The following areas of concern certainly do not exhaust the populist possibilities. They are merely your own priorities, your efforts to shift the liberal imagination away from the faddish and mechanistic, toward deeper but "unsexy" problems like the conduct of banks and federal agencies and the dangerous concentration of ownership of the mass Media.
Original Title
A Populist Manifesto ( The making of a New Majority)
The following areas of concern certainly do not exhaust the populist possibilities. They are merely your own priorities, your efforts to shift the liberal imagination away from the faddish and mechanistic, toward deeper but "unsexy" problems like the conduct of banks and federal agencies and the dangerous concentration of ownership of the mass Media.
The following areas of concern certainly do not exhaust the populist possibilities. They are merely your own priorities, your efforts to shift the liberal imagination away from the faddish and mechanistic, toward deeper but "unsexy" problems like the conduct of banks and federal agencies and the dangerous concentration of ownership of the mass Media.
9 * What They Say Is What
You Get: The Media
Wo owns the airwaves?
Wo has the right 10 use the most powerful device ever
‘known to communicate with tie poop
“The law says we own the airvaves; that radio and television
stations ere granted temporary trustceships ver these limited
siwaves; that if eve stations are nt operated “inthe public
interes” the foenses willbe revoked and granted to another
sroup that promises 10 do bet
Reality ia itl diferent. Just as the law, in the words of
Anatole France, “Torbids, in its majestic equality, the rich
and pocr alize irom begging and seeping under Brig,” so
the law permits anyone to have access to radio and television
—as long as be oan raise the funds to operate a sation, or nd
the several thousand dollars i costs to speak to the nation for
‘hinty seconds
‘The electronic medis—most significantly, television—is the
‘most powerhl tool we have over iad. Television seis are
‘owned by 9 percent af al Americans: i s or major source
of news und entertainment. I tis possible to pick out a single
120
What They Sey Ie What You Get: The Meals * 121
act, other than eating and sleping, that most Americans do
rove offen than any other, % is watching television. Tt ix
hhow we find out about the world, about the country, about
each other. And, with narrow exceation, itis accesible only
to those with grt wealth and power. If damocracy requires
fn open market place of ideas, then what television has be-
‘come isa company store
“The increasing contrat of communications by corporate
wealth is fact in print as well asin eleotronic media. Cer
teinly, we con sake litle comfort ia the fact that there are
1,300 American towns and cites whete newspapers age under
slngle ownership; or that print competition in the daily press
txiss now in only 4 per cent of America’s communities, as
‘opposed to 60 per cent in 1910: or that Congress enacted a
"Newnaper Preservation Act” in 1970 that lezaizes press
monopolies, dexpite tho fact that newspaper publishers fled
to eisclose openly the allegedly wackaned financial condition
‘that ostensibly necessiteted such an abrogation of the anti-
trust laws.
But taere s, nonetheless, a Key distinction between the press
ang television. Print is unlimited, There are no licenses, no
set number of outle's. The emergence of a challenge to the
political and cultural mainstream is not just a potenciality; it
i a feet The existence of important print woices born within
the last twenty-five years—National Review, Ramparts, Pigy-
boy, the Vilage Voice, New York magazine, Commentary,
Roing Stone, Washington Monthty—shows that print diver-
shes
Radio and television, however, are Timited; there is not
for everjone who wishes to speak. And the rules of the
Ticensing game, as they are now Played, mean that TV is
owned by @ handfel of corporate giants. They mean, too,
‘that eective, continuing access to
of other corporate giants. The law says that frst amendaent
protections epply-—subject to the doctrine of “simess’—t0
television, The facts say it isthe rich end the powerful in122 #4 Populist Mandesto
‘America who got to tell Americans what they sbould be
thinking. For the powerless, end for the ordinary American,
access fo the media comes only with dramatic, even violent
upheaval, The day-to-day concems of most Americans are
ectively shut out of their own ving rooms.
