"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What is the definition of a free press? While this has been subject to the legal interpretation since its inception, it should be clear that the Bill of Rights refers to the rights for citizens. What that means is that WE, the individual citizens have the right to be served by a press and media system that is free of corporate interest, the need to make a profit, or the need to hide or amplify any portion of news in order to protect special interests, regardless if that interest is in the form of an individual, a corporation or government entity.
What we have found is that instead of protecting the citizen’s right to quality information, our courts have chosen to instead protect the media provider’s “right” to limit our choices and maximize their profits. Legislation that was worded to foster competition in order to benefit customers is really just competition among some of the largest companies in the world. It has increased the rate at which small and independent companies are bought up or ran out of business by their larger competitors, and we are the ones who suffer for it.
What we have found is that instead of protecting the citizen’s right to quality information, our courts have chosen to instead protect the media provider’s “right” to limit our choices and maximize their profits. Legislation that was worded to foster competition in order to benefit customers is really just competition among some of the largest companies in the world. It has increased the rate at which small and independent companies are bought up or ran out of business by their larger competitors, and we are the ones who suffer for it.
We are within our rights to object when we learn that the media is bought and paid for by major international companies that have more of an interest to make a profit than they do the social service of providing relevant information to the public. There should be some moral obligation for a news provider to ignore the news that a “customer” may want to hear, and focus instead on what it needs to hear. As to what constitutes “necessary,” this is obviously open to interpretation and completely subjective. Because of this, healthy, real competition is required. We need many sources of news.
Despite appearances, we do not have this. Yes, there are hundreds of channels on your Directv account. Yes, there are quite a few national newspapers and there is a local paper in almost every major city. What we have is the illusion of diversity concealing what is actual uniformity. What we have are six major companies which own the vast majority of all news sources that you can easily find. This has occurred through a history of mergers and acquisitions that has destroyed our options for alternative forms of media. Further, these companies are completely vertical, owning and operating everything from initial planning and production through the final distribution. This allows them to control the advertising that we see, what news is shown and from what slant, and the order of programming.
Consider that General Electric is one of the largest media providers in the world. It owns 26 television channels in the United States, including MSNBC, NBC, Telemundo and the Bravo Channel. In addition to these ventures, GE also has vast holdings in the manufacture and maintenance of military machines, including the engines of the F-16, the Abrams Tank, and the Apache Helicopter. It is also heavily involved and invested in healthcare, energy and financial services. This is a company that profits from U.S. military involvement in countries all over the world. There are no more well-financed special interests in America than energy, military contracts and finance, and GE is involved in all three. Even if the decision-makers in the news branch were of the highest ethical and moral fiber, how can we, in good conscience, trust that we are getting unfiltered and unbiased news from this kind of parent company?
Certainly, it should make us think the next time that we see America’s latest war advertised and marketed on TV like it is a sporting event. The “Intervention in Libya” featured its own soundtrack and logo, with special graphics and inspiring images of American soldiers. The decision to attack another country should be a serious one, with the understanding that there will inevitably be innocent civilians killed, the possible loss of American life, and the heavy costs associated with such a campaign. Marketing for such an act like it’s an upcoming Pay-Per-View event destroys the necessary somber air that should accompany any such decision.
http://www.watpa.org/telcom.htmlhttp://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main
http://totallyfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/public-enemy-number-one-the-american-press/
No comments:
Post a Comment