avatar
Broadcasting and Democracy: Oil and Water


Norman Solomon

Is

it really possible for broadcasting and democracy to mix?

In

theory, yes. But right now, the prospects look bleak. Most Americans live in

areas where just a few media conglomerates dominate. Overall, what’s on the

airwaves is more like centralized monotony than democratic discourse.

Over

4,000 commercial radio stations have been sold since the bipartisan

Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law. Radio mergers occur almost every day.

The major media firms keep getting larger in size and fewer in number.

For

three years, we’ve had no national limits on how many radio stations a single

corporation can own. In a big city, eight radio stations can belong to the same

firm. And the Federal Communications Commission just ruled that one company can

own two television stations in the same city.

Media

moguls are thrilled about the new ruling. The owner of the PAX TV network,

Lowell Paxson, told a reporter: "I can’t wait to have a glass of champagne

and toast the FCC!" And so it goes. Lobbyists for broadcasting firms

continue to prevail.

Causes

of deregulation mania are similar to its effects: Democracy has very little to

do with what’s on the air. The last thing we’re likely to hear on networks owned

by General Electric (NBC), Westinghouse (CBS) or Disney (ABC) is in-depth debate

about the wisdom of surrendering the nation’s airwaves to unabashed profiteers.

Millions

of Americans, eager for news coverage, depend on "noncommercial"

stations. But National Public Radio affiliates, like their TV counterparts with

ties to PBS, are so corporatized by now that the public has little voice — even

at stations that call themselves "listener supported."

Actually,

there’s a direct connection between how a station is governed and what it airs.

When decision-making is insulated from real public participation, the

bottom-line priorities that emerge are predictable — and audible.

Meanwhile,

the public’s designated role in "public broadcasting" is usually

confined to sending in money, as if democratic processes would undermine

broadcast outlets. But some community stations around the country (such as KBOO

Radio in Portland, Ore.) have proven that "democratic media" need not

be an oxymoron.

In

this context, a key battle is continuing in the San Francisco area as thousands

of KPFA Radio supporters struggle to protect their station against its owner,

the Pacifica Foundation (which also owns noncommercial radio stations in Los

Angeles, Houston, New York City and Washington). Pacifica has yet to apologize

for its indefensible actions during the past few months — including repeated

attempts to throttle the free speech of KPFA journalists, placement of armed

guards inside the station to harass and intimidate staff, cutting off a newscast

in mid-sentence on July 13, ordering the arrests of KPFA journalists in their

own workplace and then locking out all of the station’s employees.

The

lockout lasted 23 days, until Aug. 5 — nearly a week after 10,000 station

supporters marched through the streets of Berkeley. The situation remains dire.

Pacifica’s national board chair, Mary Frances Berry, has denied the

well-documented truth that the board considered a proposal last month to sell

KPFA’s frequency.

In

Northern California, the enormous support for KPFA throughout the region is a

historic instance of grassroots activism on behalf of community radio. KPFA’s

battle with Pacifica is a struggle for democratic possibilities at a time of

rampant go-along-to-get-along homogenization and centralization.

For

anyone familiar with the facts, strong support for KPFA would seem to be a

no-brainer. But ambivalence about the option of democratic media can be found in

many places, including some prominent liberal quarters.

In

its Aug. 23 edition, The Nation magazine took an editorial position. Well, sort

of. The Nation’s hierarchy could not muster any outrage about Pacifica’s

outrageous actions. Instead, the editorial merely described them as "a

series of heavy-handed moves."

In

contrast, The Progressive magazine is forthright in its September issue.

"With these actions," writes editor Matthew Rothschild, "it

became clear that Pacifica management was violating the sacred trust which all

of us in the alternative media are honor-bound to uphold. That trust is not just

to preserve our institutions, but to uphold the principles behind those

institutions."

In

a media world where opportunism and economic power often prevail, there is still

something sacred about the vision of democratic media. Some ideals are worthy of

passion and commitment.

_______________

Norman

Solomon’s latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."

 

 

Leave a comment