03
Jun
2003
The old adage "It's not what you know; it's who you know" may certainly apply in the case of Mike Powell, chairperson of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and, coincidently, the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. How qualified Mike Powell is for this position is debatable considering the FCC's recent decision to loosen the restrictions on media ownership that will put our democracy at grave risk.
The FCC officially changed the rules of media ownership on June 2, allowing broadcasters to acquire more local affiliates, and media organizations to own newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and Internet service providers in the same market.
Powell justified his decision by claiming that recent court rulings regarding capping media ownership relative to the First Amendment left him no choice; the rules were going to change one way or the other.
The large media conglomerates (Walt Disney owns ABC; General Electric owns NBC; Viacom owns CBS) argue that the FCC restrictions prevented competition in an environment of Internet access and expanding cable television. But this argument is ludicrous by any standard, especially when considering that these conglomerates already have significant crossover holdings, many within the same market. Furthermore, the top 20 online news Web sites are owned by the 16 larger media organizations. More market share will only mean more control over advertising prices and content, effectively stifling meaningful competition. This is the affront to the First Amendment, not the other way around. And the only benefactors are the media organizations at the expense of advertisers and the public.
The mainstream media is already homogenized and biased to an insulting degree. After the 9/11 horror, when the Bush Administration began contemplating the war with Iraq, there was virtually no debate being had. In fact, to question the decision to go to war was deemed unpatriotic. There was an eerie silence on a matter that should have been debated at every level of American life, from the kitchen table to the schoolrooms to the college campuses to the community centers to the corporate boardrooms and lunchrooms to the halls of Congress, but especially on news stations and talk shows. This simply didn't occur to the determent of us all.
While in Mexico recently, I was stunned to learn that CNN delivers two entirely different 24-hour news broadcasts simultaneously, one created especially for American consumption and the other for the rest of the world. The international broadcast is totally different and far more compelling because of its relevance in comparison to the domestic version of news that we are presented with. Why would CNN create a separate broadcast in the first place? While Americans are listening to endless debates on Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence, the rest of the world is privy to the viewpoints of heads of state on the pros and cons of Iraq's freedom from Saddam Hussein. The rest of the world is learning about the critical issues that surround North Korea's position while Americans share in the court proceedings for petty theft by Hollywood celebrity Winona Ryder.
Information is power. The deliberate censoring of information presented to the American public is disabling. We are becoming increasingly disenfranchised from the political process because of the ever-growing apathy that envelops us, primarily due to the extreme lack of information needed to make sound, reliable, justifiable decisions. Even with the proliferation of information sources coupled with advanced technology, we are perhaps less informed than ever before, at least in terms of relevancy and context.
To best illustrate the danger of media control and the delivery of a single perspective, consider that Americans have already acquiesced to serious compromises of our privacy and individual rights with the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act, all in the name of combating terrorism. Yet analysts claim we have no way of stopping another attack on America based on the current defense protocol and security measures. Meanwhile, by our silence, American have agreed to the implementation of technology that allows the government to secretly collect, maintain, and use as it sees fit information that has otherwise been considered private and outside the purview of any authority. This has been executed in an environment of fear and mistrust, giving the terrorists a victory beyond measure.
There is so much need-to-know information that is not being presented to Americans in order to keep us from civic activation. The state of the economy is not being meaningfully addressed, only that tax cuts will help. There is no discussion about how cuts will help; there isn't even a decent explanation of what the tax cuts actually are, who will benefit and how, or what the arguments against the cuts might be. Citizens must research this issue for themselves to fully understand, and most don't have the time, the wherewithal, or the inclination.
The FCC ruling is not necessarily a done deal if Americans activate and express their dissatisfaction with it. This is perfect opportunity for the public to engage and make a difference. Write to, e-mail, or call your Congressmen to register your complaint. Insist on legislative intervention on this ruling. Demand that your elected representative stop this measure or he/she will not have your vote in the next election. Instead of merely complaining, take action on this serious matter that threatens our democracy. By allowing more mergers and consolidation of media ownership, the FCC has effectively stifled diversity of issues, voices, and competition. This is as un-Republican as it gets because it defies the capitalistic model that Republicans are supposed to protect and uphold.
Eventually, media control by a few large conglomerates will corrupt and erode our democracy. This FCC ruling is a direct threat to our freedom and way of life. If ever there was a time to get involved, it is now. Below are the addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail/Web addresses of our congressmen. Do not delay in expressing your position on this matter, as time is of the essence.
Iowa
Chuck Grassley: 135 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510-1501; (202)224-3744; http://grassley.senate.gov.web
Tom Harkin: 731 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510-1502; (202)224-3254; tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov
Jim Nussle: 303 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington DC 20515-1502; (202)225-2911; http://house.gov.nussle
Illinois
Dick Durbin: 332 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510; (202)224-2152; dick@durbin.senate.gov
Peter Fitzgerald: 555 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510; (202)224-2854; http://fitzgerald.senate.gov/contact
Lane Evans: 2211 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington DC 20515-1317; (202)225-5905; lane.evans@mail.house.gov
The FCC officially changed the rules of media ownership on June 2, allowing broadcasters to acquire more local affiliates, and media organizations to own newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and Internet service providers in the same market.
