Views » January 18, 2007 » Web Only

Fighting the Media’s Plantation Mentality

By Jessica Clark and Tracy Van Slyke

During the first day of the third National Conference for Media Reform, 300 people packed the chairs and lined the walls of the In These Times-moderated panel Building and Sustaining Independent Media. The excitement around the topic was surprising: after all, the panel was going head-to-head with a panel on net neutrality across the hall, an issue at the core of the media reform fight. But attendees’ enthusiasm for a variety of panels on independent media, citizen journalism and Web 2.0 projects demonstrated how the Free Press successfully expanded the definition of an effective media reform movement at this year’s conference.

While the first conference in Madison, Wisconsin in 2003 focused more narrowly on policy issues, attendees were eager to see the issues of media quality and corporate control being addressed on a national, activist platform. By the second conference in St. Louis in May 2005, the movement had hit an awkward stage. Local and grassroots activists challenged leading media reform advocates to expand their conceptions of who was going to be part of revolutionizing our media system and how that would happen.

In response, this year’s theme was “broadening the movement for media reform.” An expanded program of panels brought new voices to the table, which made for lively and sometimes contentious discussions.

Speaking just days before Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, journalism icon Bill Moyers linked the media reform and the civil rights movements, comparing the attitudes of corporate media owners to an entrenched “plantation mentality.”

He spoke of conservative domination of the media and warned, “We have reached the stage where the poohbahs of punditry have only to proclaim that the world is flat for people to agree without going to the edge of the world and looking over themselves.” However, he noted, the evolution of new media has now allowed ordinary people to wrest the pen from the pundits: “A nation of stories—every citizen a Tom Paine.” He urged the audience to fight for net neutrality and keep the emerging broadband system from becoming “a media plantation for the 21st century.”

Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. was one of the many voices rallying against the racial inequalities of the current media environment. Jackson criticized the “mass media lockout of people of color”—a claim supported by a recent Free Press study about media ownership.

Tension was still high between “reformers” and representatives of communities of color, youth and gender equality movements, who support a more radical vision of media “justice.” Panels on women’s media and hip-hop activism erupted into complaints about the lack of diversity at the conference.

While many claim that online media has leveled the playing field for participation, others disagree. “We have to acknowledge that whatever tools we create are as segregated as the rest of society,” noted Chris Raab of AfroNetizen. “The power of citizen journalism is only as powerful as our values.”

Similar tensions surfaced in the interactions between the beleaguered representatives of traditional print, broadcast and radio media and proponents of new and citizen media. Dan Gillmor of the Center for Citizen Media, said journalism is being “liberated from the priesthood,” from a “top-down and fundamentally controlled media world,” while Jay Rosen of PressThink spoke excitedly about the new role of the “the people formerly known as the audience.” New forms of journalism are thriving, and new organizations, such as the Media Bloggers Association, are coalescing to serve them.

Others were not so enthusiastic. At a discussion around public access television, older advocates complained that the focus on new technologies ignored the long struggle required to secure space and training funds for community media. And at the panel on citizen reporting, a journalism professor asked what she was supposed to tell her students about earning a living, only to be advised by Rosen that “revenue supports are being separated from journalism itself,” and that journalism students would need to learn to become entrepreneurs.

The week before the conference, independent media had suffered a blow with the news that the Independent Press Association had suddenly shut its doors. The organization, which provided technical assistance, loans and newsstand distribution to hundreds of small publications around the country, including In These Times, had been suffering upheaval and was unable to sustain operations. As a result of lagging newsstand revenue, several small magazines have recently folded, including Clamor, LiP and others. This added a sense of urgency to discussions about how severely under-resourced independent media is.

This issue was addressed in the Building and Sustaining Independent Media panel, which included several members of a more recent progressive media support organization, The Media Consortium According to Cenk Uygur of “The Young Turks,” which is broadcast on Air America, independent media-makers experimenting with new technologies like satellite radio or online broadcasting should not worry about how they’ll manage, but should “just do it.” Several panelists discussed their unique business models and how their work makes a public impact that moves beyond just securing mass audiences and advertising dollars.

Kim Spencer, president of Link TV, described their program “Mosaic,” which aggregates news from the Middle East and has garnered a surprising audience. Mainstream reporters are using it as a source for their own reporting. In addition he said, “The White House and the State Department monitor it every day.”

