2010 Vision… better than 20/20

Coming later today:

    ANOTHER Mark Lloyd video proving he’s a Socialist

    The “FCC” letter to Obama – a “New Democracy” laundry list

    Connecting the dots – Picture the Socialist Web

    The Chicago Incubator

 Robert McChesney was featured in SocialistProject.ca on August 9, 2009!

Support for the Venezuelan Revolution is explicit...

Robert McChesney, in http://bostonreview.net/BR23.3/mcchesney.html

 Making Media Democratic

[First published Summer of 1998]  [What a skewed and erronious view of Capitalism and the Conservative Cause - they really believe this!]

Excerpts.. 

Media Reform Proposals

Building nonprofit and noncommercial media. The starting point for media reform is to build up a viable nonprofit, noncommercial media sector. Such a sector currently exists in the United States, and produces much of value, but it is woefully small and underfunded.

Sympathetic government policies could also help foster a nonprofit media sector, and media reform must work to this end. Government subsidies and policies have played a key role in establishing lucrative commercial media.

Public Broadcasting. Establishing a strong nonprofit sector to complement the commercial giants is not enough. The costs of creating a more democratic media system simply are too high. Therefore, it is important to establish and maintain a noncommercial, nonprofit, public radio and television system.

We need a system of real public broadcasting, with no advertising, that accepts no grants from corporations or private bodies, and that serves the entire population, not merely those who are disaffected from the dominant commercial system and have to contribute during pledge drives.

A powerful public radio and television system could have a profound effect on our entire media culture. It could lead the way in providing the type of public service journalism that commercialism is now killing off.

Regulation. A third main plank is to increase regulation of commercial broadcasting in the public interest. Media reformers have long been active in this arena, if only because the public ownership of the airwaves gives the public, through the FCC, a clear legal right to negotiate terms with the chosen few who get broadcast licenses.

In three particular areas, broadcast regulation can be of great importance. First, advertising should be strictly regulated or even removed from all children’s programming (as in Sweden). We must stop the commercial carpetbombing of our children. Commercial broadcasters should be required to provide several hours per week of ad-free kids’ programming, to be produced by artists and educators, not Madison Avenue hotshots.

Second, television news should be taken away from the corporate chiefs and the advertisers and turned over to journalists. Exactly how to organize independent ad-free children’s and news programming on commercial television so that it is under the control of educators, artists, and journalists will require study and debate. But we should be able to set up something that is effective.

 As for funding this public service programming, I subscribe to the principle that it should be subsidized by the beneficiaries of commercialized communication. This principle might be applied in several ways. We could charge commercial broadcasters rent on the electromagnetic spectrum they use to broadcast. Or we could charge them a tax whenever they sell the stations for a profit. In combination these mechanisms could generate well over a billion dollars annually. Or we could tax advertising. Some $200 billion will be spent to advertise in the United States in 1998, $120 billion of which will be in the media.

CONCLUSION

Imagine a world… …enough funding to produce high quality products. Imagine a world where the public airwaves provide compelling journalism, children’s programming, and political candidate information, with control vested in people dedicated to public service. Imagine a world where creative government fiscal policies enable small nonprofit and noncommercial media to sprout and prosper, providing some semblance of a democratic public sphere.

Though imaginable, this world seems wholly implausible-and not only because of the political muscle of the corporate media and communications lobbies. Over the past generation, “free market” neoliberals have understood the importance of media as an instrument of social control far better than anyone else. The leading conservative foundations have devoted considerable resources to reducing journalistic autonomy and ideological diversity and pushing media in a more explicitly pro-business direction. [Untrue - I cry "FOUL!"] The pro-market political right understood that if big business dominated the main fora for political education and debate, then public scrutiny of business would be markedly reduced. ["Preposterous!"]These same “free market” foundations fight any public interest component to media laws and regulations, oppose any form of noncommercial and nonprofit media, and lead the battle to ensure that public broadcasting stays within narrow ideological boundaries. In short, we had a major political battle over media for the past generation, but only one side showed up. The results are clear, and appalling. [What has this guy been smoking?!]

