This is somewhat OT, but the natural tendency of gov't since Roman times is to exclude, and concentrate power among insiders. Full disclosure and transparency in every public dollar and program is needed to allow visibility to any motivated public, but is met with life-and-death resistance by this administration in particular, and all gov't in general.
The rants on this thread about politicized statistics are a good case in point. The government often controls both raw data and results, and officials are tempted to release versions supporting more government. Without full disclosure in realtime, deception becomes the norm. (Read "Dependent on DC", by Twight for good examples from 1933 forward, and "Wealth and Democracy" by Phillips for larger context)
What is missing is accountability. Making it a felony to publicly and knowingly lie about significant issues is a good start, rather than allowing politicians to create conditions of royalty, where they can't be punished for lying, and have the power to keep their misdeeds secret.
Most importantly, making it a felony for ANY government resources to be used to SECRETLY influence the media.
There are thousands of "public relations" personnel in the departments of government whose sole job is to whitewash and essentially propagandize and lie to the public, making it difficult in the course of an ordinary day to determine the truth on any given topic, even with extraordinary effort. That's a problem when operations like CapCities have a history of carrying a government agenda.
polisci.ccsu.edu
huppi.com
TV tended to focus on upper middle class life styles, paying scant attention to the poor and working class. In fact, for many years the only situation comedy or other series on TV that involved working class people was Jackie Gleason's "The Honeymooners."
The situation becomes much more problematic from the point of view of freedom of the press and the functioning of democracy, however, when the entertainment industry becomes intertwined with the information industry. With TV as the major source of news for most people today, questions arise as to the effects of conglomerate concentration in the television industry on news programming. Early in television history, news divisions were kept separate from the general programming divisions. However, that independence was soon lost, and TV news programs have had to compete for ratings. Thus entertainment values often become more important than informational values in deciding which news stories are to be aired, and how they are to be presented. This indeed is dangerous in a democracy.
Moreover, the type of elite control which occurs with economic concentration in the media industry can directly affect the news itself. For example, William Casey, Director of the CIA, was a major stockholder in Capital Cities which originally took over ABC. As a result of his influence and that of other officials, certain stories that were sensitive to the CIA were not covered and the way other news stories were covered was sometimes affected.(10) In addition, with TCI controlling the cable TV systems in many markets, it has the ability to limit the type of information that is available in many people's homes. It has been suggested that TCI is now contemplating offering three conservative-leaning channels in some markets, and eliminating the only liberal-leaning one it carries.
Because of fears of legal action, some TV stations avoid certain news or advertising. A public interest group wanted to air an advertisement in favor of health care reform, noting that Pizza Hut was obligated by foreign governments to provide health care coverage for its employees who work in these countries--all without any ill economic effects. However, the company does not provide such coverage for its employees in America. Because Pizza Hut threatened to sue, TV stations and cable networks refused to air this advertisement--even though they presented advertisements opposing health care reform.
There is also a conflict of interest when corporations with a direct stake in governmental policy own all of the outlets through which the public is informed. General Electric and Westinghouse, which now own NBC and CBS respectively, are major suppliers of military weapons overseas. This may well lead to a downplay of coverage of arm sales to foreign countries, including Indonesia and China. Moreover, one of the reasons that Disney's films have been so successful on the international market is that they are apolitical in nature. There is some concern that Disney's ownership of ABC may lead the network to play down political controversy as it pays more attention to entertainment values--and profits--than to news values.(11)
Furthermore, when CBS was looking to be purchased by Westinghouse, a decision was made not to air a story on 60 Minutes which would have exposed some tobacco industry practices, possibly including the manipulation of the nicotine contents in cigarettes. Because CBS was afraid potential legal action might make it less attractive to Westinghouse, this segment was not aired at the time. Thus, not only is there the potential of concentration in ownership in the media industries affecting the types of information Americans receive, one can point to specific instances where this has already occurred. At the present time, such interference is seen as wrong and is at least sometimes reported. However, it is easy to see these practices becoming routine and no longer viewed as newsworthy. Moreover, such influence often involves stories not being covered--in other words, non-events. And it is very difficult to research events that have not occurred; or stories that were not covered, but should have been. |