The renewed energy around independent media and the rise of new media technologies may seem to mitigate the threat of media consolidation, but according to Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, corporations are working hard to diminish the freedoms of the online media world. The net neutrality fight was mentioned many times throughout the course of the conference, and the Save the Internet coalition plans to launch a new, aggressive campaign for a Broadband Bill of Rights in February.

Despite their differences, attendees were able to agree on one shared principle: The corporate media is not working and we need to fix it. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps brought the point home with his announcement of an American Media Contract:

We, the American people have given broadcasters free use of the nation’s most valuable spectrum, and we expect something in return. We expect this:

1. a right to media that strengthens our democracy.

2. a right to local stations that are actually local.

3. a right to media that looks and sounds like America.

4. a right to news that isn’t canned and radio playlists that aren’t for sale.

5. a right to programming that isn’t so damned bad so damned often.

Jane Fonda summed up the feelings of many attendees during the final plenary: “We need a media that strengthens democracy, not a media that strengthens the government, a media that enriches public discourse, not one that enriches corporations … a media that is so powerful that it can speak for the powerless. … A truly powerful media is one that can stop a war, not start one.”

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I have commented on these topics in other locations, but they are worth repeating.

  Net neutrality is already an oxymoronic demand. People who have dial-up connections can waste considerable time waiting for newspapers or other sites with heavy graphics to download. In addition, having to click on each article title to see what is written is a big hassle and one that leaves me ignoring much of news content online.  (I timed my effort to read the local daily online today. After half an hour, I was not even 1/4 way through the paper. Each article or letter to the editor took at least 30 seconds to access. In that amount of time, I could have scanned the entire printed edition and known a bit about each topic being covered.)

  Mainstream media, to me, means reporting on City Hall, printing the school lunch menu, informing citizens on the latest proposals for roads and sidewalks, as well as the more glamorous investigative piece or in-depth report on a cultural change. Alternative media can offer a different take on larger issues and cover items that do not make it into the mainstream press, such as topics of homosexuality that might make some editors and publishers of mainstream publications worry about really offending some of their readers.

  Who is reporting, editing and owning news media can determine what details of a news report are highlighted. For that reason, diversity is important.  In addition, different backgrounds (including education level, economic background, geographic background, and race and gender) will bring in different story ideas. This is why diversity is important to the economic survival of mainstream media.

  If women and minorities want to control media, then they need to start buying newspapers, radio stations, and other outlets. Even if it is just a county paper, it is a start - big newspaper chains have started with a single paper. Also large metropolises are witnessing their papers sold cheaply. The Minneapolis Star Tribune sold for $160 million lately. Some of the wealthier people attending the Media Reform conference could have pooled their money, pulled in other investors and ended up owning a newspaper that will be at the center of covering the Republican convention in 2008 and is a swing state even without the convention.

  I started a newsletter-style newspaper in the state where I live. Trying to get attention for it is difficult; trying to get people to buy it instead of take it for free is difficult, despite a cost amount clearly visible. I have also been reminded that most people do not want to write; they want to tell their story to a reporter who will write it for them. Also, people do not want to go on record, even with something as simple as a letter to the editor. Moreover, writing, especially when having to research, interview, and gather general background takes quite a bit of time. The most powerful people will not send ‘off-record’ quotes via e-mail, which means reporters have to move away from the computer. Thus, we are never going to have a world of entrepreneurial reporters, with every citizen a Tom Paine. There just is not enough time to raise funds, gather news, and distribute the news (even if it is electronic printing) for any one person. And if people don’t get back into the habit of buying newspapers and periodicals, there never will be a free media again.

  Posted by SillyLeftist on Jan 20, 2007 at 3:36 PM

  You must have a hell of a local paper. Out here in the Bay Area I can read the actual news content in a few minutes, on or offline.

  Posted by blondemike on Feb 1, 2007 at 2:36 AM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Jessica Clark and Tracy Van Slyke

• Welcome to the Media Revolution
  How today's media makers are shaping tomorrow's newsPosted on June 28, 2006
• Making Connections
  Why is the news so bad? What can progressives do to fix it?Posted on April 14, 2005