‘Ask again, who owns the airwaves? As far as what 98 per
“Americans see on television, the answer is: three hi
Conglomerates. The National Brosdcasting Company is owned
by the Radio Corperation of America (RCA, Tne.). RCA is
alko a major deiense and space contact
fand clshweshing manfecturer, and the owner of Random
Houie, Penthoon, end Knopf boots.
“The Columbia Broadcasting System also controls S
credit affiates of Ford, GM, and Chrys
iin the Caribbean and Latin Amevica, Cre
Pleythings, Columbia Records, and the New York’ Yankees.
“Tae American Brosdoasting Compeny also owns 399
‘heaters, ABC-Paramount Reootés, three farm papess, end—
‘nti it wus aborted in 1958—was about to merge with Inter
savionsl Telephone and Telegraph, one of the ten biggest
zporations in she world, wich financial interests in forty
‘ountles.
"At the level of individual station ownership —svhere control
is reatest and profis biggest—concentration is ever nat-
rower. The thee TV networks each own and operate five ste
tions in the biggest, most lucrative media markets. The other
Owners are equally Bush, xe this passage from a 1968 America
frtile notes
ve pest of all wevsion stations are controled
by newspapers. Every commerial VHF television Iserse i
top ten US, merkets contollad either By a network,
‘8 group owner, of o metropolitan newspapec bain. I the
top teny-fte ackols hae ae 97 stations Pen of these
nineysesen ore network oWed. Ovar half ofall television
ene» regueny goes 1 these fee stations and thei
What They Say ts Whet You Get: The Media * 128
Below the level of netwosk ownarship, conglomerate con-
porate conglomerates with dest financial ine
‘eas of American life: azeas now subject to
growing debate.* The coacept of an independent voice ob
serving and commenting on conflicting interests {a joke in
the television industry; Lowever devached the woies tat speak
fo us from television may try t0 be, however honoreble they
are, these voices are ubizmately n the control of forces with @
iret inzorost in th
The concentra
wishes to speak to thirty millon Americans can do so—p2>
Viding, of eocre, he has $60,000 to buy a minute of time
on tie "Flip Wilson Show," and provided he does not wish
to celiver an explicidy politcal message {political advertising
|s permitted, with very few exceptions, only for the promotion
of candidates; a group simply wishing (9 argue against the
‘wat in Vietnam cannct even buy time even it hs the money
to do 20).
‘What this mess is tha: the centers of eccmomie power ia
reality control the media, sing television to sel their prod-
‘but what is rarely understood is that this commercial
Soe Ro Sn at cae
Pele ae me ane cov sae tes
Pon
toa 1 i124 * A Populist Manifesto
enterprise may have profound politcal and social implica
tioas. We recognized thie inthe late 1960's, when the Federal
CCominunieations Commission extended the faimess docirine
requiring a far presentation of all points of view on im
portant issues—into the commercial feld for the frst time by
ftipulating that antiemaking ads be put on television free of
charge,
But the faimess doctrine has not been extended to the
cedlest kinds of commercial messages that shape our politcal
beliefs every day. If General Motors wants to advertise a
Convair, of un automobile that pollutes the atmosphere, all
it recds is the money. A group wishing to angve that the
aviomobile is a deeely weapon whowe uso should be restricted
ies neither (ree no purchased time—that is a “politcal”
issue." Backs, insurance companies, of companies, all can
pparchase time—writen off as a business expense—to argue
that they are concemed, generous, righttinking citizens; 2
case that Banks ignore ghetto neighborhoods, oF tat the oll
Import quota costs the average American $50 to $100 a year,
for that Insurance companies acbitrarlly cancel polices, is al
best buried in a Sunday “public affairs” show. The average
American never bears those cases on prime-time slevision,
‘This restricted use of tslvison does not mean that nothing
controversial gets on the alr, CBS in particular, with such
* To the summer of 197, feral Coutt of Apnesis Washinton
fled that versing for highsoweredsotomaoise at? for leaded
feats wee fen “entree io wack nea
Tovalon cone bad aft sentncad Guy to provide ees ar
{Beate of svorenil tec Uke te war ta Viena The Nixon
‘inion apr oes ther ean oe aces Hs
NSss, sinctor of the Prendents Oflve of Teles
Proposed scraping tm fen dosin,exdreninig
‘tis dost fo sommuniy groupe or inviais wibout the [oney
[urchoe tine eto tke ane) the oe chance they aaw have for
Shen the “zou” dette
What They Say fs Whar You Get: The Media * 125
shows as “Hunger in America” and “The Selling of the
Pentagon,” a8 wel as Ed Murrow’s classic “See It Now” show
fon Senator Joseph McCarthy, has demonstrated that tcle-
jon ean be used to probe and expose.
