Electronic Renaissance or Digital Dark Ages?


Stuart Noble

There’s been a bit of discussion going around about Rep. Hinchey’s proposed legislation. The headline from the Raw Story piece is quite telling, “Rep. believes Democratic media reform bill may prevent possible 'fascist' takeover of US media”. One of Hinchey’s staffers is quoted, “Whether or not there is a purpose that includes fascism, we could wind up in a fascist situation if corporations end up controlling information without the government providing some balancing mechanism, such as the Fairness Doctrine,”

I applaud the congressman for using the F word. It’s long overdue. However, if we’re being honest and objective (objectivity is quite subjective I realize), don’t we ALREADY HAVE a fascist situation in which a handful of corporations ALREADY control the information without government providing some balancing mechanism?

Ian Welsh at the Agonist has a recent post witch addresses another side to the same problem, ever shrinking diversity in the media as a result of the monopolization of said media. His most basic solution is spot on, break up the monopolies. Rep. Hinchey’s legislation merely addresses media monopolization but I think misses the very simple crux of the problem. While it would be preferable to see more “fairness” and “balance”, who decides just what that is? This could take us down a slippery slope indeed. We don’t need yet another army of bureaucrats determining what is fair, what is balanced, running statistical analysis to determine conservative vs. liberal percentages. We don’t want to go from corporate control of the media organizations to government control of media information. Government has a critical function to the solution but it’s not replacing deregulation of commerce with over-regulation of free political speech. We’ve already got an undemocratic institutionalized “two-party” political system. Should we now institutionalize “two-party” political speech? Some of the comments from Ian’s post were a bit dismissive of the whole idea of a “fairness” doctrine but not for the reason I’ve stated. The demise of the MSM (if it ultimately happens) should be welcomed if we truly are to experience a renaissance created by a free, open, egalitarian and democratic online communication community(s). The growth of the internet and those participating both as consumers and creators of information and ideas should give us all great hope. There are however no guarantees that the internet will remain free and open, just as predicting the demise of the MSM is premature.

The signing of the Communications Act of 1996 was probably the most destructive legislation signed by former president Clinton. It’s highly doubtful that Clinton saw a fascist media future when signing this un-democratic legislation; however, repealing it would be the simplest first step in reversing the 10 year slide. It is that simple, repeal the Communications Act of 1996 and bust up all the monopolies. We could go even a bit further than the pre Communications Act era. Apart from limiting the number of media outlets controlled by any one company, non media corporations should be required to divest their ownership of all media holdings. Under such an environment, a fairness doctrine would organically thrive amid the plethora of competing independent organizations at a myriad of local, regional and national levels. We must embrace the true American spirit which guarantees and protects the freedom of markets to all people and communities not the selling off of public space (including our airwaves) to a handful of 21st century information robber barons.

In short, we are encouraged by the current rise in online networked communication. Never before have so many individuals and communities had the ability to communicate and share ideas so openly and freely. However, this alone does not guarantee a more democratic future.

We want to believe the progressive seers’ predictions of the demise of the MSM at their own hands. The struggle for Network Neutrality should give the optimistic hopefuls great pause. It may well be the ultimate factor in determining whether we slip into permanent tyranny or continue our electronic renaissance. I should not think we would “put all our hopeful eggs in one basket”. The traditional media may not decay and die off at the vine as some assume, but evolve into something we wouldn’t even recognize today. We should demand and struggle for freedom and democracy everywhere, at all times, in all our institutions. Do not be swayed by the high-sounding “ideals” of this legislation, for it is a fool’s gold. Unfortunately, many on the Left have already been enticed by its glimmer and shine. The true libertarians (those who believe in the fundamental principals of inalienable rights and universal liberty) will come down hard against this. We would be wise to listen to their arguments.

The “Left” can be every bit as despotic as the “Right”, just ask the Venezuelans. We should be ever diligent that we don’t replace King George with an Emperor Chavez.

Those of us who consider ourselves Progressives should embrace what Stirling Newberry has called, “New Liberalism”, a cosmopolitan [r]epublicanism reflecting Jefferson’s universal egalitarian democratic principals. The MORA bill is undemocratic, potentially repressive, and could ultimately replace one “fascist situation” with another.

This article is cross-posted at The Atlantic Community: Transatlantic Perspectives on America


stuart noble January 23, 2007 - 6:06am
( categories: Net Neutrality Diary )

Here is a thread with other Agonist discussion of MORA

quiet Bill January 23, 2007 - 7:06am

Latest Chapter in 'Welcome to Democratland'
Monday, January 22, 2007
By John Gibson

Fox. - It's time for another chapter of our continuing "Big Story" saga called "Welcome to Democratland"!