But now there are signs that the battle for the control of our media is about to be joined. [Remember, this was 1998!] Organizations such as Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the media watch group, have boomed in the 1990s, and local media watch/media activism groups have blossomed in Denver, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle and elsewhere since 1995. In 1998 the Rainbow/PUSH coalition made media reform one of its two major organizing drives, holding regional conferences on the subject across the nation. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus… Organized labor, especially media unions, have shown increased interest… media reform has become an indispensable part of democratic political movements. But we still have a long way to go. Large sectors of the population that are disadvantaged by the media status quo and who should be among media reform’s strongest advocates-educators, librarians, parents, journalists, small businesses, laborers, artists, kids, political dissidents, progressive religious people, minorities, feminists, environmentalists-are scarcely aware that the issue even exists to be debated. [emphasis added]  …

Winning major media reform, then, will require the sort of political strength that comes with a broader social movement to democratize our society. [emphasis added] We need to see that media reform is a staple of all progressive politics, not just a special interest cause. … In sum, the train of media reform is leaving the station. If we value democracy [read: Socialism] we have no choice but to climb aboard.

Originally published in the summer 1998 issue of Boston Review

People and politicians are very much alike.  If you want their attention, just hit ‘em in the Pocketbook.

After offering the American people “hope and change”, America’s political leaders are dealing up those precious commodities in a kind of Zero Sum equation.  If one had a Political Calculator, it might compute: 

             Hope + Change = Distrust + Insecurity

More specifically:  Trust the Scoundrels + Hang On for dear life!  This is as true in the forced US Health Care debate as anywhere.  And it is forced indeed.  With such a serious recession upon us, and stability not yet seen, why put 1/6th of  America’s economy on the table for anything but the surest of help.

Today, to keep Obama’s “hope” alive requires that we trust  politicians, their supporters and a news media who grow less trustworthy by the day.  President Obama has more contradicting quotes on youtube, or any of a hundred blogs, than the most clever Atheist could find in the Bible.  We are learning not to trust the man and his message, but to trust only that what he says will suit the audience of the day.  Obama sang “Single Payer” [or die] to the SEIU choir in 2003. 
Then came publicized reports last weekend that, due to markedly UNDERwhelming support, the “public option” was being dropped. 

Today it’s a different tune again.  Said President Obama regarding the “public option” on Thursday, “What we’ve said is we think that’s a good idea, but we haven’t said that that’s the only aspect of health insurance.”  So, the public option – Government run Health Care – was once essential, then it was gone, now it’s still the plan or…  is it just a good idea, or…  umm, lemme see.  Who’s the audience, and especially, who’s that in the front row with the fat checkbook,  the first check being made out to ‘Congressional Elections 2010′?  The next one to ‘Presidential Election 2012′?

We recently heard that the National Health Service in England was the 3rd largest employer in the world, after the Chinese Army and the Indian State Railways.  1,282,900 people in England’s jobs were with the NHS -  2% of the 59,000,000 population. (March 20, 2004 Times Online).  Absolutely gargantuan, but this includes doctors and nurses. 
Okay, a mere 205,000 were not directly involved in patient care.  0.3%.  But if that were in the US today, such a bureaucracy would employ over 1 million people.  And to whom would they make out their Union Dues checks?

But wait a minute…  84% of the NHS in England were “doctors, nurses, scientists and therapists”.  Umm – are they typically unionized in the USA?  Turns out, the nurse’s unions are doing quite nicely, thank you.  About 20% of RN’s in the US are unionized.  But not so much doctors or therapists.  Let’s see, how about if they became government employees?  With a unionization rate of over 40%, the “public option” would be quite a shot in the arm for the SEIU and other government unions!

So in the Health Care debate, not much is clear.  But one thing is very clear indeed.  The “public option” could immediately thrust many millions of nurses, doctors, technicians and even scientists into the card-carrying dues paying Union member rank and file.  What would that mean for US Health Care?

So, what’s a self-repecting Constitutionalist and American Patriot to do?  Well, why not hit ‘em in the Pocketbook?   The recent exodus of 60,000 from the AARP (American Association of Retired People) may be just the tip of the iceberg.  I may be mistaken, but in the United States, union membership is not mandatory.  Can somebody actually quit the union? 
Unthinkable?  Well, why not think again?  Much is at stake.

Better yet, really hit ‘em in the Voting Booth.  You see, votes are a more precious commodity.  They’re what people sometimes buy – the higher goal.  But in America, the good ol’ folks are not stupid.  Not now, not in 2010, not in 2012.