Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0118-20.htm Life on the Plantation by Bill Moyers Delivered to the Media Reform Conference, Memphis, TN - January 12, 2007 (continued) So Im back now where I started and with you will travel where the movement is headed. The greatest challenge to the plantation mentality of the media giants is the innovation and expression made possible by the digital revolution. I may still prefer the newspaper for its investigative journalism and in-depth analysis but we now have in our hands the means to tell a different story than big media tells. Our story. The other story of America that says free speech is not just corporate speech, that news is not just chattel in the field, living the bossmans story. This is the real gift of the digital revolution. The Internet, cell phones and digital cameras that can transmit images over the Internet, make possible a nation of story tellers every citizen a Tom Paine. Let the man in the big house on Pennsylvania Avenue think that over. And the woman of the House on Capitol Hill. And the media moguls in their chalets at Sun Valley, gathered to review the plantations assets and multiply them; nail it to the door they no longer own the copyright to Americas story its not a top-down story anymore. Other folks are going to write the story from the ground up and the truth will be out, that the media plantation, like the cotton plantation of old, is not divinely sanctioned, and its not the product of natural forces; the media system we have been living under was created behind closed doors, where the power brokers meet to divvy up the spoils. Bob McChesney has eloquently reminded us through the years how each medium radio, television, and cable was hailed as a technology that would give us greater diversity of voices, serious news, local programs and lots of public service for the community. In each the advertisers took over. Despite what I teasingly told you in St. Louis the last time we were together, the star that shined so brightly in the firmament the year I was born 1934 did not, I regret to say, appear above that little house in Hugo, Oklahoma. It appeared over Washington when Congress enacted the Communications Act of 1934. One hundred times in that cornerstone or our communication policy you will read the phrase public interest, convenience and necessity. Educators, union officials, religious leaders, parents were galvanized by the promise of radio as a classroom for the air, serving the life of the country and the life of the mind. Then the media lobby cut a deal with the government to make certain nothing would threaten the already vested-interests of powerful radio networks and the advertising industry. Soon the public largely forgot about radios promise as we accepted the entertainment produced and controlled by Jell-o, Maxwell House, and Camel cigarettes. What happened to radio, happened to television and then to cable, and if we are not diligent, it will happen to the Internet. Powerful forces are at work now determined to create our media future for the benefit of the plantation: investors, advertisers, owners, and the parasites that depend on their indulgence, including much of the governing class. Old media acquire new media, and vice versa. Rupert Murdoch, forever savvy about the next key outlet that will attract eyeballs, purchased MySpace, spending nearly $600 million so he could (in the words of how Wall Street views new media) monetize those eyeballs. Google became a partner in Time Warner, investing one billion in its AOL online service, and now Google has bought YouTube so it would have a better vehicle for delivering interactive ads for Madison Avenue. Viacom, Microsoft, large ad agencies, and others, have been buying key media properties many of them the leading online sites. The result will be a thoroughly commercialized environment a media plantation for the 21st century dominated by the same corporate and ideological forces that have produced the system we have today. So what do we do? Well, youve shown us what we have to do. Twice now youve shown us what we can do. Four years ago when FCC Chairman Michael Powell and his ideological side-kicks decided that it was OK if a single corporation owned a communitys major newspaper, three of its TV stations, eight radio stations, its cable TV system, and its major broadband Internet provider, you said, Enoughs enough. Free Press, Common Cause, Consumers Union, Media Access Project, the National Association for Hispanic Journalists, and others, working closely with Commissioners Adelstein and Copps two of the most public-spirited men ever to serve on the FCC and began organizing public hearings across the country. People spoke up about how poorly the media was serving their communities. You flooded Congress with petitions. You never let up, and when the Court said Powell had to back off, the decision cited the importance of involving the public in these media decisions. Incidentally, Powell not only backed off, he backed out. He left the commission to become senior advisor at a private investment firm specializing in equity investments in media companies around the world. That firm, by the way, made a bid to take over both the Tribune and Clear Channel, two mega-media companies that just a short time ago were under the corporate friendly purview of you guessed it Michael Powell. That whishing sound you hear is Washingtons perpetually revolving door, through which they come to serve the public and through which they leave to join the plantations. You made a difference. You showed the public cares about media and democracy. You turned a little publicized vote on a seemingly arcane regulation into a big political fight and public debate. Now, its true as Commissioner Copps has reminded us, since that battle three years ago, there have been more than 3,300 TV and radio stations that have had their assignment and transfer grants approved. So that even under the old rules, consolidation grows, localism suffers and diversity dwindles. Its also true, too, that even as we speak Michael Powells successor, Kevin Martin, put there by President Bush, is ready to take up where Powell left off and give the green light to more conglomeration. Get ready to fight. Inside the beltway plantation the media thought this largest telecommunications merger in our history was on a fast track for approval. But then you did it again more recently you lit a fire under people to put Washington on notice that it had to guarantee the Internets First Amendment protection in the $85 billion merger of AT&T and Bell South. Because of