foto by Tizzie P
I spent last weekend at the National Conference on Media Reform in Tennessee. My friend
Tanya and I submerged ourselves in media culture, ate
pork for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and we even experienced some honest southern hospitality (unlike the disingenous debutante kind I'd recalled) from
Alcenia's on Main. Having not set foot in the south for years, everything felt as it had, like it'd been in stasis--complete with top 40 radio hits circa 1998. Natalie Imbruglia can’t still be getting royalties for that gem (though yea, I’ll admit, my middle school self couldn’t get enough). Homogeneity, pop music be thy name. Perfect case in point for why media consolidation is such a threat to freedom of expression.
The most memorable part of the conference for me wasn't so much the panel discussions themselves. I was familiar with much of what was said, as a media junkie and having been fortunate enough to see Bill Moyers, Bob McChesney, Helen Thomas, and Amy Goodman in the past. I took it as a good sign of streamlined messaging. But what I took away from Memphis had to do more with the more practical application of the strategies for dealing with issues the panels addressed. I'll remember us engaging a perfect stranger about how progressives fare in Texas, asking the Holiday Inn operator who listened to Christian radio on why she didn't trust the media, and debating with other activists on the most effective means of forwarding the goals of the media and democracy movement--especially after realizing how absurd it was to be locked in an academic echo chamber that would do nothing to help us talk to the table next to us. I'll also think of the Sunday headline in the local paper--"With surge, Memphis families feel helpless--though proud, patriotic." That qualification-- that o
bedient flag-waving expression of steely resolve, lest anyone doubt their stripes--was the perfect example of the fear that's paralyzed the media, proof of why they are such an important check on power. That anecdotal evidence of the urgent need for media reform manifested at the local level-- that's what will stick with me.
That being said, I did want to note a few observations I made on the conference itself, for what they're worth.
With the recent FCC ruling on AT&T's purchase of BellSouth still in headlines, net neutrality was a major focus throughout the conference, touted at times in a fairly self-congratulatory tone. With so few big victories in the fight against media consolidation, it's understandable that activists would want to take this opportunity to pat ourselves on the back. But some have cautioned against declaring this a win for media reform. Dan Gillmore of the Center for Citizen Media called the ruling into question, one of the only speakers I saw to point out that even though they vowed not to obstruct equal access to the internet, AT&T pulled a fast one on us, consolidating their ownership power and agreeing to abide by a provision they would've been forced to adhere to anyway.
Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, predicted that attendees would come away from the conference "feeling that fighting for [net neutrality] should be the progressive media movement's top priority."
Chester thinks otherwise:Our most urgent task is to proactively intervene to shape -- on behalf of progressive values -- the emerging commercial digital communications system. This will require a strategic intervention to create sustainable "new media" services that help harness the power of digital media to better promote social justice. Our digital media system will have the capability to help "define" political and social "reality" for the majority of Americans. Unless progressives can seriously "program" the new media -- in every community and across the nation -- we will face even greater obstacles promoting our agendas.
Don Hazen, executive editor of AlterNet,
concurs with Chester and Gillmore:It is becoming increasingly clear that we need to focus more attention on the content and tools of the powerful new interactive digital landscape…and less attention on the delivery pipes. Here, huge media companies like Yahoo and Google are fighting that battle with us.
While net neutrality has an important goal of trying to protect us from future damage, it lacks the capability of fixing the myriad problems that already exist. And the company buyout that was approved in partial trade for net neutrality is an abomination, allowing AT&T, one of only three remaining regional phone companies from the original break up of AT&T back in 1984, to dominate 22 states, 67.5 million phone lines, 11.5 million broadband users.
I was happy to hear Bill Moyers reference this fact
in his plenary address.
***
A number of presenters challenged the notion of objectivity as an incontrovertible journalistic standard. Columnist Laura Washington of the Chicago Sun-Time and In These Times declared there's "no such thing" as objectivity in reporting while speaking on the panel "Inside Corporate Media: Can It Tell the Truth?" with Jeff Cohen, founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, TV host Phil Donahue, and Flavia Colgan of MSNBC. During the "Quality Journalists=Quality Journalism" discussion, a panelist described so-called objective journalism as the type of he-said/she-said reporting in which "both guys spin their lies, and no one can call them on it." She declared that balance does not equal truth. Tanya was reminded of a quote—“objectivity turns journalists into stenographers.” Demanding this warped version of objectivity silences critical voices, and has a chilling effect on dissenting opinions, allowing establishment points of view to get the last word.
***
Media critics span the political spectrum, though as Eric Boehlert from Media Matters for America pointed out, the nature of the critique differs depending on whether it's coming from the left or right. He argued that liberals believe it's important not to slander the press, but instead to create a factual, responsible critique of media misrepresentations and underreported stories. Conservatives, on the other hand, criticize press because their goal is to dismantle it,
Boehlert says. He
quoted former Wall Street Journal columnist Ron Suskind—"For them, essentially the way to handle the press is the same as how to handle the federal government; you starve the beast. When it's in a weakened and undernourished condition, then you're able to effect a variety of subtle partisan and political attacks."
***
Tanya had her reporter hat on for the conference, and recorded an
interview McJoan from DailyKos. Her excellent summary of how the conference addressed issues surrounding citizen journalism, media access, and net neutrality is posted here on
New Assignment. I submitted my observations as well, but since they dealt more with media reform as a progressive political priority, they weren't posted for the most part. I found it a little ironic that a site promoting citizen journalism--one that is testing grounds for an open source project--would wield such editorial privilege, though I understand it's a work in progress, and have respect for the editor--a friend of a friend. I do feel that divorcing the conference from the political discussion surrounding it robs it of much of its significance. But I suppose there are those sites that are just not the place for advocacy journalism. If the situation were any different--say a mainstream outlet--the rejection of progressive commentary would've done more to demonstrate the fear reporters have of the liberal label than anything the observations themselves could’ve said.
***
I want to wrap up with the poem by Marge Piercy that Bill Moyers read at the end of his address. When he spoke at UCSB a few years ago,
he read another.
What can they do
to you? Whatever they want.
They can set you up, they can
bust you, they can break
your fingers, they can
burn your brain with electricity,
blur you with drugs till you
can t walk, can’t remember, they can
take your child, wall up
your lover. They can do anything
you can’t blame them
from doing. How can you stop
them? Alone, you can fight,
you can refuse, you can
take what revenge you can
but they roll over you.
But two people fighting
back to back can cut through
a mob, a snake-dancing file
can break a cordon, an army
can meet an army.
Two people can keep each other
sane, can give support, conviction,
love, massage, hope, sex.
Three people are a delegation,
a committee, a wedge. With four
you can play bridge and start
an organization. With six
you can rent a whole house,
eat pie for dinner with no
seconds, and hold a fundraising party.
A dozen make a demonstration.
A hundred fill a hall.
A thousand have solidarity and your own newsletter;
ten thousand, power and your own paper;
a hundred thousand, your own media;
ten million, your own country.
It goes on one at a time,
it starts when you care
to act, it starts when you do
it again after they said no,
it starts when you say We
and know who you mean, and each
day you mean one more.
