Our Media, Not Theirs

McChesney and Nichols have set out to address the distorted line our society is at the whim of; between function of the media and the influential corporate interest. When we hear the phrase "media reform", we are faced with the seemingly impossible task of figuring out where this 'reform' falls into place-somewhere between corporate influenced decisions and democratically influenced responses.

Is it even possible for a democratic media system to exist in the free market, where decisions are based on hugely vested corporate interests? Or has "freedom of the press" simply become a clichˇ of our forefathers, of which few refuse to let go? Nichols and McChesney are confident that a democratic system of the press can be reborn and thrive to influence the ways in which we struggle to uphold the democratic ideals which we often have lost sight. But it will not be easy.

The word democracy has been thrown around, shifted, and used as a cover-up so often that it is has nearly lost its meaning. Everything seems to be done in the name of democracy. Of course; why would we support anything that goes against a system that is ideal enough to spread throughout the world? Unfortunately, too many are content with just seeing and hearing that slogan and not looking behind what has been cleverly packaged along with it.

With that said, it is first necessary to start thinking about the infectious use of propaganda and its suppressing effects. Throughout history, propaganda has been used as a means of controlling the sentiment of the people. Many people tend to underestimate the effects of propaganda. This is harmful because propaganda is so instrumental in keeping people at bay.

What we have blindly succumbed to is this notion that not only can we not demand that the media react to our wants but (and even more dangerous) what the media offers us is in fact what we want. But there is something to be said when what we "want" is something we do not even engage in.

So if the media is not serving us, to whom does it cater? Whose interests are being fulfilled, if not those of the public? To explain this, the authors examine the relationships between the leaders of this country-both public and private. Bottom line - economic interests have led to the privatization of many public entities. The media, example is a potential goldmine in private profits. The effects of capitalism have seeped into a sector that was intended to be the means of upholding the free flow of diverse, democratic opinions; not for making money.

Contrary to what we hear, ironically from the same media in question, the opinions we are fed from corporate media are not democratic. They do not reflect the voice of the people, rather the voice of the stakeholders and advertisers who fund them. As corporate media executives and politicians have adopted the "one hand washes the other" philosophy, the current system of media has become a direct result of deregulation and corporate welfare policies, designed for one intention: money. This has enabled huge trans-national conglomerates to dominate the information we receive by way of their vast power, money, and resources.

Any economist will uphold that monopolies suppress competition. As more and more media companies merge and buy out smaller companies, the result is a market that has less competition, and therefore less incentive to give the people what they want. Capitalism dictates the alternate incentive: profits. The resulting media giants are now steered to serve the corporations that continue to fund their power.

But why? Do media executives, advertisers and politicians deliberately mislead us into thinking they have our best interests in mind? Are they evil? This contention is difficult for many to swallow. That is because it is faulty. Society has a way of looking at things one way or the other. There is only one winner in an argument. Someone is either right or wrong and if they are right, than logically their opponent is wrong.

When we take this idea of good vs. evil out of the frame of reference, we can then discuss media intent and implications from a more rational and productive discourse. While it is not the media's intention to purposely suppress the public, it is their overriding concern to succeed in this un-free marketplace that determines what they will cover and how, so as to make the most money.

McChesney and Nichols point out that it is not of the corporate interest to care about the effects of it's content. So long as this tried and true formula is guaranteed to make money, artistic freedom is compromised and therefore diversity of information is lost. This is seen throughout the movie industry, where we rarely see movies that step outside the 'big budget formula', simply because there is no need to risk another formula for the sake of creativity; when you can make billions in washed out remakes. News programs have fallen victim to relying on 'newsworthy' pieces that use violence and sex and create unrealistic and unnecessary fears in order win the attention of a public that has been conditioned to accept.

The problem with the media, adds the authors, is not only about corporate interests, but is also reflective in the shift of journalistic ideology. Instead of journalism that is based on one's opinions and biases, the rise of "professional" journalism now commands the media system. Journalists have realized the "taint" that comes along with partisanship (less audience) and have responded by drawing their opinions directly from sources they call official and credentialed, i.e. the people in power.

Quite obviously there is a problem with this, first and foremost that it directly undermines the supposed democratic ideas that are intended to 'flow freely'. Where are they going to flow, if not in the media? So as to reduce competition, thereby lowering risks and raising profits, the already few media outlets have limited the scope of argument almost exactly in the way Bush and Gore seemed to be in complete ideological agreement in the 2000 election. And we all know how 'democratic' that whole scenario was.

The problems that arise from the current media system seem to be an inevitable result of capitalism. However, there are ways to reform the current system. The authors point out many democratic countries that have realized the importance of a free press. The media is the gateway to a truly democratic system and serves as the filter through which diverse opinions will carry over into all areas of life.

The environmental movement can serve as a foundation for the direction in which media reform must occur. Starting out very grassroots, the movement gained momentum from first the public, who then demanded that politicians put it on their agendas. The same steps are necessary for media reform. It is only when enough people come together on a broad level that the government and private sector will respond. The parallel between the environment and media reform is that there is no monetary benefit if it succeeds, which is precisely why these two issues must be put on political agendas.

The 'voice' of the people, in order to be effective, must come from all those willing to participate in a democratic process. Therefore organizations with different agendas, but yet who are still negatively affected by the media, must pool their resources, lobby, and challenge people to recognize their power. It is possible to work within a capitalist system when the consumer does indeed have the power to demand (and get) what they want. The first step is realizing it.

Robert McChesney speaks at ISU on Thursday, April 17 at 3pm in the Bone Old Main Room.