Day 2.1 at the National Conference for Media Reform

Day 2

The day started, early at 8 AM, with a plenary session by Bill Moyers who is a hero to many in the media reform movement. You can see his whole 38 minute speech here.

Broadcast to Broadband: The Next Frontier of the Media Reform

After the opening session, while others were rushing to get their books signed by Bill Moyers in the exhibit hall, I was grabbing a front row seat in the large room for the morning breakouts. First up was From Broadcast to Broadband: The Next Frontier of the Media Reform, with Amy Goodman moderating and panelists, Robert McChesney, Tim Wu (it really is his website, the net neutrality FAQ link is the give away), and Malkia Cyril.

Robert McChesney, co-founder of Free Press with John Nichols, he has just stepped down as Chair of Free Press with Tim Wu the new Chair, author of many books, including the one that got me interested in this area, Rich Media, Poor Democracy, started the session. He touched on how the first amendment covered both free speech and a free press, but pointed out that free speech doesn’t necessarily mean that we will have a free press. He continued on this theme talking about how a quality journalism is necessary for an informed and self-governing democracy. He also warned of the hyper commercialism in the media which marinates the brain with advertisements every day of our life.

Tim Wu, Columbia Law Professor, new Chair of Free Press, and former evil doer who worked for companies that were looking at ways to control the general public’s access to content on the internet, was next up. I can’t recall if it was Goodman or McChesney that forced the mea culpa out of him, but he did cover his sordid past. During this past the clients of his company were:

  1. Corporations-who wanted to control employee access, block websites (ESPN-March Madness), and monitor employee access.
  2. Telecomms, the phone and cable companies-based on their old business models, cable wants to control content, and phone companies want to nickel and dime you for each little service.
  3. Foreign governments-limit internet access to stifle dissent and control information.

The overall premise to this work was that the internet was broken because people had the gall to do whatever they wanted with no outside control of what they were viewing, how dare they!

Wu is working on a new book looking at the history of communication in the US and how policy gets formed. He described the media being like the Terminator in T2, it would get blown up from time to time, but would eventually pull itself together into a scary monster. The question is can we as a society prevent this cycle from repeating, kind of like how we want families to break the cycle of domestic violence.

Cyril, tied the ideas that McChesney and Wu presented to social justice. Talking about how will the new internet policy look, will it be equitable and just, will those members of society that are marginalized have the same access, like non-citizens and prisoners to the media.

In the questions and answer period, Wu mentioned that AT&T was broken up by Reagan, not exactly the anti-trust crusader, but pointed out that AT&T was that big and scary that even Reagan thought they need to be dismantled.

Wu further talked about how the Constitution was designed to check the power the king, or president, not the abuse of private power.

Media and the War: An Unembedded View

In a conference whose registrant list was dominated by progressive activists, this was the biggest session of the day. The room expanded from 6 to 8 combined break out rooms and it was still standing room only. The session started late and to get our 90 minutes, ended late too.

Norman Solomon moderated the session, with Phil Donahue, Amy Goodman, Naomi Klein, Sonali Kolhatkar, and Rev. Lennox Yearwood as the panelists.

Before the session, I was able to get this picture with Naomi Klein, who attended the University of Toronto at the same time I did.

So the session started off with Rev. Yearwood, who is president of the Hip Hop Caucus and former office with the Air Force Reserve. He was the most passionate of the panelists, and definitely got the crowd fired up. He talked about how we in the media reform movement must take the information that we are privileged to have to the greater society, it is our duty. That we must communicate with communities in ways that are culturally competent, to incorporate their communication styles to get the word out. And that we need to reach to the younger blue collar members of society, those between 18-30 years of age that have not attended college and may not be tuned into some of the assumed communication networks that we normally think of.

Naomi Klein was up next. She talked about the media’s absence of coverage. She talked about the lack of press of the Winter Soldier hearings this year, Democracy Now being an exception. She talked about how the coverage in Iraq is being willfully disappeared-no mention about the disaster of the situation, and how dangerous it is for journalists and that danger isn’t widely reported in the media.

Klein further went on to talk about how privatized warfare and homeland security industry is now more than $200 billion a year and we haven’t discussed how or why we pay for it. Also the media doesn’t discuss the economic connections that some of their experts have, like George Schultz is always listed as former Secretary of State, not as a former Betchel board member who stands to profit from their contracts.

Phil Donahue was next, he talked about his new film Body of War briefly, and focused on issue of free speech and the tactics of war promoters. He talked about the how war resisters, those who challenged the premise for an illegal invasion and questioned the unending occupation, are said to not believe in America. Like some jingoistic macho war stance is what is need to be a true American. He pointed out that our questioning of the leaders is proving that not only do we believe in America, but that we also are honoring those who have lost there lives in service to America by exercising our free speech rights.

