz, senior vice president of Allbritton Communications, who told the FCC that making the information available on the Internet “would ultimately lead to a Soviet-style standardization of the way advertising should be sold as determined by the government.” We’re not making this up.
Steven Waldman, who was lead author of the report that led to the FCC’s online proposal, quotes a letter from the deans of twelve of our best journalism schools: “Broadcast news organizations depend on, and consistently call for, robust open-record regimes for the institutions they cover; it seems hypocritical for broadcasters to oppose applying the same principles to themselves.”
Hypocritical, but consistent with a business that values the almighty dollar over public service. The industry leaves nothing to chance. Through its control of the House of Representatives, it got a piece of legislation passed this past week euphemistically titled the FCC Process Reform Act. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave – this isn’t reform, it’s evisceration.
Not only does the bill remove roadblocks to more media mergers – further reducing competition – it would  subject every new rule and every FCC analysis of that rule to years of paper work and judicial review, enabling the industry’s horde of lawyers and lobbyists, “to throw sand in the works at every opportunity” as one expert puts it.  There was a noble attempt by California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo to include in this bill an amendment that, like the FCC proposal, called for stations to post on-line who’s putting up the big bucks for political ads. Shocker — it was rejected. Score another one for the plutocrats.
There is some good news. The White House opposes this latest bid by the broadcasting oligarchy to further eviscerate the public interest. And the fate of the House bill in the Senate is uncertain at best.  In the meantime, as far as those political ads go, we’re not totally helpless. Here’s what you can do: Under current law, local television stations still have to keep paper files of who’s paying for these political ads, and they have to make those files available to the public if requested.   You can even make copies to take away with you. So just go down to your nearest station, politely ask for the records, and then send the data online to the New America Foundation’s Media Policy Initiative or to the organization of investigative journalists called ProPublica. Both have mounted campaigns to get the information online.
Each is pulling together all the information on political ads they get from you and others — crowdsourcing  — and making it available to the entire country via the Internet. If you’re a high school teacher or college professor of journalism, have your students do it and maybe give them classroom credit for collecting the data democracy needs to work.
In other words, here’s a way citizens can take action even against the plutocrats who run Big Media and Congress.

8 comments:

  1. One problem with your plan to censor political speech and opinion that you do not like: cable and satellite are like closed circuit, and do not involve scarce airwaves at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He's not talking about censoring, but rather de-censoring. De-censoring the donor info. Now that the government is up for sale to the highest bidders, the information on who's buying it needs to be readily and broadly available. It's our last chance to maintain SOME connection to staying informed as an electorate, in a world where information will be increasingly censored, limited to the messages that the most well-heeled want us to see and hear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "De-censoring" does not apply here, as there is not censorship involved.

      However, I might accept complete donor info as a trade-off for making the anti-censorship part of the Citizens United decision permanent. No "move to amend".

      "in a world where information will be increasingly censored, limited to the messages that the most well-heeled want us to see and hear."

      Again, that has nothing to do with censorship. Even if we do not demand disclosure of donor information. Citizens United has already resulted in less censorship, and now as before (with the long term trend) the ability of anyone to control information is nil due to the open media we have and the diversification of control.

      Delete
  3. Outside the "beltway" folks have hands on experience. To wit:
    "Great Falls Tribune reports:
    The corporation that brought the case and is also fighting accusations that it illegally gathers anonymous donations to fuel political attacks, said the state Supreme Court got it wrong. The group argues that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, passed as a citizen’s ballot initiative, unconstitutionally blocks political speech by corporations.

    The lawsuit was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision from last year granting political speech rights to corporations. A lower court then ruled the state ban was unconstitutional in the wake of the high court’s decision.

    But the Montana Supreme Court on Friday reversed the lower state court’s analysis and application of the Citizens United case.

    The Montana Supreme Court said Montana has a “compelling interest” to uphold its rationally tailored campaign-finance laws that include a combination of restrictions and disclosure requirements.

    A group seeking to undo the Citizens United decision lauded the Montana high court, with its co-founder saying it was a “huge victory for democracy.”

    “With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy,” John Bonifaz, of Free Speech For People, said in a statement.

    The Montana court agreed with Bullock’s argument that past political corruption, led by the famed Butte “Copper Kings” that dominated state politics long ago, gives Montana a compelling interest in regulating corporate spending. They pointed out also that corporations can form voluntary political action committees — subject to disclosure requirements — as a way to remain politically active.

    People are listening to the ire expressed by voters that bad corporate behavior cannot be rewarded — people vote; not corporations."
    -the folks in the black robes should rethink the huge difference between an American citizen and some corporation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The corporation that brought the case ..."

      It happened to be a group of individual Americans who gathered together to make a film critical of a US senator. By making this film and trying to release it, they ran afoul of provisions of campaign finance laws which specifically censored such expression.

      Of course, we should realize that the reason we have the First Amendment in the first place is to protect such speech.

      "The lawsuit was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision from last year granting political speech rights to corporations."

      Which is a misleading way to state it. Really, the Supreme Court decision restored the existing Constitutional rights of citizens to speak out on political issues. Whether or not these individuals are associated with organizations.

      John Bonifaz is minsinformed and ill-intentioned. We have free speech rights in order to strengthen democracy. Doing what he wants and restoring the short-lived laws by which the government censored inviduals' criticism of those in power by disingenously labelling it "corporate speech" would threaten democracy.

      Because then, only those whom the government approves of would be allowed to criticize those in government.

      Delete
    2. IMO, the decision was partisan and unconstitutional. Guess I'm just part of the
      group that believes so- the American electorate ...

      Delete
    3. IMO, the decision was very Constitutional.

      All one has to do is read the First Amendment:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      There's no escape clause for the government to censor people who are associated with organizations. It's simple reading comprehension.

      I read the poll. If there is such strong support for removing the First Amendment (which is what htey demand) and getting rid of one of our most valuable freedoms, then this group should be able to push for an amendment to nullify and pass it.

      A little Voltaire is good here: "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"

      If someone is saying something you don't like, why not just ignore it? Why instead insist on the jackboot of government to kick Americans in the throat to silence them?

      Delete
    4. I forgot to mention. There's nothing "partisan" about the decision. It protects the rights of people to speak out, regardless of their party.

      Delete