[IMC-US] Fwd: [MediaAct] Building Media vs. Organizing Media Reform

[sheri at speakeasy.org]

hi,

i thought this might be of interest to us since we were deeply into this conversation post st. louis and this article by robert parry brings up even more ideas and analysis.

love
sheri
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Aliza Dichter [mailto:liza at mediaactioncenter.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 04:28 PM
To: activist at mediatank.org
Subject: [MediaAct] Building Media vs. Organizing Media Reform

This article makes the argument that it's a mistake to focus on 
supporting media reform, internet projects and lefty opinion media.. 
that unless the energy is to build quality left journalism, 
progressives will continue to lose to the conservative media machine...
-liza


FROM:  http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/062005.html

Five Pointers for a Left Media
By Robert Parry
June 21, 2005

For those who see U.S. news as tilted to the Right, the good news is 
that wealthy Left funders are beginning to earmark more money for 
media. The bad news is that little of the money is going into the kind 
of media infrastructure that could restore a balance.

So, from my 27 years in Washington journalism and 10 years as editor of 
this independent Web site, here are some suggestions about how to best 
spend the precious sums for media, whether from small or large donors. 
(We, by the way, are entirely funded by donations from our readers.)

1. Outlets and content are the keys.

The ultimate answer to today’s media imbalance is for progressives to 
build strong outlets for getting information to the American people and 
to develop powerful content for those outlets.

Conservatives have followed this formula for the past three decades, 
though often their content is more propaganda than information. 
Nevertheless, this combination of content and outlets has enabled them 
to reach the public with their message and put enormous pressure on the 
mainstream media.

Back in the 1970s, the situation was quite different. Then, the Left 
had a clear advantage in media, especially from the so-called 
“underground press” of the Vietnam War-era. These newspapers and 
magazines were read by legions of young people.

Many Americans got news, too, from independent investigative sources, 
such as Seymour Hersh’s Dispatch News which broke the My Lai massacre 
story. Progressives also produced video documentaries and presented 
anti-war news on rock music radio stations.

To avoid losing credibility with these young audiences, the mainstream 
press felt compelled toward more skeptical journalism. That dynamic 
created openings for major newspapers to challenge serious government 
wrongdoing, as in the Watergate scandal, or to disclose government 
lies, as in the Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War.

But Left funders made a number of fateful decisions at this turning 
point, essentially forsaking the national media advantage for a 
strategy of “grassroots organizing” or direct action, such as buying up 
endangered wetlands or feeding the hungry.

Simultaneously, the Right’s funders began investing heavily in media, 
launching what conservatives called the “war of ideas,” which was 
actually a struggle to control the flow of information to the American 
people.

The Vietnam-era dynamic was reversed. Progressive media shriveled into 
near irrelevance, while the conservative media expanded rapidly, with 
well-financed outlets in magazines, newspapers, radio, books, 
television and eventually the Internet. [For details on this process, 
see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from 
Watergate to Iraq.]

The Right’s growing ability to get its message to Americans where they 
work, commute and live allowed conservatives to broaden their political 
base even among Americans who were harmed financially by the Right’s 
policies. Ironically, media proved very valuable in advancing the 
Right’s “grassroots organizing” especially in areas that lacked much 
media diversity, i.e. the Red States.

Despite this evidence of a link between media and organizing, the 
Left’s funders refused to shift priorities. As if following a dogma 
that didn’t change regardless of the circumstances, many progressive 
leaders kept calling for more “grassroots organizing,” even in the face 
of political debacles in the 1980s and 1990s, through the disastrous 
elections of 2002 and 2004.

That is only now beginning to change because one of the few bright 
spots for the American Left in recent months has come from the 
emergence of progressive talk radio on the AM dial. The programming is 
based on content from Air America Radio and Democracy Radio, which 
arose despite the opposition of major liberal funders, many of whom 
predicted failure for these radio outlets.

2. Beware an emphasis on “media reform.”

As progressive radio has grown and rank-and-file liberals have caught 
on to the value of having aggressive media, some Left funders have 
retreated to a new position, investing in “media reform.”

But the danger of this emphasis is that “media reform” often boils down 
to another way to do “grassroots organizing,” only aimed at placing 
demands on existing media outlets to do a better job or on the Bush 
administration to change its communications policies.

So, instead of concentrating on building independent TV outlets, 
bolstering progressive talk radio or supporting cash-starved Internet 
and print outlets, key progressive organizations are spending money on 
campaigns to “save PBS/NPR” or to urge the Federal Communications 
Commission to restore the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting.