Amy Goodman followed on this by focusing on the fact that the public airways are our, the public’s airwaves, not some corporations.

Sonali Kolhatkar talked about Afghanistan which has largely been forgotten in the press and in America’s consciousness. She talked about how the run up to the attack on Afghanistan was sold as a war of liberation, helping brown people, which makes it easier to sell to the American public.

Because of the lack of coverage we don’t learn things like violence is up 50% in the last year (not sure if nationwide or by region), that soldiers are dying at a higher rate than in Iraq, or that NATO has killed more civilians than the Taliban.

During questions and answers:

Kolhatkar also talked about how NPR didn’t run an interview of Malalai Joya, an Afghan lawmaker, who is  labeled by some as the bravest woman in Afghanistan, because her accent was too strong.  Goodman who has had Joya on Democracy Now wondered if they ever applied that standard to Henry Kissinger.

Klein talked about the horrible coverage, including the NY Times, about what is going on in Latin America, especially referencing the discredited laptop that ties FARC to Venezuela.  Yet, this is what has since been reported, but not picked up on the topic.  In fact Hugo Chavez has called for FARC to lay down arms and release hostages, as Mark Weisbrot of CEPR has just reported (highly recommended), and this isn’t the first time Chavez has called for an end to the hostilities, but you wouldn’t know that from US media coverage.  While the policies in left of center governments in Latin America aren’t perfect, they are better than what most of the world has for governance and economic self-determination.  But yet, the media coverage often vilifies or misrepresents the reality on the ground.

Donahue talked about the shock that we would face if the media improved, it would be like a woman who married a drunk and didn’t realize it until the night he came home sober.

Rev. Yearwood got things exciting later with an verbal lashing at a Fox News cameraman, blaming Fox News and the media in general for selling us this illegal war.

Then we had lunch.  The rest of the day will be in a second post.

-Josh

Big conference coming to Minneapolis

This weekend, June 6-8, Minneapolis will host the National Conference for Media Reform.

I had eyed this conference in the past when it was in Memphis.  Lucky me, I live in Minneapolis, and will be attending.  I really hope to see Naomi Klein and will try to get a picture with her.  We both attended U of Toronto at the same time.  If that worked with Sophie Milman, hopefully it will work with Naomi Klein.

Other great presenters-Bill Moyers, Robert McChesney, Amy Goodman, Senator Byron Dorgan, John Nichols,
Norman Solomon, Phil Donahue and more.

If you are going to be in Minneapolis, you can register on site starting Thursday evening.

Hope to see you there!

-Josh

What about the workers?

For a little variety, this isn’t tied to a Paul Krugman column. Dean Baker is another economist that I really like and he has a blog on the American Prospect web site called Beat the Press (you can find it on my blog roll too). On Christmas Day he highlighted an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) about the shut down of an airline. This is what he wrote (pretty much the whole blog),

The WSJ reported the bankruptcy and shutdown of MAXjet Airways. The piece discusses the financial situation of the airline and the efforts that are being made to accommodate ticket holding passengers.

All of this is well and good, but what happened to the airline’s employees who got a layoff notice in their Christmas stocking? Did they get severance pay? Will they be picked up by another airline? The WSJ doesn’t tell us. It doesn’t seem too touchy and feely to include two sentences about what happens to the employees of a defunct airline, especially when the collapse occurs in the middle of the holiday season.

While many may think of the WSJ in terms of its ultra right wing editorial board (they make the Kool-Aid that others drink), the paper is a good paper, but suffers from what all MSM journalism suffers from in this country, the focus on the elite/business classes bias. As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) reported in 1999 on a new study of PBS. I am going to include select topic areas [emphasis added].

CORPORATE VOICE: More than one-third of all on-camera sources (36.3%) during the two weeks studied were representatives of corporate America or Wall Street. This almost doubled the percentage found in the 1992 study. (pp. 10-11)

POLITICS: Coverage of domestic political issues featured the views of government officials (50.2%), professionals (31.2% — overwhelmingly journalists) and corporate/Wall Street representatives (11%), with very few contributions from any other social group. Consumer, environmental or labor advocates, for example, were almost invisible. (pp. 13-14)

ECONOMICS: Public TV coverage of the economy is, more than any other topic, dominated by one social sector: the business class. Fully 75% of the sources in economic stories were from the corporate or investment world. By contrast, labor union representatives (1.5% of sources), consumer advocates (0.4%), non-professional workers (1.1%) and the general public (1.8%) were virtually invisible in economic stories. “Economic coverage,” writes Hoynes, “is so narrow that the views and activities of most citizens become irrelevant.” (pp. 11-12)

