Maintaining The Diversity Of Press And Media
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society. And we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today there is little value in opposing the threat of a secret society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is within my control..........
And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people. To make certain that they possess all the facts that they need and understand them as well. The perils, the prospects, the purposes of our programs and the choices that we face. No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding. And from that understanding comes support and opposition. And both are necessary..........
Without debate and without criticism no administration and no country can survive.........that is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press is protected by the First Amendments. The only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution. Not primarily to amuse and entertain. Not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental. Not to simply give the public what it wants. But to inform. To arouse. To reflect. To state our dangers and our opportunities. To indicate our crises and our choices. To lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion......And it means finally that government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible obligation..........
--John F. Kennedy April 27, 1961 speech to the American Newspaper Publisher Association
The Wall Street Journal has a story about appointed politicians at FCC meddling with media ownership in the U.S. that I would encourage everyone to read. Concentration of media ownership allows for potential abuses, manipulation of news, less diversity of opinion and a restriction on its ability to educate society. Facts that were very important to those who created this country. Extreme concentration of media is nothing more than propaganda as history and countries where government controls media has taught us. Media shapes our thought processes and many of societies values every day. The less diversity of media ownership, the more media shaping can diverge from the diverse debate of reality to, well.......effectively indoctrination.
It concerns me that appointed politicians at the FCC are attempting to rewrite the current media ownership rules again. Even many media moguls are not supportive of such concentration of media power as the potential for abuses and manipulation are limitless. Are there any reasons why politicians would be tinkering with media ownership rules than to assuage corporate lobbyists? Now, I may be pro free markets but concentration of power, opaque corporate lobbying and monopolistic practices of large corporations are not representative of free markets. That is why founders of this country provided checks in the system to disallow any such concentration of power. That is why we have laws prohibiting concentration of business power. Law that have been repeatedly abused by lax government enforcement as we discussed two years ago. Capitalism and the free flow of markets should prohibit monopolistic practices and concentrated power in the markets. Such practices stifle the free flow of markets and even other freedoms. These aberrations are bad for society, for democracy and for the economy.
This is an issue that has potential ramifications for everyone. This is an issue of freedoms and the press's role of education so important to our founding fathers. This brings up an important issue. As a society it is our responsibility to engage our Congresspersons or Congressional leadership on issues that are important to us. There is a likely battle brewing between the FCC and Congress over this issue. The more Congressional leaders hear from their constituents, the more likely they will fight this attempted change in media ownership rules. And with the internet email addresses and names of Congressional representatives may be found at Senate.gov and House.gov. Correspondence doesn't need to be lengthy or eloquent. It could be a simple sentence. In this case it could be something as simple as "Dear Congressperson, I would like you to stop the FCC's attempt at changing media ownership rules.".
Two recent polls by Pew and Harvard showed nearly every American is very unhappy with news coverage in this country. This is a very important issue. If nearly 90% of Americans are unhappy with news coverage, is the media focusing on the news Americans want to hear or is it force feeding us mindless and worthless nonsense? Or what media and even what government might wants us to hear? Or what marketing people believe will increase ratings so that advertisers will pad their pockets with profits? Given the current lax rules on media ownership, I would venture to say much of the unhappiness with media is a result of already concentrated media control or media controlled by corporations with business conflicts attempting to feed us what they want us to be watching, reading or listening to for less than savory reasons. This is our world and our responsibility to make it the world we want it to be. Small actions by many can and does change the world be it this issue or any other.
Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
--Thomas Jefferson
Two hundred years ago, newspapers were obviously the only media. In today's world, this quote would surely be amended to include television, magazines, radio and other forms of media. And, with media being controlled by global companies with tremendous conflicts of interest, it is even more important to maintain the diversity of media. Frankly, it is important to maintain the independence of media but that appears to have been completely lost.
And, how does our society's rejection of secrecy make you feel about public company's opaque efforts at masking their actions, mistakes and losses from shareholders aka banks? Is that really any different? Is the media complicit in this effort by generally not reporting the seriousness of the issue? Could that possibly be because much of media is owned by companies doing business with these institutions or even have financial interests in these institutions? We shall see.
