Common sense tells us that knowledge is power. No one knows this better than the media conglomerates who determine what we read in print and view on the flickering tube. Those who reside in the boardrooms of the news and entertainment biz (and the line between the two has been non-existent for a long time) realize that controlling the portals of information is essential to their long-term self-interest. They need the most broad customer base possible, not only so that they may enjoy a healthy bottom line via advertising dollars (convincing us to buy the "right" brand of cereal) but as well the attainment of their own social and ideological agenda (blatant support for potential senators or presidents).
You rarely receive balance from the major networks or the giants of print. What you do receive is a subjective diatribe leaning heavily toward left or right. Usually the tilt goes to the former, and it was a dissatisfaction with such one-sided reporting that led to the success of conservative outlets such as Fox News and The Washington Times. The liberal press pushed their desire to con the public just a bit too far - believing as they do that people are incapable of independent thought. When the support of issues and candidates by the leftist media became ridiculously biased, citizens hungry for "truth" rose up in a sort of passive revolt. In short...they picked up the remote and clicked the channel buttons with reckless abandon. They logged on to the internet and began a search for presentations and explanations more real and plausible than the monotonous gruel of CNN, CBS or The New York Times.
But neither side is pure in their motives. Objectivity, that much heralded attribute which journalists claim to be the bedrock of their professional philosophy, is at best a bald-faced lie. From the CEO of a broadcasting giant to the most lowly features writer, it is impossible to report fairly on a topic if it is in direct opposition to one's personal beliefs. That's just human nature.
So I wasn't surprised when, in the face of consumer alienation, traditional media mega-stores pressured the FCC to relax long-standing rules that prevented them from enjoying a total information monopoly. Last June, with the support of the Bush administration, the FCC declared that networks could now own local stations reaching 45 percent of the national audience. The FCC also declared that media Goliaths could not only own a TV station, but as well a newspaper and several radio stations in the same market.
It was a sham, nothing but an attempt to put small media out of business, enhance advertising bucks and offer a stilted view of issues and events. Of course, big media offered a different reason. Gee whiz boys and girls...they only wanted to give better service. And...oh me oh my...these monster companies that already were allowed to promote their views to 35 percent of America just might not make it if they didn't have a bigger piece of the pie.
Even Chicken Little did a reverse flip with a quadruple twist when he heard that one... the network's interpretation of a falling sky. Behemoths like Viacom actually had the nerve to say they needed more local stations in order to compete against cable, satellite TV and the internet. I'm amazed they didn't ask for food stamps.
The reality, is that network honchos are enraged that people no longer view their talking heads as the voice of indisputable fact. People have gone to the net, cable, and satellite out of the suspicion that modern news presentations are little better than a late night infomercial. And they are right.
The monopoly almost happened; it still might. Luckily though, Congress for once did something right. The Senate recently approved, 55-40, a resolution that would roll back the new, FCC rules which effectively forbid diverse opinions and interpretations. However, The House is still in favor of permitting complete control to the multi-national firms who would tell us how to think, as is President Bush (he's threatened to veto the bill if it reaches his desk).
Big media should be forced to play by the same rules as small media; if you want viewers then provide a quality product. Provide news that is as objective as possible. Attempt to inform, rather than indoctrinate. Quit trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and instead offer information and entertainment that challenges the collective IQ and inspires viewers and readers to question, to seek and to learn for themselves.
Fat chance of the networks embracing that premise. When people started thinking for themselves one of their first moves is to flip off the TV.
www.troutwrapper.com
