It is amazing to me that there was not more discussion of the 1984-reminiscent horror of media consolidation that occurred this summer. It is frightening that this continues to be an area of silence in most of the current political contexts. Maybe there is enough going on between the ever continuing war in Iraq and the thrill of a movie star running for governor of California. Maybe the current consolidation of media, even without the leniency of the new rules, is an indication of why this issue is not coming up in most mainstream contexts and discussions.
In case you did not hear, the Federal Communications Commission ruled over the summer (on June 2) to delimit the media concentration rules. In a vote that was split along political party lines, 3 2, there were some disturbing trends and historically unprecedented occurrences. Commissioner Michael Copps, one of the dissenters, wrote in his statement regarding the decision, “I dissent to this decision. I dissent on grounds of substance. I dissent on grounds of process. I dissent because today the Federal Communications Commission empowers America’s new Media Elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the media on which our society and our democracy so heavily depend.” The process that the commissioner mentions is a reference to his (and Commissioner Adelstein’s) request to the chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, to delay the vote on the delimiting of media concentration. Historically, anytime a commissioner in the FCC has requested more time to hold meetings with public and other groups and to consider the issue, it has been granted-until this summer. Powell forced the vote, and the limits protecting us from an even more monopolistic control of the media were shot to hell.
All of this is not to suggest that the media is some highly regulated, controlled, divided or open environment-look up any of the major networks or the plethora of companies owned by Rupert Murdoch-but that keeping the previous regulatory regime is the very least we can do. Look at the pervasive control of organizations like Clear Channel in radio broadcasts.
In what appears to be a very biased overturn of historical precedent in the FCC, Powell refused to attend most of the meetings that were set up with public groups regarding this deregulation. He held and attended a total of five of them, according to public records, but most sources indicate that he held hundreds of private or closed meetings with various corporate interest groups. Not surprising, then, to see George W. Bush stepping up to defend the rules as he announced Friday that he would veto any legislation that sought to overturn the FCC’s ruling.
For those that would decry such claims of panic and alarm over corporate control as needless and not accurate, one only needs to look to the recent buy-up being pursued by Murdoch of DirecTV and Hughes Electronics (a subsidiary of General Motors). Those who claim that this will not have an impact on access to information need look no further than how little is being said about this even now. Even with the threatened veto of any potential overturned legislation, there is virtually nothing being said on most of the major networks about this issue. This only proves the argument against allowing increased concentration and control. Concentrated media can limit the criticism and openness of itself, and simultaneously tell you the “objectively” spun story it wants you to hear.
To claim that media does not have its own political interests is naive. Allowing monopolization of the televised media market will limit diversity of opinion (not to argue for a squelch of Fox News’ nationalistic fervor, but to encourage more beyond that limited range of opinions). This begs an additional question: Where is this supposed liberal media bias?
Jon Stewart recently asked the same question of Al Franken when he asked if it was a liberal media because they didn’t jump to call us to war quite as fast as Murdoch’s Fox News did. When you were watching the war coverage, or any news coverage for that matter, when did you think that there was a liberal taint to it? Please let me know, I’m sincerely confused.
This rise against the FCC’s decision has surprisingly more bipartisan support than one would think given Bush’s declaration Friday, but that may be due to the amount of public outrage and citizens’ groups upset over the issue-something that a president, not elected by the public, may not be all too concerned about. This also may be related to his recent approval having fallen to a low 52 percent rating.
Conservatives are claiming that these Republican defectors in supporting the public and opposing the president are traitors to the cause, as they could potentially result in the shutting down of conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan (according to newsmax.com). This is interesting, considering that the talk shows were able to operate freely before June 2, but apparently would be silenced if those old rules were to be put back into place. Then again, this comes from the same Web site that makes the “Deck of Weasels” cards that display “Anti American, Pro-Saddam” leaders and celebrities that have spoken out against the war in Iraq.
The bottom line is that George W. Bush needs to hold on to and tighten the control of only a few media groups in order to ensure the strength of his presidency, and perhaps more importantly, any chance at creating that illusion and carrying it into the next election.