The Stupid Media

Review of It's the Media, Stupid

When Americans reflect on the nature of the American mass media, they often fail to recognize the current trends of increased corporate consolidation and monopolization that have occurred within our society over the last few decades. Fewer and fewer corporate conglomerates have asserted more and more control over the media, in effect limiting the range of intellectual debate in American politics. Those familiar with the critique of the corporate mass media may be familiar with the works of prominent intellectuals like Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols. McChesney and Nichols have shown their consistent commitment to the development of an independent media movement. They support a public media that is free from the commercial, corporate dominance that consistently favors pro-business, biased reporting on relevant public issues.

McChesney and Nichols, authors of the recently released book, It's the Media Stupid, have published an insightful, articulate, and highly credible analysis of the current corporate domination of the news media. Robert McChesney is one of the most credible and competent media analysts of recent years. He teaches communications at the University of Illinois, and is hosting a radio program on AM 580, airing on Sundays at 1pm entitled "Media Matters." His critique of the corporate media is intended to incite necessary public debate over the legitimacy of mass media, which have been traditionally dominated by the narrow interests of an elite corporate sector.

McChesney and Nichols' analysis of the mass media is designed to address one central question regarding the current media structure of the United States: What is the problem with the mass media today? First, both authors relate the problem to the gradual trend of monopolization of the media by fewer and fewer corporations. Today's media system is monopolized by less than a dozen major conglomerates, which maintain substantial control over the information presented to the American public. Nine major conglomerates currently dominate the U.S. media: General Electric, Disney/Cap Cities, Viacom, Sony, AOL-Time Warner, Liberty (AT&T), Bertelsmann, News Corporation, and Seagram (Universal).

But one might ask what is wrong with domination by a few powerful firms of the mass media? The corporate media cannot perform the critical role necessary in effectively promoting an informed and active citizenry, which is necessary in any legitimate democracy. American media tend to present a consistently biased account, favoring the interests of big business over the needs of the public. They promote corporate greed over human need. As Michael Parenti (another prominent media analyst) has noted, "the media are not simply favorable to corporate America, they are corporate America." They play an integral part in the support of pro-business policies, while consistently marginalizing critiques of the American political system. Conglomerates like Time Warner and Disney never mention the plutocracy that exists in American society, and they never mention what types of activism ordinary citizens may engage in to promote egalitarian policies aimed at the redistribution of political power and wealth.

The corporate media have proven that their interests (the quest for unending profits) run contradictory to the basic principles of human rights, equality, and democracy. The corporate media are also extremely critical of grassroots dissent and protest. To find proof of media marginalization of this nature, one simply needs to look at the way the media presented the WTO protests in Seattle (those critical of American politicians and their acquiescence with WTO policies were written off as fringe, left-wing lunatics).

The argument against corporate consolidation also poses one more important question. When wealth and power are concentrated more and more in the hands of fewer and fewer people, is it possible for a truly democratic nation to exist? Those critical of the oligarchic structure would say no. In a true democracy, consideration must be given to all the sides of an argument, in order that the best solution may be reached.

So what solutions do we have according to Nichols and McChesney, in order to counter the anti-democratic corporate ownership of the mass media? For starters, initiatives like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 must be vehemently opposed (the act allowed for the deregulation of the communications industry, and for further monopolization of the media). We also need to support a media system that is more accountable to the needs of the public, not just to the needs of the business community. A small group of private investors should not receive special consideration and preferential treatment in a democratic media.

McChesney and Nichols also challenge the fundamental conceptions upon which the corporate media are based. Since the airwaves technically belong to the public, why have we handed them over corporations, which are highly un-democratic by their nature and not accountable in many ways to the American public? Another equally important question that must be addressed is why do we lavish taxpayer's subsidies (corporate welfare) on private corporations when the airwaves are not theirs to monopolize? As McChesney and Nichols state, "The public should not merely dole out corporate welfare to transnational media conglomerates; it should prudently devise a system of subsidies to encourage the growth of a viable non-profit and non-commercial media sector, as well as a sector of small commercially owned media."

A publicly controlled and owned media can present views in support of American foreign and domestic policy, as well as views critical of that policy. This is a necessary component for a true democracy: "Democratic journalism should provide a ruthless accounting of the powers-that-be and the powers-that-want-to-be, both in government and politics and in the extremely powerful corporate sector."

Many may criticize support for public ownership of media as being anti-capitalist and anti-American; but it is important to understand that the corporate ownership we now have that dominates the media is not anything that even comes close to true capitalism: "These media firms hardly operate in some mythical free market; they receive lavish subsidies such as the gift of scarce radio TV spectrum (valued at well over 100 billion) for which they pay not one penny." According to McChesney and Nichols, "Media markets are hardly competitive in an economic sense, and because of that firms have a great deal more power to force people to choose from what they deem most profitable."

Both media analysts rightfully conclude that the development of "non-commercial, community run, public access television and radio systems that are distinct from public-service broadcasting, and that are deeply recruited in American communities" must be the goal for the future media structure. They conclude that direct public control over the media is instrumental in the formation of a more meaningful democracy.

The campaign for media reform will require a tremendous amount of energy, and the battle will not be won overnight. It will take years of grassroots organizing and activism in order to bring the topic of public ownership of media into the minds of the American people. But only by putting institutions like the media under public control can we truly achieve a society in which democracy, equality and freedom of choice exist.

For more information on the issue of public media ownership, check out these books: 1) Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times (by Robert McChesney, 2) Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy (by McChesney), and 3) The Media Monopoly (by Ben H. Bagdikian).