But this organizing strategy is doomed to fail because the campaigns 
can’t, in themselves, solve the larger problem of conservative 
dominance over U.S. politics and media. Neither petition drives nor 
demonstrations outside PBS stations will change the fact that PBS is 
morphing into a high-brow version of Fox News.

The Republican-controlled Corporation for Public Broadcasting keeps 
layering on more and more overtly conservative PBS shows, such as 
programs featuring Republican pundit Tucker Carlson and the right-wing 
Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Meanwhile, the CPB’s demand for “fair and balanced” reporting is seen 
within the PBS network as a codeword for avoiding anything that offends 
the Right. If self-censorship doesn’t do the trick, then politically 
attuned ombudsmen will finger offending journalists.

Even premier PBS programs, like the documentary series Frontline, are 
tailoring their content with one eye on what might draw complaints from 
the right-wing pressure groups or from the White House.

For instance, Frontline’s special last fall on the two presidential 
candidates showed no skepticism when dealing with Bush’s conversion to 
born-again Christianity. Frontline accepted the sincerity of Bush’s 
politically convenient discovery of old-time religion. [For a 
contrasting view, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s ‘Elmer Gantry’ 
Politics.”]

Meanwhile, Frontline portrayed Sen. John Kerry as a communist dupe for 
his initiatives to promote peace in Central America in the 1980s. The 
show also skipped over Kerry’s groundbreaking investigation of cocaine 
trafficking by the Nicaraguan contra rebels, a topic that would have 
raised the ire of Republicans if Frontline had explained how the CIA’s 
inspector general had confirmed Kerry’s findings in 1998. [For details, 
see Consortiumnews.com’s “Kerry’s Contra-Cocaine Chapter.”]

This ongoing dynamic inside PBS is comparable to what happened in the 
cable news networks, the so-called “Fox Effect,” as programmers 
increasingly followed the news judgment and tone of Fox News.

One of the consequences was the failure of the U.S. news media to 
examine Bush’s case for war with Iraq. While Fox and other conservative 
outlets acted as cheerleaders, mainstream reporters tried to avoid the 
career damage that could come from being viewed as insufficiently 
patriotic. Now, more than 1,700 American soldiers and tens of thousands 
of Iraqis are dead.

“Media reform” – in the sense of demanding better performance by the 
mainstream media or more openness from the Bush administration – will 
do little to improve the situation. The only meaningful “media reform” 
at this point is to “build media.”

3. Put media where it makes the most sense.

There are some logical places to put media outlets, but San Francisco 
isn’t one of them.

Even as Left funders have denied money to many promising media 
projects, progressives have disproportionately invested what little 
money they have in the San Francisco area.

As pleasant as that part of the country is, it makes little sense for a 
national news operation, let alone many of the biggest ones on the 
Left: from Mother Jones to Salon.com to Alternet to Moveon.org as well 
as many media-support organizations.

For starters, San Francisco is three hours behind the news centers of 
Washington and New York. That reduces chances of getting editors and 
journalists on national TV programs or for having them attend events in 
Washington.

That means there are fewer opportunities to speak with other 
journalists or meet policymakers, an important way for ideas to spread 
among the nation’s opinion-makers or for reporters to pick up news 
tips.

By putting so much of its media in San Francisco, progressives also 
invite a conclusion that it’s more important for them to take weekend 
trips to wine country or hike among the redwoods than it is to slug it 
out in the political trenches of Washington.

In contrast, the Right has grasped the value of putting its media 
overwhelmingly in the East Coast news centers. For instance, the 
American Spectator was told by its funders to pull up stakes in Indiana 
and move to Washington, where it has since played an important role in 
bedeviling the Democrats, especially during the Clinton administration.

While Washington and New York may make the most sense for where to 
place media investments, an argument could be made for cities in Middle 
America, such as Chicago or Memphis or Fargo, N.D., where progressive 
radio talk show host Ed Schultz is based.

But San Francisco has few of the advantages of either the East Coast 
power cities or Main Street USA locations.

4. Concentrate on information over opinion.

As the old saying goes, opinions are a dime a dozen because everyone 
has one. But information is powerful, as should be apparent following 
the disclosure of the leaked British documents on the Iraq War, 
including the so-called Downing Street Memo.

The revelation of the cynical internal discussions between London and 
Washington over how best to manipulate their respective publics into 
war with Iraq has changed the nature of the war debate. [See 
Consortiumnews.com’s “LMSM – the Lying Mainstream Media” or “Mocking 
the Downing Street Memo.”]

Under pressure from Internet bloggers and some anti-war Democrats, the 
mainstream media has been forced into a corner. Unable to continue just 
ignoring the documents, some newspapers have put the information on 
their front pages while others – like the Washington Post – have lashed 
out over having their news judgments questioned.

