Owning Power, Controlling Conversation

This is an issue in which the concerns of the American people and this democracy are front and center. Those elected to represent the public interest and to serve our democracy hold a grand stake in the dialogue that should consistently be taking place regarding the power the media have historically been entrusted with to support democracy.

Today, one has to look almost exclusively to the internet to find media that is not beholden to corporations. In recent months, the issue of media consolidation has been discussed within the FCC and between it and many people in attendance at town hall meetings on the effects of media consolidation on communities. Six of these town hall meetings were scheduled this year.

At the Los Angeles meeting, individuals were allowed time to speak to the panel of FCC Commissioners; these individuals conveyed their experiences with the direct effects of media consolidation, from the personal disappointment of a woman for whom FOX News was neither fair nor balanced, to the issue of the protection of a radio DJ who made explicitly pedophilic comments about pre-pubescent girls.

These meetings, scheduled every four years as a courtesy by the FCC to the American public, might, in the end, have no particular bearing on the decisions made regarding allowing media groups to buy up massive numbers of outlets, thereby controlling newscasts and print journalism to such a degree that it calls to mind the "groupthink" of George Orwell's 1984. Michael Copps, a FCC Commissioner, has spoken out against the motivations of his own employer, indicating that serious consideration of the opinions and experiences of citizens, from powerful members of the music industry such as Tracey Edmonds, to the grassroots workers who run community technology centers, must be given in order to serve the public interest and prevent the loss of localism.

Media consolidation, much like the term "climate change," is so dry that it loses its impact. The deregulation of media and media consolidation are one in the same, both serving to benefit the largest, wealthiest and thus, most powerful, corporations allowing them to continue to expand their domination of newspapers, radio and television stations, internet providers, cable providers (the list goes on) in media markets around this country.

The dry business-like jargon: "media consolidation"/ "deregulation" is no mistake; these terms purposely obscure the meaning of the words in order to deceive the public. The effects of such deregulation and consolidation are the homogenization of conversation, the duplication of dialogue and the limitation of critical analysis of the political system and the world around us, the ultimate result being the erosion of democracy itself. Without a variety of opinions, dialogue and critical analysis of the political system (which helps to create transparency), the entire population of the U.S. is under threat.

The Democratic Party has an enormous responsibility to bear - to effect real change in the sense of shifting priorities in order to best serve the American public. In doing that, the Party will also benefit. With the recent slim Democratic victory in a mid-term that served more as a referendum on the present administration than a vote of confidence in Democratic leadership, Democrats have their work cut out for them in protecting our great ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

We are at a crossroads in this country where the people are under threat of becoming disenfranchised by corporations and the agencies that serve them. The Democratic leaders-elect must stand up and hold these bodies accountable.

All power to the people, but we can only do so much. We need shepherds, not sheep.