I had a feeling you would have this response and I must say that I don't
entirely agree with you. I may be optimistic, but I'm not naive.
(Straight out of college, I was hardened in the fire of the Skadden,
Arps mergers & acquisitions department of the late 80's. I hated it,
but I saw some class action kings at work.)
First, there is no organized "majority" (corporate, institutional or
otherwise) with a widely held public company like AOL-TW.
Secondly, there is a significant portion of stock in the mutual funds
held by various types of retirement accounts and pensions - certainly
more than what is held by any single institution or corporation. Look
at the SEC filings. This amounts to ownership by ordinary people.
If you took a page from the Bella Abzug or Kirk Krikorian book it would
be possible to gather a formidable portion of the individual voices
together. Not that it wouldn't be difficult, but it is certainly
possible. You get a certain number of votes behind you (or turn
someone like Jim Barksdale to your cause) and it's pretty hard to shut
you up at a shareholder meeting.
I think the main issue is not surmounting corporate owners; the issue is
getting enough people who think that there should be a change and care
enough to see it happen.
If student protestors at Yale could win a battle with the university and
Bristol Myers Squibb over an AIDS drug patent, surely some progress
could be made in this regard. (Check out this look at activism on
campuses: http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/SO01/top10.html . I
don't necessarily agree with some of the things on the list that
students protested for, but I support their right to do it.)
I'm still very eager to hear any suggestions you or anyone else may have
about the media and changing it. I wake up every day feeling more and
more like it is a significant problem for us in terms of achieving
understanding, let alone realizing our democratic ideals. I want to do
something about it.
Thanks for writing,
Brenda
On 23 Sep 2001, at 16:03, Mike Pritchard wrote:
Brenda wrote (Sept 21):
>>many of the media conglomerates are publicly owned. Take AOL-Time
Warner for
>example. If I own one share of AOL-Time Warner stock or if I own a
single
share in a >mutual fund which owns AOL-TW (leaving out for a moment if I
have
a right because >my taxes inevitably subsidize their business) I have
the
right to say something about >their policies at CNN, Time magazine, or
NY1
News. And perhaps a movement to >change the media would have to be a
grass
roots approach, levied by shareholders. I >don't know that it is likely
to
happen or yield a result but it is at least possible.<<
Yes it's true that these corporations are public and that individual
shareholders have a right to speak and a right to vote, but the majority
(which counts in democratic societies) of the shares are owned by other
corporations or institutions with their own agendas and enough voting
power to
brush off any individuals or even groups of 'concerned citizens' or
'grass
roots approaches, however well-meaning and critical, when the time comes
to
decide policy. I wish it were otherwise, but it ain't.
Mike.
NP Garbarek and the Hillard Ensemble 'O salutaris hosti' (from
'Officium')