you, the so-called Internet neutrality I much prefer to call it the equal access provision of the Internet became a public issue that once again reminded the powers-that-be that people want the media to foster democracy. This is crucial because in a few years virtually all media will be delivered by high speed broadband, and without equality of access, the net could become just like cable television, where the provider decides what you see and what you pay. After all, the Bush department of justice had blessed the deal last October without a single condition or statement of concern. But they hadnt reckoned with Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, and hadnt reckoned with this movement. FreePress and SavetheInternet.com orchestrated 800 organizations, a million and a half petitions, countless local events, legions of homemade videos, smart collaboration with allies in industry, and a topshelf communications campaign. Who would have imagined that sitting together in the same democratic broadband pew would be the Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America, Common Cause, and MoveOn.org? Who would have imagined that these would link arms with some of the most powerful new media companies to fight for the Internets First Amendment ground? We owe a tip of the hat, of course, to Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. Despite what must have been a great deal of pressure from his side, he did the honorable thing and rescued himself from the proceedings because of a conflict of interest. So AT&T had to cry uncle to Copps and Adelstein with a voluntary commitment to honor equal access for at least two years. The agreement marks the first time that the Federal government has imposed true neutrality oops equality requirements on an Internet access provider since the debate erupted almost two years ago. I believe you changed the terms of the debate. It is no longer about whether equality of access will govern the future of the Internet; its about when and how. It also signals a change from defense to offence for the backers of an open Net. Arguably the biggest, most effective online organizing campaign ever conducted on a media issue can now turn to passing good laws rather than always having to fight to block bad ones. Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat, and Senator Olympia Snowe, a Republican, introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act in January of 2007, to require fair and equitable access to all content. And over in the House, those champions of the public interest Ed Markey and Maurice Hinchley will be leading the fight. But a caveat here. Those other folks dont give up so easily. Remember, this agreement is only for two years, and theyll be back with all the lobbyists money can hire. Furthermore, consider what AT&T got in the bargain. For giving up on neutrality, it got the green light from government to dominate over 67 million phone lines in 22 states, almost 12 million broadband users, and total control over Cingular wireless, the countrys largest mobile phone company with 58 million cell phone users. Its as if China swallowed India. I bring this up for a reason. Big media is ravenous. It never gets enough, it always wants more. And it will stop at nothing to get it. These are imperial conglomerates. Last week on his Web site mediachannel.org, Danny Schecter, recalled how some years ago he marched with a band of media activists to the headquarters of all the big media companies concentrated in the Times Square area. Their formidable buildings, fronted with logos and limos and guarded by rent-a-cops, projected their power and prestige. Danny and his cohorts chanted and held up signs calling for honest news and an end to exploitative programming. They called for diversity and access for more perspectives. It felt good, Danny said, but seemed like a fools errand. We were ignored, patronized, and marginalized. We couldnt shake their edifices or influence their holy business models; we seemed to many like that lonely and forlorn nut in a New Yorker cartoon carrying an end of the world is near placard. Well, yes, thats exactly how they want us to feel as if media and democracy is a fools errand. To his credit, Danny didnt buy it. Hes never given up. Neither have some of the earlier pioneers in this movement Andy Schwartzman, Don Hazen, Jeff Chester. Let me confess that I came very close to not making this speech today, in favor of just getting up here and reading from this book Digital Destiny, by my friend and co-conspirator, Jeff Chester. Take my word for it: Make this your bible. As Don Hazen writes in his review on Alternet this week, its a terrific book A respectful, loving, fresh, intimate comprehensive history of the struggles for a democratic media the lost fights, the opportunities missed, and the small victories that have kept the corporate media system from having complete carte blanche over the communications channel. Its also a terrifying book, because Jeff describes how we are being shadowed online by a slew of software digital gumshoes working for Madison Avenue. Our movements in cyberspace are closely tracked and analyzed. And interactive advertising infiltrates our unconsciousness to promote the brandwashing of America. Jeff asks the hard questions: do we really want television sets that monitor what we watch? Or an Internet that knows what sites we visit and reports back to advertising companies? Do we really want a media system designed mainly for advertisers? But this is also a hopeful book. After scaring the bejeepers out of us, as one reviewer wrote, Jeff offers a policy agenda for the broadcast era. Heres a man who practices what the Italian philosopher Gramsci called the pessimism of the intellect and the optimism of the will. He sees the world as it is, without rose-colored glasses, and tries to change it despite what he knows. So youll find here the core of this movements mission. Media reform, yes. But as the Project in Excellence concluded in its State of the Media Report for 2006, At many old-media companies, though not all, the decades-long battle at the top between idealists and accountants is now over. The idealists have lost. The commercial networks are lost, too lost to silliness, farce, cowardice, and ideology. Not much hope there. Cant raise the dead. Policy reform, yes. But, says Jeff, we will likely see more consolidation of ownership, with newspapers, TV stations, and major online properties in fewer hands. So we have to find other ways to ensure the public has access to diverse, independent, and credible sources of information. That