And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people. To make certain that they possess all the facts that they need and understand them as well. The perils, the prospects, the purposes of our programs and the choices that we face. No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding. And from that understanding comes support and opposition. And both are necessary..........
Without debate and without criticism no administration and no country can survive.........that is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press is protected by the First Amendments. The only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution. Not primarily to amuse and entertain. Not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental. Not to simply give the public what it wants. But to inform. To arouse. To reflect. To state our dangers and our opportunities. To indicate our crises and our choices. To lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion......And it means finally that government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible obligation..........
--John F. Kennedy April 27, 1961 speech to the American Newspaper Publisher Association
The Wall Street Journal has a story about appointed politicians at FCC meddling with media ownership in the U.S. that I would encourage everyone to read. Concentration of media ownership allows for potential abuses, manipulation of news, less diversity of opinion and a restriction on its ability to educate society. Facts that were very important to those who created this country. Extreme concentration of media is nothing more than propaganda as history and countries where government controls media has taught us. Media shapes our thought processes and many of societies values every day. The less diversity of media ownership, the more media shaping can diverge from the diverse debate of reality to, well.......effectively indoctrination.
It concerns me that appointed politicians at the FCC are attempting to rewrite the current media ownership rules again. Even many media moguls are not supportive of such concentration of media power as the potential for abuses and manipulation are limitless. Are there any reasons why politicians would be tinkering with media ownership rules than to assuage corporate lobbyists? Now, I may be pro free markets but concentration of power, opaque corporate lobbying and monopolistic practices of large corporations are not representative of free markets. That is why founders of this country provided checks in the system to disallow any such concentration of power. That is why we have laws prohibiting concentration of business power. Law that have been repeatedly abused by lax government enforcement as we discussed two years ago. Capitalism and the free flow of markets should prohibit monopolistic practices and concentrated power in the markets. Such practices stifle the free flow of markets and even other freedoms. These aberrations are bad for society, for democracy and for the economy.
This is an issue that has potential ramifications for everyone. This is an issue of freedoms and the press's role of education so important to our founding fathers. This brings up an important issue. As a society it is our responsibility to engage our Congresspersons or Congressional leadership on issues that are important to us. There is a likely battle brewing between the FCC and Congress over this issue. The more Congressional leaders hear from their constituents, the more likely they will fight this attempted change in media ownership rules. And with the internet email addresses and names of Congressional representatives may be found at Senate.gov and House.gov. Correspondence doesn't need to be lengthy or eloquent. It could be a simple sentence. In this case it could be something as simple as "Dear Congressperson, I would like you to stop the FCC's attempt at changing media ownership rules.".
Two recent polls by Pew and Harvard showed nearly every American is very unhappy with news coverage in this country. This is a very important issue. If nearly 90% of Americans are unhappy with news coverage, is the media focusing on the news Americans want to hear or is it force feeding us mindless and worthless nonsense? Or what media and even what government might wants us to hear? Or what marketing people believe will increase ratings so that advertisers will pad their pockets with profits? Given the current lax rules on media ownership, I would venture to say much of the unhappiness with media is a result of already concentrated media control or media controlled by corporations with business conflicts attempting to feed us what they want us to be watching, reading or listening to for less than savory reasons. This is our world and our responsibility to make it the world we want it to be. Small actions by many can and does change the world be it this issue or any other.
Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
--Thomas Jefferson
Two hundred years ago, newspapers were obviously the only media. In today's world, this quote would surely be amended to include television, magazines, radio and other forms of media. And, with media being controlled by global companies with tremendous conflicts of interest, it is even more important to maintain the diversity of media. Frankly, it is important to maintain the independence of media but that appears to have been completely lost.
And, how does our society's rejection of secrecy make you feel about public company's opaque efforts at masking their actions, mistakes and losses from shareholders aka banks? Is that really any different? Is the media complicit in this effort by generally not reporting the seriousness of the issue? Could that possibly be because much of media is owned by companies doing business with these institutions or even have financial interests in these institutions? We shall see.
<< Home