‘The question is more funcarental and structsral chan
whether an oocasionaly challenging show gets on the air. It
Js whether television provides groups that do not have great
eeonomie power with acces to use this incredibly powerful
medium,
‘Part of the problem i economic; putting aside the Sunday
morning public afsirs shows, which rack up "Brownie points”
‘vith the FCC, network shows either make money or go off the
dir. The heralded “CBS Repors” und “See t Now,” ard NBC's
Project 20," all were once regular prime-time features. They
tno longer exist. Because ofthe profit motive, television must
try to teach most of the people most of the vime. And what
this tends to do, apart from reducing mest prime-time enter-
tainment fare to mush, ito legitimize the politcal perceptions
of the majority, while shuting out the rest of Americans.
“Thus, “The Smothers Brothers" show, wis is antiwar slits
and occasional sttires of political leaders, was immediately
Considered a “controversial.” even “offensive” show. But when,
in tho fall of 1967 atthe height of the debate over the war in
Vietnam, Bob Hope came on the air with a show from Viet~
znam in which he praised the wat eflort and jokingly approved
tt division's moto, “Itt moves, shoot iy” this was considered
acceptable prime-time entertainment. There was no faimess
Soctine, 20 equal tins for those opposing the war. A group
fof radiel historians seeking to present x “revisionist” history
‘of Amesica in songs and sts would almose certainly be denied
television time, Rut 2 show featuring patriotism a la John
Wayne Becomes the most expensive TV special ever staged.
In the fall of 1970, the American Broadcasting Company
refused to show the half peciormance ofthe University of
hfalo bond becease i amar and ecology themes were
“political” But that same Saturday, viewers watched a ale126 A Populist Manes What They Say te What You Gets The Media * 127
tarsi salute to America, and all season the three networks tse; we do not deny the fact thet wit, thought
offered types for the Nikon administration's Prisoner of War
Campaign, ané pregame salutes to the heroes of the Sontay i television, oF that television news has at times given
prison raid into North Vietuam, Tessons to print journalists in how fo inform people about
Indeed, the content of television enterisinment offers a Important sexes.
revealing picture of who is excluded from television. With the ‘Our challeage is more basic. Tt goes to the heart of how
rive of black anger inthe 1960's, we became aware that tele television is structured; who rons the networks and stations;
vision had shut the black out fom its vision of what the world and how television can be opened up to people without great
js like in efow shor: year, Blacks turned up ix commercial, wealth and power, Iti not enough to rely on the good wil,
fea news programs, and on the whole spectrum of entertain for honesty, oF courage of the few who do have a voive
‘ment. Yet, all through the 1950's and 1960's as the demand in the use Of television, The Constzation isa skeptical docu
for black equality was rising, blacks were depicted on te ‘men itis based on the presumption thatthe potetie! forthe
vision from the viewpoint of the white work's sereotype: buse of power is itseif an evil and that power should be
Beulah, the perplexed. but happy-go-lucky maid in a wpica! Gispened, When it comes to questions of speech and press,
white aubuzb; George, the bug-eyed, lobotomized elevator the Constitution truste no one with control over such poten
operator in the all-white building where Vern and Mergic ‘ely disastrous power, peferring instead to confer the power
Albright ved; “Ames ‘a! Andy,” which rdicaled the very to speak and advocate on every one of vs.
