Robert W. McChesney is a leading communications scholar whose focus in particularly on media and democracy. A professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, his 1997 book Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy was the second book he authored in which he points out media regulation by corporate interests in a seemingly free society and advocates for media that better serves the public in a democracy. He begins this book in the Open Media Pamphlet Series by defining what constitutes a democracy, citing three distinct criteria: "1) no significant disparities in economic wealth and property ownership across society 2) sense of community and a notion that an individual's well-being is determined by the community's well-being 3) an effective system of communication that informs and engages the citizenry, drawing people meaningfully into the polity” (McChesney 5). He explains that in the United States private control over communication is usually considered to be inherently democratic as government intervention is frowned upon. Because of the American values that are intertwined with our First Amendment rights, political discussion often is not focused on commercial conglomerates controlling the media. McChesney urges that this indeed deserves and direly needs to be on the political agenda as dominant commercial interests are outrightly undemocratic, violating the characteristics he outlined of a democracy.
He spends the bulk of the book outlining the patterns “commercial media system” that make it a “threat to the ability of the United States to have a viable democratic media culture” as well as disproving the “the ideological myths that shield corporate control of the media from public scrutiny” (McChesney 8). Firstly, McChesney identifies the problem with journalism as being overtaken by the commercial interests that run the entire operation which strip it of its ability to convey a truly neutral position. He then describes how corporate media was consolidated into “integrated oligopolies” where a few profit-driven firms dominated the various forms of media (McChesney 17). As it is fitting for a work written in 1997, McChesney predicts the emergence of the internet as an influential technology that will serve as new market for which firms will profit. He then delves into the modern debate of media policy or the lack thereof. He argues that the United States is faulty in their approach that a more privately driven communication sector is most beneficial because it must sacrifice its democratic identity in the process. The U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 is explicit legislature that attributes to the country’s further detriment. McChesney ultimately calls for a communication sector run by nonprofit, noncommercial interests complete with more government intervention in the form of policy that discourages corporate media.
McChesney mentions in his conclusion the need for media activists to “fight on behalf of public, community and public access broadcasting” which is essentially the key to truly free media. He himself is a part of this movement as he is the “founder and president of Free Press which is an organization dedicated to media reform (Wikipedia). This colors his perception of how to go about change in this arena. He admits, rather candidly, that the policy changes necessary to institutionally change how Americans fundamentally view are lofty goals which is why he calls for a movement of sorts where you must engage other fellow liberals (who should be eager to lobby your cause). This dose of honesty comes from his experience in the field as he knows firsthand how difficult deeply ingrained social opinions are to change.
Overall, I believe McChesney’s argument was very thorough, to say the least. The idea that what we have been taught to believe about our freedom of speech and other inherently American qualities is startling. Journalism is meant to provide the public with the alternate opinion that government is not necessarily providing, but yet McChesney suggests that it is devoid of that as it conforms to elite interests. Because the elite maintains the status quo, the proliferation and infusion of new and vibrant cultural discourse is rather limited as they will strive to maintain what will keep them in high on the social totem pole. Though journalism totes the marker of “‘objectivity,’ professional journalism’s mission was to make a capitalist, advertising-supported media system seem --at least superficially-- to be an objective source of news to many citizens” (McChesney 13-4). As various media, radio, television, and print became increasingly important, a corporation that once owned simply the newspaper, now was able to, and did, own the newspaper in addition to the radio station and the television network. A startling statistic, “fewer than ten colossal vertically integrated media conglomerates now dominate the U.S. media” (McChesney 18). This produces an even more streamlined message with one overarching goal: profit. Where is the objectivity? It gets traded for what will sell and keep the concentrated elites in their social position. McChesney argues that the major conglomerates act in the same behavior that we would openly object if the actor was our government.
“Imagine if the federal government demanded that newspaper and broadcast journalism staffs be cut in half, that foreign bureaus be closed, and that news be tailored to suit the government’s self-interests. There would be an outcry...Yet when corporate America aggressively pursues the exact same policies, scarcely a murmur of dissent can be detected in the political
culture” (McChesney 25).
He places the obligation of rejuvenating the freedom of cultural discussion on the government as policies are the way to truly dispel the commercial corporate system. But even before the solution, McChesney argues that Americans fail to realize any fault in the media which makes reform a particularly daunting task. “The decline of the public debate over communication is what is most developed in the United States” ironically as citizens and lawmakers alike believe that neutrality of information comes from its private organization. McChesney urges that the discourse brewing among the small localized private does not resonate with the public majority. We are allowing the market to determine the course of the information highway which he predicts will steer from its democratic origin and lead to a plurocratic destiny (McChesney 43, 45). The market has become the leading civic ideology which only works in the favor of those who control it as the opinions conveyed will only consist of the elite rather than the far majority. I agree with McChesney in that the market does not allow for views that disrupt the status quo. How do you participate in the ongoing social conversation if you are not controlling it?
McChesney suggests the remedy lies in government creating policies that will lend towards media that rests in the hands of the large mass of people, the nonprofit, public sphere. Media reform organizations such as the one McChesney himself are apart of hold the duty of lobbying the legislature to ensure that these policies are enacted. He mentions in his argument the skepticism people may feel about government intervention, and regrettably so, I am one of those skeptics. With being aware of the underhanded, backdoor nature of politics, I am not sure I can hold the nonprofit sector to a higher moral and democratic standard than that of private business. Yes, nonprofits do not seek to enlarge their monetary gain, but they do have interests that can be just as socially manipulative as any global conglomerate. What happens when we make the nonprofit, non commercial the dominant sector? They essentially have the power to control the status quo and regulate the social climate. We would all like to believe that these participants are not as hungry and eager as the national television executive, but I would like to argue that the contrary is all the more likely. McChesney suggests that “the logical place to search for allies is among those sectors of the populace already cognizant of the need to maintain noncommercial public space” and assumes that the group’ second issue of importance behind their own “should be media and communication, because so long as the media are in corporate hands, the task of social change will be vastly difficult” (McChesney 70-1).
He describes this struggle in terms of two distinct sides, the commercial elite and the vast progressive majority, which I believe to be a incorrect. I fear this as it seems to be a power struggle between two groups. McChesney would argue that the latter group is composed of the general body which would validate their control over the media much more than the concentrated elite as they would seek to accurately reflect the overwhelming sentiment. But let us not forget that media has the power to influence. My worry is that everyone is not in agreement with the status quo that the nonprofit sector will establish. The same problem will still remain.
Works Cited
McChesney, Robert F. Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy. New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997.Robert W. McChesney. 1 May 2009. Wikipedia. 1 May 2009.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McChesney>
