Lasica rightly points out that
"In recent weeks the news media have lavished saturation coverage upon the company's woes. But almost all of the attention has focused on the its incredible shrinking stock price; the prospect of layoffs; or the new parlor game among analysts and pundits of predicting what the empire's breakup might fetch.Meantime, barely a column inch has been written about the impact of the merger and the company's financial troubles on other key players: the public."
"The public needs to keep vigilant watch that the company's wide-ranging journalism operations are not sacrificed on the altar of Wall Street profits."
I'm glad that Lasica broaches the public interest question and further quotes Bagdikian extensively without having to have his every assertion countermanded by some corporate shill. But I'm not going to pretend that it's enough. If we want a responsible media that is duly respectful of the fact that journalism is protected by the constitution because it provides a valuable service to citizens in a democracy, then that fact needs to be posed not just to scholars and critics, but to the profession, and more importantly, those who rule the profession. We have to think practically and concretely about how we can hold AOL/Time-Warner accountable to the privileges of passing itself off as a journalistic enterprise. We have to demand that AOL/T-W justify itself and the work it does, not merely accept its profits (or lack thereof) and audience size as proof.
And simply because this big experiment in old media/new media synergy might be rocky doesn't mean that the species is near extinction, nor does it mitigate the damage such concentrated media ownership does to our democracy. While I hope and believe that such mega-corporations would collapse under their own weight, who do they take out when they fall? Just because they haven't been as successful as their CEOs and stockholders would hope doesn't mean that they haven't been successful in exerting undue and dangerous control over the news and information we're bombarded with every waking moment.
Who cares if they make money by carpet bombing us with news about Britney's sex life if we can't avoid it either way? The damage of missing data and stories that are vital to informed citizenship is already done. What we need to do is figure out how do we mitigate the damage or stop it alltogether, not just watch it happen.
This isn't to say that you should stay somewhere that you're lonely and miserable. Instead, I'll point out that every scene and institution had to be started by somebody, often 2 or 3 somebodies. It takes a little more effort to start something new than to move to somewhere it's already happening, but that process of building can be much more rewarding, also. Instead of simply putting up with the way someone else things something -- a co-op, restaurant, bookstore, coffee shop, infoshop -- should be run, you can have an active role in making it to your and your compatriots' liking.
Living in East-Central Illinois I've grown tired of people who spend their time here -- usually as students of some type -- complaining about the place and how there isn't much to do, there isn't anything cool, and so on. First, I get annoyed because I don't think that's actually true. You can't expect two cities with a combined population of about 100,000 to have as much sheer stimulation and activity as Chicago and New York. In fact, you're going to have to look a little harder to find it than you would in the middle of Manhattan. But it is here.
Secondly, just complaining about there being nothing is self-defeating, lazy, and is utterly symptomatic of the consumer culture. Instead of waiting around for someone -- typically someone with a lot more money than you who's interested in having some of your's, too -- to provide you with something interesting to do, why not endeavor to create something yourself? Odds are, if you spend any effort looking around at all (and not just asking your four closest friends/acquaintences), you'll find a co-conspirator or two. And, especially if your plan is not to rake in the bucks hand-over-fist, but to instead create something interesting that will enrich your's and others' lives, then you likelihood of having some success is pretty high if you give it a sincere try.
The Idle Kids in Detroit may or may not have a long successful run, but if they stick around more than a year or so, they're likely to influence someone to try her hand at creating something, too, be it a bicyclists group, a study group, artists studio, or whatever. First hand I've seen the power of community organizations like community radio and the Indymedia Center movement serve as catalysts for new projects and programs that symbiotic but also blaze new territory. From stimulating our local music scene, to providing a forum for people and groups to connect, these two organizations -- one 20 years old, the other not even 2 -- together create a sense of excitement and possibility. And they took neither genius nor riches. Just ideas and hard work.
Q: If this subject is so important, how come the general public knows so little about it?
A: Because broadcast and cable news people practically never cover it....
Q: How do newspapers handle the story?
A: The great majority bury it in the business pages, if they treat it at all. Don’t forget, many big newspaper companies own television stations and stand to benefit from deregulation....
"that’s not realistic. The deregulatory trend has proceeded so far in the last half-dozen years — since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act — that it’s irreversible. The goal, however, is: don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Reasonable people on both sides can agree on minimum, necessary rules to preserve a diversity of news and opinion."
The ruling media conglomerates are myopic, foolishly greedy and give absolutely not a shit about you or me. That's not reasonable, so I refuse to hope for a reasonable outcome.
Previously:
Webcast Music Fees Set, But Not So Friendly to NonComms, 2/21/02
Digital Media Distribution: Is the Honeymoon Over? 10/10/01
The End of Peer-to-Peer? 4/5/01
Independent Music? 2/13/01
"We don't need a new vision. We just need to recognize what the traditional vision has been. The traditional vision protects copyright owners from unfair competition. It has never been a way to give copyright holders perfect control over how consumers use content. We need to make sure that pirates don't set up CD pressing plants or competing entities that sell identical products. We need to stop worrying about whether you or I use a song on your PC and then transfer it your MP3 player."
Cross-ownership is nothing new, but CC's move to take over street-level distribution is canny, since it's monopoly creates an implied threat against all newspapers and print publications in SF that rely on newsrack distribution. Who needs to control the actual presses when you can limit how the papers that come off them get into readers' hands? For papers, if they criticize or piss off CC then they risk losing a critical way to reach readers. And then what if CC takes over a daily or a weekly?
Previously:
Radio Consolidation --> Radio Corruption 3/8/02
Attacking the Nation's Largest Radio Giant 1/29/02
In a negative development for LPFM activism and free speech, the Federal Court
of Appeals for the D.C. circuit announced this morning that it has vacated its
recent decision in the case of Greg Ruggiero vs. The FCC, and has ordered
rehearing en banc, meaning that the argument will be heard by the entire bench
of 8 active judges.
Attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights who represent my case,
Robert Perry and Barbara Olshansky, expect that the new hearing will take place
no later September 2002.
On September 6, 2002, Robert Perry and the FCC argued against each other in
court, and on February 8, 2002, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C.
circuit announced their decision in favor of Ruggiero. In essence, the Court
ruled that the Congressional restriction under the Radio Broadcasting
Preservation Act that bars people who had engaged in civil disobedience
(broadcasting without a license) from ever being permitted to apply for a LPFM
license violates the First Amendment.
In their Feb. 8 decision the Court said the Act raised "a suspicion that
perhaps Congress's true objective was not to increase regulatory compliance,
but to penalize pirate micro broadcasters' message."
The full text of the Court's excellent Feb. 8 ruling can be read at:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1100a.txt
We are prepared to continue arguing against the prohibition. Eventually this controversy could make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
la lucha sigue,
Greg Ruggiero
Brooklyn, NYC
Evaluating LPFM's Legal "Victory" 2/11/02