|
general principle of promoting wide spectrum political discussion and public access--particularly dissenter access--to the media.
How it is specifically implemented--say, bringing back the old "equal time" provision, or busting monopolies--is less important than re-establishing the principle.
Of those two well-known mechanisms--equal time, and busting monopolies--these notions really go together. You can bust monopolies and still end up with all rightwing, white bigot radio broadcasting in Georgia or Louisiana. You need equal time to protect minority views in specific markets.
As to radio going dead, bear in mind that huge segments of the population still have long commutes, and still turn on the radio for news and entertainment while they're driving. Satellite systems have given some people more choices. I have mine set on Air America, BBC and C-span--and 60s rock. I entirely avoid local radio markets due more to geography than anything else. There is a GREAT local public radio station in my area, but I can't get reception in my car, due to high mountain ridges. But I'm think more of the folks stuck on the Los Angeles freeway system, and other such instances of bad city planning--where people live sometimes 2 to 3 hour drives from where they work. I remember, in fact, that this is how Jerry Brown got his start in politics. His team was tech smart for those days, and realized that they had a captive audience for 4 to 5 hours a day, in the commutes to and from work in L.A. So they concentrated heavily on press releases and events/interviews for radio. That's how Brown first won public office (L.A. community college school board). Fast forward to Pouffle and the internet!
Anyway, there is nothing like vibrant local programming, with focus on local issues, to rebirth radio. But how do you get it? Maybe our airwaves--like the banks--will revert to public ownership simply because capitalism has gone bust. They've driven radio off the cliff with their canned garbage, and non-stop fascist blabber. Can we, the people, get pulleys and ropes and haul it back up? Sure we can. These predatory capitalists depend on it. Once we've created something good--with hot, energetic, creative little enterprises around the country--then they can come raid us again. (I mean, what else are these 'TRADE SECRET' code voting machines for?)
But I digress. Your prescription is busting up monopolies. I would add the "equal time" provision in some form, to foster a culture of objectivity in journalism, and to give big corps pause about pushing their agenda on the rest of us. If they are obliged to give "equal time" whenever they express an opinion on a public issue, then they will be less likely to shove their opinions upon us (as was the case during the "Fairness Doctrine" era--when you rarely saw the hand of management on the news), and this ALSO influences print media. It was not a perfect system, by any means, but it was far, far, FAR better than what we have today: naked corpo control of the political discussion.
I like all of your suggestions for diversity. But corpos never take a hint. They need a bludgeon. Force them to give "equal time" and force them to divest. And I think we will eventually start seeing real newspapers as well--even with the stiff competition from the internet. Having a newspaper in your hand is like having a book in your hand. There is no tech substitute. The problem with newspapers is the shitty, warmongering, fascist product, not the medium. Give people a lively product, with real news and real debate in its pages, and people will buy it, and when people buy it, advertisers will want to advertise in it. I view my local rag--which I think is now owned by the NY Times--as a DEAD ZONE. Same old nauseatingly slanted news. Same old newspaper columnists, all of whom I think died long ago. Dead, dead, dead. My husband subscribes for the crossword puzzle. I never read this shitrag any more.
But the problem is not the internet ad competition. The problem is what they're SAYING, which is of no interest to me. Not even marginal interest. It is dead writing, with the deadly hand of the corpo CEO upon it. They want total control. They want no surprises. They cut staff in order to kill investigation and prevent surprises, as well as to stuff their pockets. Same with radio. Local radio DJs used to be able to start a revolution in the musical world. It was all coming from the liveliness of our culture at the BOTTOM, among the people, the musicians and song writers, the teenagers, the rockers. Now there is hardly anything lively and surprising anywhere in radio, except maybe pirate stations, and sometimes AAR. I heard a great guy on AAR--was it Norman Goldman subbing for somebody?--yelling about the religious clergy speaking at a gay anti-Prop 8 protest in L.A. He was shouting. He was pissed off. He was excited about keeping religion out of the politics. And he was great! I didn't happen to agree with him. I thought it was good that clergy came out in support of the protest--and thought of Martin Luther King and all that. (King was a PREACHER!) But he was great anyway.
It was so SURPRISING--the way Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes sometimes surprise and astonish. That's what radio should be like. Open. Unpredictable. A happening! And anybody can get their say. And some unknown rock group from nowhere (Liverpool!) can suddenly take off, in circumstances of freedom and diversity--with nobody censoring and canning and killing everything good--and bedazzle the nation and change music history.
Get the deadening hands of multi-billionaire, fascist CEOs off the content of radio-and watch it take off. And keep their bloody hands off the internet.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(495 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
