# 6 Media Reform Movement... to change Media
Recently, when I was doing a search on the internet for a media reform movement I came across a very interesting article. I found the article on thenation.com, and it is called “the Making of a Movement”. The authors (Robert McChesney and John Nichols) discuss a medium movement that the authors say is about television, especially news networks sugarcoating topics such as the current President, George Bush and companies buying out many stations.
They say CNN and FOX have had a competition to see who could be most patriotic by doing such things as standing by any thing Bush says, and wearing the biggest flag lapel pin. “The role that US newsmedia have played in narrowing and warping the public discourse since September 11 provides dramatic evidence of the severe limitations of contemporary American journalism, and this nation’s media system, when it comes to nurturing a viable democratic and humane society” the authors describe the political movement involving media.
McChesney and Nichols talk about the FCC thinking about getting rid of policies such as bans on cross-ownership for one TV firm to own TV stations and newspapers in the same area, and having limits for the number of TV stations a firm can have nationwide. I think this is a good idea because it doesn’t allow for a monopoly to take place. If you had the same company running every TV station you watched you would only get one view point and that would be the companies. The only way a society can learn and have different things to talk about is if there are different perspectives available. Your attitudinal media effect would be biased because you would only have one way to look at a topic if the same company owned TV stations and newspapers around your neighborhood. You would constantly be having the reinforcement that this way of looking at this subject may be correct because that is all you see. This horizontal movement could lead to oligopolies to occur.
The authors say the movement to stop the “media corruption” as they call it has to include such things as:
- Apply existing antimonopoly laws to the media and, where necessary, expand the reach of those laws to restrict ownership of radio stations to one or two per owner. Legislators should also consider steps to address monopolization of TV-station ownership and move to break the lock of newspaper chains on entire regions.
- Initiate a formal, federally funded study and hearings to identify reasonable media ownership regulations across all sectors.
- Establish a full tier of low-power, noncommercial radio and television stations across the nation.
- Revamp and invest in public broadcasting to eliminate commercial pressures, reduce immediate political pressures and serve communities without significant disposable incomes.
- Allow every taxpayer a $200 tax credit to apply to any nonprofit medium, as long as it meets IRS criteria.
- Lower mailing costs for nonprofit and significantly noncommercial publications.
- Eliminate political candidate advertising as a condition of a broadcast license, or require that if a station runs a paid political ad by a candidate it must run free ads of similar length from all the other candidates on the ballot immediately afterward.
- Reduce or eliminate TV advertising directed at children under 12.
- Decommercialize local TV news with regulations that require stations to grant journalists an hour daily of commercial-free news time and set budget guidelines for those newscasts based on a percentage of the station's revenues.
Personally, I think this sounds more like a dream than any thing else. I understand where the authors are coming from, but I think it sounds too unrealistic to actually ever happen. They list too many limitations, and large corporations would find a way to get around these limits. For instance, the ‘reduce or eliminate TV advertising directed at children under 12’ I do not think would go over very well for people in the market place. There are people whose job it is to create toys for children 12 and under and they want to show the kids the new toys they made so the kids would want them. Of course, it seems unethical, but if you don’t want you kids to be influence by television ads, and then don’t have them watch TV at all. The kids will be influenced by more than just the ads.
I truly hear what McChesney and Nichols are saying but it seems like too big of a goal. I would suggest for them to focus on one thing to try to change, and work in small steps. It is good to have big dreams, but I think changing everything that they want to change would make a lot of people angry.
Check out the article I found here.
They say CNN and FOX have had a competition to see who could be most patriotic by doing such things as standing by any thing Bush says, and wearing the biggest flag lapel pin. “The role that US newsmedia have played in narrowing and warping the public discourse since September 11 provides dramatic evidence of the severe limitations of contemporary American journalism, and this nation’s media system, when it comes to nurturing a viable democratic and humane society” the authors describe the political movement involving media.
McChesney and Nichols talk about the FCC thinking about getting rid of policies such as bans on cross-ownership for one TV firm to own TV stations and newspapers in the same area, and having limits for the number of TV stations a firm can have nationwide. I think this is a good idea because it doesn’t allow for a monopoly to take place. If you had the same company running every TV station you watched you would only get one view point and that would be the companies. The only way a society can learn and have different things to talk about is if there are different perspectives available. Your attitudinal media effect would be biased because you would only have one way to look at a topic if the same company owned TV stations and newspapers around your neighborhood. You would constantly be having the reinforcement that this way of looking at this subject may be correct because that is all you see. This horizontal movement could lead to oligopolies to occur.
The authors say the movement to stop the “media corruption” as they call it has to include such things as:
- Apply existing antimonopoly laws to the media and, where necessary, expand the reach of those laws to restrict ownership of radio stations to one or two per owner. Legislators should also consider steps to address monopolization of TV-station ownership and move to break the lock of newspaper chains on entire regions.
- Initiate a formal, federally funded study and hearings to identify reasonable media ownership regulations across all sectors.
- Establish a full tier of low-power, noncommercial radio and television stations across the nation.
- Revamp and invest in public broadcasting to eliminate commercial pressures, reduce immediate political pressures and serve communities without significant disposable incomes.
- Allow every taxpayer a $200 tax credit to apply to any nonprofit medium, as long as it meets IRS criteria.
- Lower mailing costs for nonprofit and significantly noncommercial publications.
- Eliminate political candidate advertising as a condition of a broadcast license, or require that if a station runs a paid political ad by a candidate it must run free ads of similar length from all the other candidates on the ballot immediately afterward.
- Reduce or eliminate TV advertising directed at children under 12.
- Decommercialize local TV news with regulations that require stations to grant journalists an hour daily of commercial-free news time and set budget guidelines for those newscasts based on a percentage of the station's revenues.
Personally, I think this sounds more like a dream than any thing else. I understand where the authors are coming from, but I think it sounds too unrealistic to actually ever happen. They list too many limitations, and large corporations would find a way to get around these limits. For instance, the ‘reduce or eliminate TV advertising directed at children under 12’ I do not think would go over very well for people in the market place. There are people whose job it is to create toys for children 12 and under and they want to show the kids the new toys they made so the kids would want them. Of course, it seems unethical, but if you don’t want you kids to be influence by television ads, and then don’t have them watch TV at all. The kids will be influenced by more than just the ads.
I truly hear what McChesney and Nichols are saying but it seems like too big of a goal. I would suggest for them to focus on one thing to try to change, and work in small steps. It is good to have big dreams, but I think changing everything that they want to change would make a lot of people angry.
Check out the article I found here.
posted by a.h.w. @ 9:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home