|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert McChesney, Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times (University of Illinois Press, 1999) Reissued in paperback by The New Press in 2000. Robert McChesney makes a strong case for diversifying media holdings in Rich Media, Poor Democracy. In this 1999 book (published before the 2000 approval of the AOL-Time Warner deal that created the largest merger to date), McChesney sounds alarms for the health of a democracy wherein the fourth estate is—as he argues—"expert at generating the type of fare that suits, and perpetuates, the status quo." He claims that media corporations behave much as other large corporations—endorsing politicians and contributing to re-election campaigns in return for favorable legislation and oversight policy. McChesney, a Communications professor at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, reveals the business side of the media corporations, revealing their net profits at the end of the 1990s. He explains the implications of vertical and horizontal integration and why horizontal integration is more profitable to conglomerates such as Viacom or Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. He gives chilling lists of the major holdings of the largest three media conglomerates. He takes careful and sharp aim at television and cable news, especially noting the suspiciously incestuous news coverage by news program about their parent companies. Local television news has reduced itself to "generally visually stimulating material taken inexpensively off a satellite feed that had no public policy implications for local communities." Ahhhh, you say, but what about the Internet with its vast publishing opportunities, search engines and man-on-the-street journalism via weblogging? McChesney holds little hope for redemption by dot-com. Even though Rich Media, Poor Democracy is several years old, McChesney's predictions that the Internet will quickly become the domain of the rich and connected seem to have come true. He observes that the unlimited publishing possibility of the Internet does not mean that everyone will see all that is published. According to his food chain, advertising dollars rule the Web, and conglomerates rule advertising. McChesney paints a grim picture for advocates of independent media. Conglomerates keep a close eye on competition bobbing along in the lower ranks of media. Those tiny companies are plankton streaming past gigantic whales, and they are having a harder time than ever finding funding to avoid being swallowed by the largest beasts in the deep. McChesney traces public broadcasting's history from the early decades of the 20th century when consumers refused to allow their stations to carry advertisements. He pines for "a society where citizens have the right to actually determine whatever economic and media systems they regard as best." Ultimately, he argues, it will take a wide social movement to change media regulation. Citizens must want to change the media system, and to do that, they must see that the system is flawed, which can be a difficult vision when the majority of reporting is controlled by those in power who have no interest in losing that power. Furthermore, media reform is not likely to collect enough interest or force for change when taken alone, McChesney contends. He wants society-wide upheaval to put "power in the hands of the many," rather than the richest few. Changing the media would be one part of the necessary overhaul in "electoral reform, workers' rights, civil rights, environmental protection, health care, tax reform, and education." Rope us the moon while you're at it, too, won't you, Mr. McChesney? MORE: McChesney’s home page Web page at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Salon.com review of Rich Media, Poor Democracy The Baltimore Chronicle review of Rich Media, Poor Democracy |
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||