While the Downing Street Memo is a reminder of how information can 
crystallize a political debate, the American Left has very little 
capacity for generating information on its own. Indeed, progressives 
are largely dependent on the mainstream news media for revealing 
information.

Independent investigative journalism is one of the areas most neglected 
by the Left funders.

Responding to suggestions from Consortiumnews.com readers that we 
expand our operation beyond what can be supported by small donations, 
we approached more than 100 wealthy individuals and foundations this 
past year, seeking support for a modern-day version of Hersh’s Dispatch 
News.

The idea was to put seasoned investigative journalists at work digging 
out important information in areas that were either ignored or 
underreported by the mainstream news media. But not a single one of 
these funders agreed to support the plan.

5. Don’t view the Internet as a panacea.

I’ve heard some progressives argue that the Internet, virtually alone, 
can solve the media imbalance. Some even feel that it’s enough to post 
raw documents on the Internet so citizens can read through the material 
and reach their own conclusions.

But those viewpoints misunderstand the way media works. While the 
Internet can be an important part of a solution to America’s media 
dilemma, it can’t work alone. Professionals are needed to ferret out 
documents, spot what’s especially important and make the information 
comprehensible to the average reader.

For instance, when the Central Intelligence Agency issued its reports 
on contra-cocaine trafficking in 1998, many facts were disclosed but 
often without context. Very few Americans could be expected to 
understand who the various players were and how they connected to 
senior levels of the Reagan-Bush administration.

That’s where having journalists available who know the context can make 
the difference between losing an important chapter of American history 
or saving it. Because I was working on this Web site then and had 
covered the contra-cocaine issue in the 1980s, I was able to make sense 
out of many disparate pieces of information scattered throughout the 
CIA reports. [See Parry’s Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 
Project Truth.]

Our work on the contra-cocaine issue bolstered reporter Gary Webb, who 
had lost his job at the San Jose Mercury News after writing the stories 
in 1996 that had forced the CIA’s investigation. But because our 
Internet site lacked sufficient clout, we were unable to put much 
pressure on the mainstream media to reexamine its dismissive attitude 
toward Webb’s reporting and the contra-cocaine issue in general.

If there had been a progressive media comparable to what the 
conservatives have built, it would have been much tougher for the 
mainstream media to essentially ignore the CIA’s startling findings. 
Webb’s journalistic career might have been salvaged – and he might not 
have killed himself last December. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “America’s 
Debt to Journalist Gary Webb.”]

Though the Internet may be one area where progressives have established 
a stronger presence than conservatives, the Right has deployed its 
Internet resources more effectively by using them as part of a 
multi-layered media strategy.

Conservative Internet sites introduce attacks that then get amplified 
by other conservative media – talk radio, newspapers, cable TV – and 
are forced into the mainstream media.

Most memorably, right-wing activists leaked to Matt Drudge and his 
Internet site some facts about President Bill Clinton’s affair with 
White House aide Monica Lewinsky in 1998. Then, other conservative 
outlets pushed the story, driving it quickly into the mainstream media.

Similarly, in 2004, conservative Web sites questioned the authenticity 
of memos that had appeared in a CBS “60 Minutes” story about George W. 
Bush’s National Guard duty. With the help of right-wing talk radio and 
Fox News, that story, too, penetrated into the mainstream news media 
and led to the dismissals of four CBS producers (although it never was 
proven that the memos were forgeries).

The vastness of the right-wing echo chamber essentially lets 
information or propaganda be inserted at any point among the varied 
media outlets. The entry could be from a book (such as the attacks on 
John Kerry’s war record) or in newspapers or on talk radio or on cable 
news – before the material starts reverberating.

Soon, mainstream news outlets are joining in the media frenzy – fearing 
accusations of “liberal bias” if they don’t.

Progressives simply lack any comparable media infrastructure for 
generating or distributing original news whether from the Internet or 
anywhere else. Indeed, mostly the Left’s limited media distributes news 
that is produced by the mainstream media or – as in the case of the 
Downing Street Memo – the foreign press.

So, while some liberal funders have come around to recognizing the 
value of media, they are still inclined to support “organizing” around 
media, rather than “building media” that can produce important 
information on its own and get it to the American people.

Pending a change in those priorities, it will remain up to individual 
small donors and journalists working largely on their own time to do 
the best they can.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the 
Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise 
of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at 
secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 
1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are subscribed to the Media Activist email discussion list, hosted by Media Tank. For more information about Media Tank, check out www.mediatank.org.

To unsubscribe from this list, email majordomo at serve.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line and "unsubscribe activist" in the body (make sure not to add your signature).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++