Media activism is often ponied out in Barbelith threads, most recently in the Gothenburg >> Switchboard discussion. It is often seen as the last unexplored frontier or the best hope for the revolution. Perceptions include “not enough is being done,” “we need to manipulate the media,” and I’ve seen substantial advocacy for Adbusters style subvertising. To some degree all of this is true, but most of what can be done is being done. It seems like nothing more than wide-eyed technolust that drives such appeals. Allowing the media to self regulate doesn’t work. Neither does attempting to work within it.
In the US, there appears to be a general understanding that media are manipulative coupled with a notion that they do provide information about the weather, the government, and a decent amount of entertainment so they can’t be all bad. I’m deliberately using “they” because it’s the only available plural pronoun, and roughly five conglomerates disseminate over 90% of all media ‘round here. However, as a population, US residents tend to think media have a liberal bias (when nothing could be further from the truth), that media do not affect them (in direct contradiction to available research), and that the current media system is both inevitable and perpetual.
None of the aforementioned perceptions are valid, particularly the latter. However, change is structurally improbable given that the FCC can be reviewed by the Supreme Court and that our politicians are undifferentiated concerning industry regulation. Oh, and that the number one job for fromer FCC chairs is consultant for one of the five media ‘gloms.
From its inception, the US FCC has been empowered to issue and/or reject broadcasting licenses based on whether or not the station serves the public interest.
quote: The law governing radio and television broadcasting, the Federal Communications Act of 1934, gives broadcasters free and exclusive use of broadcast channels on condition that they serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity." Because the act did not define what the public interest meant, Congress, the courts and the FCC have spent 60 frustrating years struggling to figure it out. To me the answer is clear. The public interest meant and still means what we should constantly ask: What can television do for our country, for the common good, for the American people?
-Newton Minow, FCC chair 1961-63, PBS director 1973-80 Book Excerpt
Feel free to use this forum to discuss any of it, but I’m particularly interested in the foundational principles underlying media in other countries: UK, Sweden, France, Australia, &c. I’m also curious about what, if anything, has changed regarding what y’all see within the last 10-20 years. Finally, do you think your media are living up to their responsibilities?
[ 20-06-2001: Message edited by: [Your Name Here] ] |
