Media Consolidation threat to Democracy

In “Manufacturing Consent,” a book by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, they outline five filters for the “propaganda model” of the mass media. They are one: size, concentrated ownership, and profit orientation, two: advertising, three: reliance on government and business data, four: flak for disciplining the media and five: anti-communism. For our purposes, we are concerned with mainly the first aspect, although the others play a major role as well.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the freedom of the press. But what did the founding fathers mean by that? Did they mean that corporate conglomerates can swallow up their competition and establish a virtual monopoly of the press? For starters, six corporations own 90 percent of all media in the U.S. You’ve probably heard of them: CBS, Disney, General Electric, News-Corp and Time Warner.

There are a few reasons we should be worried. One is that the press will not differ to any great extent. Some local television channels even host the same reporters and news anchors. After all, having this smaller staff is more “profitable.” Though profitable for a few, it is the many who are suffering. Journalists, reporters, anchors and talk show hosts are losing their jobs. In 2010, 16,000 journalists lost their jobs with daily newspapers. And the situation is not much different in the other sectors.

Politics also comes into play here. Clear Channel, owned by Bain Capital, controls the majority of the radio stations (1,200 of them)! They host the same five or so conservative talk hosts all across the U.S. Bain Capital was founded by Mitt Romney. This shows the influence this monopoly can have on elections. And the concentration of ownership will lead to the media not being as critical as it should in the political realm.

The purpose of the media is to provide a means for the people to make sense of the world’s events. It does not live up to this image, however. Lowry Mays, the former CEO of Clear Channel, once said, “We’re not in the business of providing news and information. We’re not in the business of providing well-researched music. We’re simply in the business of selling our customers’ products.” The very nature of this statement threatens the democratic and free role of the press. An informed citizenry will not exist if there is not critical, investigative journalism. According to Robert McChesney, a professor of communication, there would be multiple radio journalists in communities covering the events in the 1970’s and up to two-dozen in the larger cities. “Well wipe them out, they’re all gone, there is no more commercial news casting in this country to speak of on radio,” said McChesney.

So what can we do about all this? For starters, the 1996 FCC Telecommunications Act needs to go. Signed by Bill Clinton, its purpose was to deregulate the broadcasting market. It caused the total number of media giants to go from 10 to six. Also keep in mind that the majority of media in 1983 was controlled by 50 corporations. Those who regulate this industry have “fallen asleep on the job,” so to speak. Net neutrality is going to play a bigger role, and though the net is considered a bastion of freedom right now, those who control your access to internet could cause this freedom to go.

We have everything to gain by changing this trend: more jobs, more competition, more informed society and a freer press. Consider that there are students graduating with degrees in journalism and communications, but even though the job market isn’t doing so well right now, increased regulations of these industries would ensure a healthier economy and more jobs.

McChesney outlines what can be done to improve the situation of the press: first, he believes there should be a journalism stimulus of $20 billion a year for three years. Magazines with less than 25 percent advertising should get free posting, regardless of content. This would keep the publications alive. Second, everyone should be able to have $200 taken out of their taxes and could get a subscription of a daily paper; essentially the government would be buying you the subscription. Third, government should foot the bill for any school paper that wants to be launched. For more, check out freepress.net.

This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.