Rich Media, Poor Democracy (Communication politics in dubious times) Robert W. McChesteney, 1999,2000 The conclusion of this book (and many others) is that we have a serious media problem. It won't be solved by governments because politics needs media support. The only answer is for everyone to understand the problem and act together. Since this problem is not well understood (many people deny it exists) the focus was on describing the problem. Ecology interests face this same media problem and the current trend is to fight one issue at a time and not look at the forest (how a society learns and uses information to solve problems). For this reason i will dig into topic and include some quotes from the book. As with the automobile, the primary justification for this internet commercialism is economic. As the automobile provided the basis for the expansion of twentieth-century industrial capitalism, so, we are told, the Internet and digital technology will provide the basis for economic growth in the twenty-first-century. This is not debated so much as it is reiterated. The key concept here is that both the automobile and the internet have serious side effects and we should think about them. As we approach some limits on the earths resources this becomes more important. a democracy cannot exist without a press system that provides a rigorous accounting of people in power and the presentation of a wide range of informed opinions on the important issues of the day and age. Chomsky loves to point out that todays media avoids many important issues because it makes people uncomfortable and loses readers or advertisers. The media also avoids in depth discussions if they feel a large percentage of readers will not be interested. This is normal for competitive business. The problem is that todays media is controlled by a handful of people who have a very similar viewpoint. The result is narrow information and few people knowing other viewpoints even exist. For example, last year talking to anyone immersed in the media about Genetic Engineering or the WTO (World Trade Organization) or most environmental topics is like talking to a parrot. They mostly just repeat what they have heard. They do not have the data to think independently and it takes a lot of work by activists to get the issues on the table. If you go back a few years on most issues and look at media communications the bias becomes very clear. They talk about the benefits of GMO or the problems solved by WTO. Once again, this is normal for a competitive business and isn't bad. It only becomes a problem when the media dominates information (loss of diversity). The notion of public service -- that there should be some motive for media other than profit -- is in rapid retreat if not total collapse. The book talks about New Zealand, England, Canada, and shows the same trend just about everywhere. A growing centralization of media control and less diversity of information. Very little awareness of important issues and intense interest in profit. This months "Sun" magazine shows how this is impacting schools and how advertising is now becoming accepted. The idea that media programming (often inside classrooms) is shaping our society and needs change is seldom taken seriously. Instead we focus on funding or quality of instruction or say the problem is kids and parents. Well.. it is kids, parents, funding, and.. media. Another point from the book is that we turn this issue into a political "right" or "left" issue or an attack on capitalism. Or people think control of the media is the opposite of free enterprise and open economics. Actually, more diversity in the media enhances freedom for everyone including small business. Plus, capitalism dies without diversity and competition. At the lowest level politics and many other problems can be reduced ethics and greed. jeff