Powell justified his decision by claiming that recent court rulings regarding capping media ownership relative to the First Amendment left him no choice; the rules were going to change one way or the other.
The large media conglomerates (Walt Disney owns ABC; General Electric owns NBC; Viacom owns CBS) argue that the FCC restrictions prevented competition in an environment of Internet access and expanding cable television. But this argument is ludicrous by any standard, especially when considering that these conglomerates already have significant crossover holdings, many within the same market. Furthermore, the top 20 online news Web sites are owned by the 16 larger media organizations. More market share will only mean more control over advertising prices and content, effectively stifling meaningful competition. This is the affront to the First Amendment, not the other way around. And the only benefactors are the media organizations at the expense of advertisers and the public.
The mainstream media is already homogenized and biased to an insulting degree. After the 9/11 horror, when the Bush Administration began contemplating the war with Iraq, there was virtually no debate being had. In fact, to question the decision to go to war was deemed unpatriotic. There was an eerie silence on a matter that should have been debated at every level of American life, from the kitchen table to the schoolrooms to the college campuses to the community centers to the corporate boardrooms and lunchrooms to the halls of Congress, but especially on news stations and talk shows. This simply didn't occur to the determent of us all.
While in Mexico recently, I was stunned to learn that CNN delivers two entirely different 24-hour news broadcasts simultaneously, one created especially for American consumption and the other for the rest of the world. The international broadcast is totally different and far more compelling because of its relevance in comparison to the domestic version of news that we are presented with. Why would CNN create a separate broadcast in the first place? While Americans are listening to endless debates on Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence, the rest of the world is privy to the viewpoints of heads of state on the pros and cons of Iraq's freedom from Saddam Hussein. The rest of the world is learning about the critical issues that surround North Korea's position while Americans share in the court proceedings for petty theft by Hollywood celebrity Winona Ryder.
Information is power. The deliberate censoring of information presented to the American public is disabling. We are becoming increasingly disenfranchised from the political process because of the ever-growing apathy that envelops us, primarily due to the extreme lack of information needed to make sound, reliable, justifiable decisions. Even with the proliferation of information sources coupled with advanced technology, we are perhaps less informed than ever before, at least in terms of relevancy and context.
To best illustrate the danger of media control and the delivery of a single perspective, consider that Americans have already acquiesced to serious compromises of our privacy and individual rights with the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act, all in the name of combating terrorism. Yet analysts claim we have no way of stopping another attack on America based on the current defense protocol and security measures. Meanwhile, by our silence, American have agreed to the implementation of technology that allows the government to secretly collect, maintain, and use as it sees fit information that has otherwise been considered private and outside the purview of any authority. This has been executed in an environment of fear and mistrust, giving the terrorists a victory beyond measure.
There is so much need-to-know information that is not being presented to Americans in order to keep us from civic activation. The state of the economy is not being meaningfully addressed, only that tax cuts will help. There is no discussion about how cuts will help; there isn't even a decent explanation of what the tax cuts actually are, who will benefit and how, or what the arguments against the cuts might be. Citizens must research this issue for themselves to fully understand, and most don't have the time, the wherewithal, or the inclination.
The FCC ruling is not necessarily a done deal if Americans activate and express their dissatisfaction with it. This is perfect opportunity for the public to engage and make a difference. Write to, e-mail, or call your Congressmen to register your complaint. Insist on legislative intervention on this ruling. Demand that your elected representative stop this measure or he/she will not have your vote in the next election. Instead of merely complaining, take action on this serious matter that threatens our democracy. By allowing more mergers and consolidation of media ownership, the FCC has effectively stifled diversity of issues, voices, and competition. This is as un-Republican as it gets because it defies the capitalistic model that Republicans are supposed to protect and uphold.
Eventually, media control by a few large conglomerates will corrupt and erode our democracy. This FCC ruling is a direct threat to our freedom and way of life. If ever there was a time to get involved, it is now. Below are the addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail/Web addresses of our congressmen. Do not delay in expressing your position on this matter, as time is of the essence.
Iowa
Chuck Grassley: 135 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510-1501; (202)224-3744; http://grassley.senate.gov.web
Tom Harkin: 731 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510-1502; (202)224-3254; tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov
Jim Nussle: 303 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington DC 20515-1502; (202)225-2911; http://house.gov.nussle
Illinois
Dick Durbin: 332 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510; (202)224-2152; dick@durbin.senate.gov
Peter Fitzgerald: 555 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510; (202)224-2854; http://fitzgerald.senate.gov/contact
Lane Evans: 2211 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington DC 20515-1317; (202)225-5905; lane.evans@mail.house.gov
