The voice of the common man cannot be heard when the control of the press is concentrated among such a small number of players.

“Political freedom is a society’s safety valve, allowing the passionately critical a nonviolent way to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo.”

– David Cole, “Quotes on Democracy”

While the “diverse spectrum” of corporate news outlets has created the illusion of a free and fair press, the increasing trend of media consolidation over the last two centuries is even beginning to threaten this illusion. Corporate media consolidation – the majority of media outlets being owned by a small number of conglomerates and corporations – is an increasing problem that threatens free and fair political discourse in the United States.

Americans are increasingly realizing the negative implications that concentration of media ownership is having on free and fair political discourse. Former CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite, who has lobbied the FCC against adopting relaxed media ownership guidelines, was quoted in BusinessWeek as saying, “The gathering of more and more outlets under one owner clearly can be an impediment to a free and independent press.”

This gathering of outlets under one owner has only increased over the past 25 years. I read that “In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. . . . In 2004, only 5 huge corporations – Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) – now control most of the media industry in the U.S.”

If political freedom is a society’s safety valve, what happens when the means to express this political freedom are controlled by interests that wish to maintain the status quo? In this system, how can “passionately critical Americans” express their dissatisfaction?

Short answer: they cannot; they have no voice, no free speech.

Update: You should read:
Part 5 – George Orwell Rolls in His Grave
Part 6 – The Internet Revolution and Citizen Media
Part 7 – Remix Culture (…again)
Part 8 – Threats to Freedom of Speech on the Net
Part 9 – Yes We Can Regulate Culture with Copyright Law
Part 10 – Lawrence Lessig = Awesome
Part 11 – Final Thoughts

Related Posts

1. Net Neutrality – Adventures in Calling Congress
2. Immortal Technique Comes to Stanford
3. Google Killer?: Twitter’s New Layout Highlights Twitter’s New Focus on Search

The republican revolutionaries promised us a society where everybody can participate as an equal in political debates, and where everyone has a voice and an audience. The liberals promised personal growth, the right of all citizens to develop their arguments, skills and individuality. The radicals promised freedom of speech as a way to expose prejudice and corruption. These are great ideals. Wonderful promises. Too bad they weren’t kept.

– Eric Ringmar, A Blogger’s Manifesto

In every country where democracy has taken hold, people have the right to express themselves freely. This is a core freedom, a fundamental right. Free speech is often heralded as the single most important right that sets Western liberal democracies apart from the rest of the governed world – and rightly so.

Robert F. Kennedy once said in his famous Day of Affirmation Address that the first and most critical element of individual liberty is “the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest . . .”. Freedom of speech is the very essence of democracy, without which accountability and transparency are not possible. John Stuart Mill, a famous liberal thinker, wrote in his essay On Liberty in Utilitarianism that “ . . . there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered”.

Free speech was thought by many early liberal thinkers to be so important that even unfavorable or offensive speech should be protected, lest the slippery slope of censorship cause all speech to become less free. As Voltaire put it, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Freedom of speech is a basic, essential characteristic of western society – its importance to the functions of democracy should not be underestimated.

Our Founding Fathers

Unfortunately, free speech has been stifled and repressed throughout much of American history. The founders’ idealistic vision of an America where every individual has the right to speak freely came true in principle, but ultimately failed in practice. For much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the elite class – owners of the large news outlets, printing presses, and TV networks – acted as the de facto arbiters of public opinion.

These media conglomerates severely curtailed public discourse by controlling what we saw, heard, and read. The common man has no access to the machinery of mass media, and thus, has no means to share his views with a wide audience. In effect, the common man was voiceless and powerless throughout much of American history, slave to the dictates of corporate media conglomerates that shape the public agenda for their benefit.

Satirical poster mocking the manner in which mass media often parrots the official government line – failing their journalistic duty.

“So what?” some observers might ask. “What is wrong with corporations controlling the media? The various news outlets offer a diverse set of viewpoints and the public has the free choice to consume whichever news source they want, right?” Unfortunately, there is growing body of academic work confirming that corporate media is not offering a diverse set of viewpoints, despite how it may look on the surface. 

Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic wrote, “The media serves the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly.” Other academics and industry experts agree that freedom of speech has suffered throughout the corporate media era.

Sam Donaldson, ABC news correspondent, once argued that “The press . . . traditionally sides with authority and the establishment.” This sentiment was echoed by David Barsamian, journalist and founder of Alternative Radio, a Colorado-based talk program heard on 125 radio stations around the world. Barsamian believes that “One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change.”

Most news outlets serve the interests of the rich and powerful, whose main goal, all too often, is the preservation of the status quo. Indeed, the corporations that report narrow perspectives in the mainstream news are the very same corporations that stand to benefit from maintaining the status quo.

Update: You should read:
Part 3 – Network (Classic 1976 Film)
Part 4 – Concentration of Media Ownership
Part 5 – George Orwell Rolls in His Grave
Part 6 – The Internet Revolution and Citizen Media
Part 7 – Remix Culture (…again)
Part 8 – Threats to Freedom of Speech on the Net
Part 9 – Yes We Can Regulate Culture with Copyright Law
Part 10 – Lawrence Lessig = Awesome
Part 11 – Final Thoughts

Related Posts

1. Net Neutrality – Adventures in Calling Congress
2. Misinterpreting Copyright
3. Free Software Foundation is Awesome