 |
Contribute $$ to OpEdNews | |||
|
Click Here to Access Hundreds of Fresh News & Opinion Articles |
||||
| Get rid of Bush Contribute $$ Now to John Kerry |
Finding a way around Right-wing News Control
Right-wing Media Dominance
Ad-News is also politically right-wing warped. That orientation is not so
much explained by the popularity of right-wing content (there's nothing
else broadcast to compare it with!) as it is by the outright change
in media ownership and/or editorial control. This change-over from
predominantly left-wing to right-wing news-anchors and talk-show
hosts--and guests, too--is now protected by Republican-controlled
House and Senate Communication oversight committees and by the FCC itself,
since committee and FCC approvals are required for media ownership
changes.
The sentiments of said Republican "leadership" was recently proven by their ignoring what should have been overwhelming citizen letter-writing and opinion polls against greater ownership by media conglomerates. Instead, Republicans approved what their media "campaign donation friends" paid them for. With this change, predominantly right-wing conglomerates (Time Warner, Viacom, GE & Microsoft, Clear Channel, and News Corp.) can own more networks and broadcast their special ad-news (and primitive evangelical programming) into more cities.
Scripting the News
You may have also noticed there has been increasing similarity between
Ad-News programs on a given day, even down to their saying exactly the
same phrases on a topic. That's because many celebrity pundits read the
same scripts--or talking points--as supplied to them from the RNC
and the Heritage Foundation. (The DNC puts scripts out too, but they are
ignored because the media are who they are.) "The Daily Howler,"
a remarkable website by Bob Somerby (from here in Baltimore, another
unheralded celebrity in our midst), provides excellent coverage of this
now-standard practice among the the Washington press corp. [See
this "Howler" as an illustrative example]
The objective of scripted news is to reinforce what is said over and over to make it more a "fact." But what if such "facts" are lies, what then? That is called brainwashing. They are brainwashing you.
It's time to bring back Fairness Doctrine principles!
"This can't be," you may exclaim. "What of the Fairness
Doctrine?" Well, there used to be one. The FCC's Fairness
Doctrine was enforced (by a committee of presidential appointees) from
1949 until 1987 to require broadcasters, as a condition of getting their
licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues in their community,
and to do so by offering some balancing views. It did not require equal
time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day
presenting a single view without airing opposing views (like today's Fox
News Channel). Reagan appointed some friends to the Fairness Doctrine
enforcement committee, and, in 1987, they voted to disband themselves,
saying the rapid expansion in cable and satellite networks would naturally
ensure all viewpoints would be aired. Obviously that assumption has been
proven wrong.
De-fanging PBS
It gets worse. During the '90s the Republican-led congress reduced
public-funding of PBS, forcing it to compete with commercial networks for
corporate advertising to survive. This has caused editorial 'softening' of
PBS news coverage to avoid losing current or potential corporate ad
sponsors. [Ref. F.A.I.R.
Exposes Advertiser Influence]
Finding a way around Right-wing Censorship
In frustration to the tightening web of news control, and to circumvent
congressional and FCC disapproval, Al Gore recently tried to acquire
French-owned Vivendi Universal. Its value was its trained and ready staff
of professionals and (limited) cable outlets. But last week Al's deal
stalled (and perhaps failed) because a financial backer dropped out. [Ref.
Gore
TV Deal Is Stalled At The 11th Hour; Major Investor Pulls Out]
Al may not have been thinking about using PBS to carry his network's news programming, but perhaps he should. PBS news hasn't yet become as bad as Ad-News. Therefore, since the non-right are handicapped in obtaining media ownership, PBS--though editorially muted to compete for ad sponsors--is perhaps the only broadcast outlet possible for expanding journalistically professional news, a.k.a. Real News. It would appear possible that a professional group, perhaps international, could be organized and dedicated to the production of a 24-7 suite of Real-News programs to rival the warped Ad-News outlets. The Real-News programs could be syndicated singly or as a group to public broadcasting systems world-wide, as the content quality merits. There is no reason to presume Real-News would have lower ratings than Ad-News. Real-News is not inherently more boring than Ad-News: quite the opposite, it could be riveting if the awesome raw detail of what is actually happening were revealed--like CNN was in the very beginning. And further, for discussion programs, you could really spice things up with attractive non-gas-bag celebrities and appearances by academics and other professionals long denied access to presenting ideas directly to the public. It could be a thrilling venue if done right.
Addendum re. sustaining revenue (4/14): Ideally, advertising on Real-News should be infrequent and interesting short infomercials that educate about products or services. By Marc Cherbonnier Web editor, the Baltimore Chronicle
Originally published in and Copyright © 2004 The Baltimore Chronicle.
All rights reserved.
|
|
||
 Enter
Your E-mail address to Receive OpEdNews
Newsletter |
|
Contribute $$ to OpEdNews | ||