BUSINESS PROGRAMS: The bias in favor of corporate voices is partly due to the expansion of business news on public television, with many PBS stations now airing two daily business news programs, plus at least two regular weekly business programs. Hoynes writes: “In answer to the question ‘If PBS doesn’t do it, who will?’ this kind of business programming is readily available on CNNfn, CNBC, Bloomberg and other television channels, along with the business press and the Internet. It behooves public television stations to evaluate the reasons why they broadcast programs that are widely available elsewhere, appeal to such a limited audience, and are so narrow in their definition of sources and subjects.” (p. 25)

CITIZEN ACTIVISTS: Citizen activists (a broad category encompassing anyone of any stripe active in community, religious, health, environmental, ethnic/racial issues, etc.) accounted for only 4.5% of total sources. This was a decrease from 5.9% in 1992. Citizen activists “appear with such relative infrequency — for example, there is no regular labor voice in discussions of the economy and no regular consumer perspective in debates about anti-trust policy — that they cannot help but be marginal, if intriguing, participants in the public discourse.” (pp. 16-17)

THE PUBLIC: Only 5.7% of total sources are members of the general public — a decrease from 1992’s 12%. “Another method of opening up the discourse,” writes Hoynes, “is to allow real people to participate in debate and discussion.” One edition of “Morning Business Report” referred to the views of “average Americans,” but these were later revealed to be “investors,” polled in a survey about investment and economic questions. (pp. 17-18)

MERGERS & LAYOFFS: A case study of public TV coverage of corporate mergers and layoffs — a significant news story during the two-week period — showed that the main focus was on how investors were affected. Stories on mergers/acquisitions and anti-trust policy were dominated by corporate viewpoints, with only one appearance by a citizen activist and none by members of the public. Coverage of corporate layoffs and unemployment was similarly narrow: 86% of the sources were corporate or Wall Street representatives. Not a single representative of organized labor appeared in public TV’s discussion of corporate mergers or of layoffs. (pp. 20-22)

So when we read about trade, mergers, private equity firms making companies more efficient, sub prime mortgages, and so on, the coverage generally is coming from the investor class for the investor class. NOW and Bill Moyer’s Jounral on PBS are two really good exceptions in the broadcast world. I also like To the Contrary on PBS which is a roundtable format (moderator, 2 liberals, 2 conservatives) but all women and many topics that get no coverage in the broadcast world.

I don’t know if this is a result of Ronald Reagan’s voodoo economics (otherwise known as trickle down or supply side) focusing on the investor class.  If it is a result of the right wing outrage machine that starts the echoes about the victimization of corporation because of regulations.  But we need the media to serve the people, at least the media that is given license to the public airwaves, not just the investor class.  We need media to give voice to the needs of working Americans.

-Josh

Religion and Atheists

There has been a lot of talk recently about religion especially in 2008 presidential race.  Mitt Romney, a Mormon, gave a speech last week on religion, that I will look at in a separate post.  Mike Huckabee has been a Southern Baptist Minister.  Barack Obama has been the recipient of a smear viral e-mail characterizing him as militant Muslim (not that being a Muslim is necessarily bad).

Now as an atheist, I find religion, and the religious litmus test, to be very fascinating.  I suspect a majority of Americans would be more willing to elect a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim, or Jew than an atheist.  The Minnesota Daily reported an interesting survey done by University of Minnesota sociology professors in 2006 that supports that.

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as “sharing their vision of American society.” Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

“It tells us about how Americans view religion,” said Penny Edgell, an associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher. “Many Americans seem to believe some kind of religious faith is central to being a good American and a good person.”

Why do I have to believe in some higher power to be consider a good man?  I just don’t get.  I realize having faith is the world view that many people are coming from, and that they may find the lack of belief to be so different they project that difference in belief on to me having different morals and ethics.  Or their moral and ethical compass my be sort tied to their belief structure, that they would feel lost without the belief to give the guidance, that they project that feeling on to me.  But we need as a society, believers and non-believers, need to bridge that gap

A really good place to start is with Bill Moyers’ 14 interviews from his Faith and Reason series.  I will confess I haven’t seen them all, but I have seen a few of them and they were really well done.  So check them out here.  Naturally as an atheist, I made sure to see the interview with Colin McGinn an atheist.  I found this part of the interview to be interesting, and I think it is doing a good job of defining the difference between persecution and criticism of religion [emphasis added].

BILL MOYERS: What brought this festival of writers together on faith and reason is the growing chorus of voices that are calling for the protection of religious sensibilities and sensitivities against offense, against the insult. There’s something going on here. How do you see it?