means going to the market to find support for stronger independent media; Michael Moore and others have proved progressivism doesnt have to equal penury. It means helping protect news gathering from predatory forces. It means fighting for more participatory media, hospitable to a full range of expression. It means building on Lawrence Lessigs notion of the creative common and Brewster Kahles Internet archives with its philosophy of universal access to all knowledge. It means bringing broadband service to those many millions of Americans too poor to participate in the digital revolution. It means ownership for women and people of color. It means reclaiming public broadcasting and restoring it to its original feisty, robust, fearless mission as an alternative to the dominant media, offering journalism you cant ignore public affairs of which youre a part, and a wide range of civic and cultural discourse that leaves no one out; you can have an impact here. We need to remind people that the Federal commitment to public broadcasting in this country is about $1.50 per capita compared to $28-$85 per capita in other democracies. But theres something else you can do. In moments of reverie, I imagine all of you returning home to organize a campaign to persuade your local public television station to start airing Amy Goodmans broadcast of Democracy NOW! I cant think of a single act more likely to remind people of what public broadcasting should be or that this media reform movement really means business. Weve got to get alternative content out there to people or this countrys going to die of too many lies. And the opening run down of news on Amys daily show is like nothing else on television, corporate or public. Its as if you opened the window and a fresh breeze rolls over you from the ocean. Amy doesnt practice trickle-down journalism. She goes where the silence is, she breaks the sound barrier. She doesnt buy the Washington protocol that says the truth lies somewhere on the spectrum of opinion between the Democrats and Republicans on Democracy NOW the truth lies where the facts are hidden, and Amy digs for them. And she believes the media should be a sanctuary for dissent the Underground Railroad tunneling beneath the plantation. So go home and think about it. After all you are the public in public broadcasting; you can get the bossman in the big house at the local station to listen. Meanwhile, be vigilant about what happens in Congress. Track it day by day and post what you learn far and wide. Because the decisions made in this session of Congress will affect the future of all media corporate and non commercial and if we lose the future now, well never get it back. So you have your work cut out for you. Im glad youre all younger than me, and up to it. Im glad so many funders are here, because while an army may move on its stomach, this movement requires hard, cold cash to compete with big media in getting the attention of Congress and the public. Ill try to do my part. Last time we were together, I said to you that I should put detractors on notice. They just might compel me out of the rocking chair and back into the anchor chair. Well, in April I will be back with a new weekly series called Bill Moyers Journal. I hope to complement the fine work of colleagues like David Brancaccio of NOW and David Fanning of Frontline, who also go for the truth behind the news. But I dont want to tease you Im not coming back because of my detractors. I wouldnt torture them that way (Ill leave that to Dick Cheney.) Im coming back because I believe television can still signify. And I dont want you to feel so alone. Ill keep an eye on your work. You are to America what the abolition movement was, and the suffragette movement, and the Civil Rights movement you touch the soul of democracy. Its not assured youll succeed in this fight. The armies of the Lord are up against mighty hosts. But as the spiritual leader Sojourner Thomas Merton wrote to an activist grown weary and discouraged while protesting the Vietnam War Do not depend on the hope of results concentrate on the value and the truth of the work itself. And in case you do get lonely, Ill leave you with this: As my plane was circling Memphis the other day I looked out across those vast miles of fertile soil that once were plantations watered by the Mississippi River and the sweat from the brow of countless men and women who had been forced to live someone elses story. I thought about how in time they rose up, one here, then two, then many, forging a great movement that awakened Americas conscience and brought us close to the elusive but beautiful promise of the Declaration on Independence. As we made our last approach to land, the words of a Marge Piercy poem began to form in my head, and I remembered all over again why we were coming here: What can they do to you? Whatever they want. They can set you up, they can bust you, they can break your fingers, they can burn your brain with electricity, blur you with drugs till you cant walk, cant remember, they can take your child, wall up your lover. They can do anything you cant stop them from doing. How can you stop them? Alone, you can fight, you can refuse, you can take what revenge you can but they roll over you. But two people fighting back to back can cut through a mob, a snake-dancing file can break a cordon, an army can meet an army. Two people can keep each other sane, can give support, conviction, love, massage, hope, sex. Three people are a delegation, a committee, a wedge. With four you can play bridge and start an organization. With six you can rent a whole house, eat pie for dinner with no seconds, and hold a fund raising party. A dozen make a demonstration. A hundred fill a hall. A thousand have solidarity and your own newsletter; ten thousand, power and your own paper; a hundred thousand, your own media; ten million, your own country. It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more. >From The Moon Is Always Female, by Marge Piercy Copyright (c) 1980 by Marge Piercy Bill Moyers, Chairman of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy delivered these remarks at the Media Reform Conference on January 12, 2007 in Memphis, Tennessee. _____________________________ Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or you can visit: http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news Go to that same web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe. E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few days will become disabled or deleted from this list. FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.