In Democratland, the only thing that you need to know is that things are going to change. The Iraq war is going to change, the tax laws are going to change, and Democrats are already practicing their White House act, since they regard the current president as nothing more than an occupant of public housing and soon one of their own will take his place at the levers of power.

But here are some other things that will change. In Democratland it will soon be illegal to run a conservative talk radio program, and it will soon be law that the Minutemen — the citizen border patrol keeping an eye on the Mexican border — will be classified domestic terrorists.

Let's go over the first. Long ago and far away, people like me used to live under something called the Fairness Doctrine. This was a FCC rule that opinion had to be presented with its counter opinion. So television and radio was essentially a discussion punctuated by the anchor or host saying "and now for the other side of the issue..." We used to have to put a stopwatch on opinion and partisan commentary. One side had to get the same amount of time as the other side, and there wasn't room for much deviation.

That all went away with the great profusion of new radio stations and new television outlets, and consequently there is a lot of conservative radio, and there is fair and balanced TV, right here at FOX.

Well, now Democrats have had enough of all that and they want the old rules reimposed. And Congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York says bluntly: Right wing media must be stopped.

The other development comes out of the Arizona legislature from a Democrat lawmaker who wants to change the law in such a way as to redefine the activities of the Minutemen, the border group, as domestic terrorism.

So if you're a conservative we're going to shout you down, and if you're against illegal immigration we're going to lock you up.

Welcome to Democratland, ladies and gentlemen. The show is about to begin.

That's My Word.

Mark January 23, 2007 - 11:01am

it's a compound word, and half of it is really just a guttural Anglo-Saxon expression of distaste.

At first I just looked at that ranting gruel and said "whatever; it's not meant to be logical, he's merely a demagogue. It's not even coherent, why dignify it with an answer?"

And then I realized that abdicating that ground got us where we are today. So I will be explicitly butchering this hog after I've had coffee.

Escher Sketch January 23, 2007 - 11:30am

"So television and radio was essentially a discussion punctuated by the anchor or host saying "and now for the other side of the issue...""

As opposed to today, when the anchor or host says "And now for a watered-down strawman argument of the liberal position..."

Bolo January 23, 2007 - 12:07pm

Another take on the "F" word. New book by Chris Hedges:

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America

BuzzFlash.com's Review (excerpt)

In a 2004 article that served as the basis for his new book pulling the fire alarm on thuggish Christian fascism, Chris Hedges recalled:

"Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age, he was then close to 80, we would all be fighting the 'Christian fascists.'

The warning, given to me 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global, Christian empire. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of those who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible.

Here is another editorial review of the book.

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. The f-word crops up in the most respectable quarters these days. Yet if the provocative title of this exposé by Hedges (War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning)—sounds an alarm, the former New York Times foreign correspondent takes care to employ his terms precisely and decisively. As a Harvard Divinity School graduate, his investigation of the Christian Right agenda is even more alarming given its lucidity. Citing the psychology and sociology of fascism and cults, including the work of German historian Fritz Stern, Hedges draws striking parallels between 20th-century totalitarian movements and the highly organized, well-funded "dominionist movement," an influential theocratic sect within the country's huge evangelical population. Rooted in a radical Calvinism, and wrapping its apocalyptic, vehemently militant, sexist and homophobic vision in patriotic and religious rhetoric, dominionism seeks absolute power in a Christian state. Hedges's reportage profiles both former members and true believers, evoking the particular characteristics of this American variant of fascism. His argument against what he sees as a democratic society's suicidal tolerance for intolerant movements has its own paradoxes. But this urgent book forcefully illuminates what many across the political spectrum will recognize as a serious and growing threat to the very concept and practice of an open society. (Jan. 9)

quiet Bill January 23, 2007 - 11:42am

I applaud your point about not wanting government minders on what people say. I've been nervous seeing a lot of that. To say nothing of the fact it's too big a hurdle to expect clearing.

But I think one possible fatal flaw is this: If the large corporations are forced to sell off certain properties, many of those properties will fail. So that would contract the number of voices. If they don't fail, they might charge, or charge more. And that especially could be disastrous for local media outlets, who won't be able to compete with national media. And would it necessarily change anything at Fox? News Corp is a media company. And who decides what is a media company and who is not? 51%?

Now, to be fair I do some work with the "wrong side" here -- the NAB. But I believe in disclosure. Doesn't change anything I wrote above.

dagnabbit January 23, 2007 - 4:24pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.