COLIN MCGINN: Well, the notion of insult is a slippery one, isn’t it? And does it include criticism? I mean, are you insulting somebody’s religious beliefs if you criticize them?

BILL MOYERS: Well, the people think that you are.

COLIN MCGINN: They do think that you are.

BILL MOYERS: And they want protection for their beliefs.

COLIN MCGINN: Yeah, that, I think, is wrong. Nobody can have their beliefs protected from rational criticism. If insulting people includes shouting at them and calling them names, that’s very bad behavior. But should it be prohibited by law? Maybe, if it’s very extreme. But if people just want to have their belief system protected from every form of rational scrutiny, I don’t have any sympathy for that. I think there’s got to be a very firm distinction between criticism and persecution. And I think people misunderstand the idea of tolerance often. They think that tolerance is the same thing as lack of criticism. But to me, tolerating somebody else’s beliefs is not failing to criticize them. It’s not persecuting them for having those beliefs. That is absolutely important. You should not persecute people for their beliefs. It doesn’t mean you can’t criticize their beliefs. Those are not the same thing. I think people have tended to sort of run these two things together, and they perceive criticism as if it was persecution. But it isn’t.

So when I describe something as militant atheism, then I am referring to the atheist as persecuting a believer for having those beliefs.  But I will still maintain my right to criticize a belief structure.

Now back to the MN Daily article,

Those surveyed tended to view people who don’t believe in a god as the “ultimate self-interested actor who doesn’t care about anyone but themselves,” Edgell said.

Yet, Colin McGinn takes it from a very different angle [emphasis added]

BILL MOYERS: You said a moment ago that when you let slip the bonds or the tether of religion, you anticipated that you might find a big hole in your heart.

COLIN MCGINN: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: Or, in your soul.

COLIN MCGINN: Yeah, yeah.

BILL MOYERS: But you didn’t.

COLIN MCGINN: I didn’t, yeah.

BILL MOYERS: What filled it?

COLIN MCGINN: In fact, I felt the contrary. It felt to me a better world I was living in without God. I mean one of the things about God is everything you as a moral being do is under the scrutiny of this being who’s gonna reward you or not as the case may be. I think it compromises people’s moral sense, because they feel as if everything they do which is good, they’re doing it because God will approve of them and reward them for it. And once you jettison that idea, you do what you should, because you should, because it’s the right thing to do and that you don’t feel that there’s always some sense of self-interest involved in any moral action that you perform.

I think it’s an oppressive idea that God is always looking into your soul at every moment of the day and weighing you up. It makes people too introspective. So, I found it was sort of liberating to not have that oppressive, Big Brother surveillance from God all the time. And I found the universe more interesting and more stimulating without gods. I thought, you know, investigating the universe without a religious impulse or religious perspective on it was to me a more interesting and stimulating thing to do.

McGinn’s position, which I like, is supported by a quote in the MN Daily article,

Cole Ries, the president of the Maranatha Christian Fellowship said he does not agree with that perception.

“Atheists seem to be concerned with the human good,” he said. “Where I differ as a Christian is that I’m more concerned with God’s will than man’s will.”

Still, Ries said, “I don’t believe that anybody is really an atheist. I believe that deep down everyone knows there is a god.”

So Ries gives a nice comment about atheists, then supports McGinn’s argument, and then doesn’t believe in non-believers.

I will also direct you to McGinn’s statement about what is the greatest predictor of your religious belief, or non-belief.

COLIN MCGINN: I think the story of Jesus is a powerful story. It’s got many important ingredients about justice, suffering, bravery. The content of Jesus’ teachings still have a lot of relevance. The Sermon on the Mount still seems to me to have a lot of good things in it. So, there’s a lot to be said for it in terms of just the religion itself.

But also I would say there’s a huge institutional structure behind religion. There has been for a long time. That’s why the best predictor of what people believe in matters of religion is where they were born and their families. I mean, why is it that most people in America believe in Christianity, not in Islam? The answer’s not because of the intrinsic content of the two views. It’s because they were born in a country where Christianity is what they’re taught. If you were born in a country where Islam is taught, you believe Islam. It’s to do with what people are taught and that’s why it hangs on. It’s just a huge, powerful, institutional structure.

That is oversimplifying things, but there is much truth in it.  I was baptized Catholic, and I remember going when I was really little, but we stopped going regularly as a family when I was 3 or 4.  I did go occasionally with my grandmother when she had me overnight to Sunday mornings.  But I didn’t do confirmation and I have never taken communion.

Just some thoughts on atheism and religion.

-Josh

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started