Interesting news out of Britain, as the BBC Trust issues new guidelines banning editorial content that defames human dignity. Although the move seems to confront the American ideal for freedom of speech, their efforts demonstrate the role that media leaders have in shaping public perception. If successful, advocates for human rights could leverage similar action in the U.s., in hopes to help frame positive values based messaging over American airwaves. It might seam dreamlike, but Hollywood is where dreams breathe life.
An expatriated journalist--vetted during the 1990s, when the craft of communicating embarked on its greatest transition since the invention of the printing press--I consider myself a strong advocate for the freedom of information. what I do promote, however, is a restructuring of how American broadcast media operates, a medium of mass communication that has always been seen as public property and, therefore, subject to editorial guidelines. Yet, in the spirit of selling the airwaves to the highest bidders, the public's best interest has been compromised by advertising revenues.
Long before the housing market was sold to Wall Street, changes in broadcast regulations were made to open up new revenue streams for media owners. During the 1980s, the FCC deregulated its restrictions on talk programming, opening the door for voices like Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a major push by the, then, newly ordained neoconservative Congress, ownership rules were greatly relaxed, with the majority of locally owned broadcast stations around the country falling into the ownership of a few mega-media moguls like Mel Karmazin of CBS-Infinity, who held the reigns on up-and-coming shock-jock Howard stern. The demise of locally owned and operated media outlets resulted in the sharp decline of locally produced public affairs programming, what was the last voice left for many American communities. Even the deregulation of how public broadcasting groups could air underwriting spots, after public broadcasting's budget was cut by Congress during the 1990s, forced public broadcasters to adopt a more mainstream model of programing, creating grey lines between underwriting and commercial advertising, while at the same time feeling the strain of competition for audiences.
All of this goes to say that broadcast programming in our country has been dictated by the advertising revenues from Madison Ave.. And in its quest for profit, it has taken the path of least resistance, relying on the human response of fear as a primary tool in keeping viewers and listeners glued to their boxes. This in turn has lifted up one of the dominant forces that drive conservative rhetoric, making it more difficult for progressive ideals to share the same landscape.
There's no question that American broadcast media is a dominant force in promoting values that go against progressive ideals. The whole culture of the news industry has lived on a mantra of "If it bleeds, it leads" for decades. This hallmark of American broadcasting survives by promoting fear, a human psychological mechanism guaranteed to keep audiences on the edge of their seat during the commercial break, the terra sancta of broadcasting. Understanding how this same human mechanism remains a driving force in rooting hardline conservative ideology--that which detours progress by fear of the unknown--it is easy to see how broadcast media has become such a fertile ground for anti-progressive rhetoric. At the core exists a market paradigm that is built upon the promulgation of fear. And on the invisible skin that radiates through the airwaves are voices like Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, and a genre of reality-based programming that feeds not so much on the success of winners, but on the exploitation of losers.
American broadcast media remains one of the strongest influencers in American culture. Therefore, if we really want to see progressive change that is long-lasting, then we'll need to reinvest in opportunity over the airwaves. What we need is bold leadership for a media culture that promotes progress, is rooted in hope, not fear, and lifts up the dignity of all human beings. This has long been part of the mission for public trusts and foundations in our country like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or the Pacifica Foundation, and there needs to be greater investment in such trusts that provide alternative and diverse views. though we shouldn't stop there, as public broadcasting still occupies a small percentage of our airwaves and over cable. Those who utilize public airwaves need incentives to increase the time public affairs programing shares with commercial programming. And local advocacy groups need investment that allows them to produce content that can be aired during time slots that broadcasters must set aside for this public affairs programming.
Investing in our public media is one of the strongest ways that we can harness tools used to expand opportunity to a mass audience. Giving a voice to the voiceless, and reaffirming a culture that embraces diversity, is a sure way to shift public attitudes toward progressive ideals. And in doing so, we return the public airwaves back to the people who own them, not simply to a few who control them.