‘concept of @ black lawyer or community group, and which That is the centeal question we face in watching how
featured Lightain—the bag-eysd, lobotomized, lazy porte. television performs; not whether the people who run it mean
‘Only the rows Brought reform to the Lly-hite word of tle- ‘wel, but wether they should control suck enormous power
vision in the frst place. Maybe Time, Inc—which owns radio and
‘The man who worked with his hands was also short television stations and cable TV——willfealesly examine the
changed; a dolt incapable of the simplest exerciss of the practices of commercial bans; maybe the fact that Chem
‘mind, he was epitomized by Willam Bendix in “Tae Lite fal Bank and the Fitst National Bank of Chicago own large
2 eyes Chunks of Time, Ine. sill make no diference. But human
jealous, covetous, gosipy, Shature—the seme human nature understood by the framers
redezrned by “women’s intuition,” which substitute for logic. Of the Constittion—enttes us to be skeptical
‘And pectape most staring, the ordinary American family term important suc we will continse to
‘composed of people trying to get by as best they could, was jsion-—tong ater the bullying of Spiro Agnes
Ssloost ignores, except in the most sanitized, sentimentalized is forgotien is how 10. diversity control of television in
forms (Ozzie and Hartet," “Father Knows Best"). Detec- Amoriea, How Go we disper coatrol—contral that, thous
tives, comboys, cops—all sd serious problems; bet, except fis eld by “iberal” and “conservative” forces ali, 's none
for the radio holdovers of early television lke “The Golde theless eld by a cempacative handful of Americans?
beigs” and "I Remember Mara," ordinary people were "The traditional methcd envisoned by the Federal Com:
happy people with happy problems. nications Aet-—that of challenging Scenses is practically
“Tho use of television for entertsioment and xmusement ut of the question. Congress and the Federal Communica-128 * A Poplist Mantes
tions Commission have almost always acted to protect the
licensees from attsck—treating them as though they were
owners, rather than temporary trustees, of the slrwaves
In the entire history of the FCC, no station ever had it.
ricense fevoked; and, when the FCC finaly acted to transer
control of Boston sation WHDH, Senator John Pastore
prompely introduced ¢ bill im Congress requiiag the com-
fission to show favoritism toward the current license holder
in any proceeding. If enacted, Pastor's bill would have
totally setapped the original concept of the Inw—that
challenger with bettr ideas and capabilities of serving the
public ought to be favored, Only a partial adoption by the
FCC cf the Pastore view prevented the bill ftom passing
‘When challenges are permitted, they arc lengthy, costly
proceedings. In New York City, a citizens group, Forum
Communieations, chalenged the license of Channel 11,
WPIX—owned by the New York Dally News, which in tum
4s part of the Chicago Tribune ownership, which itself holds
‘radio and television licenses in Chicago. The evidence showed
that Channel 11 bad offered slmost no news or public
lars programming, had lied about the location and dates
fof mews fin it was showing, had ordered that black teen
fgers not be shown during # dance show, and had vical'y
Jgnored New Yorks racial and ethnic minorities. The chal
lenge was supported by former television executives, public
oflcials, entertainers with broadcast experience, and com-
tunity groupe—s distinctively impressive colietion of talent
"Yet even this relatively well-placed group of applicants
haas had to wait wo years for a heating, and the final de
sion will be years fn coming. (And during those hearings, ie
Dally News distoned AP news reports of the proceedings
in such a way as to favor the sation it owned.) The time
‘and cost of such proceedings guarantees that a group of
fveragerincome Americans could not posibly mount an
‘ellective challenge 10 # radio oz TV station busked by the
economic clout of a corporate conglomerate, These stations
What They Say te What You Get: The Media * 120
Ihave the resources to wait out any challenge, andthe potitieal
connections to protect themselves. And, even while the lense
is being challenged, the licensees sill rske in the tremendous
profits of TV stations. This process in effect bulls in protec-
lon for the powerful and shuts out those without wealth
and power.
The alternative to licensing challenges is public brosd-
casting: television financed by a combination of government,
foundation, aad viewer contibutions, As it now stands,
‘America has a National Educctional Television network, &
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and a Public Broad-
casting Service. While these new sources of televison are
welcome, and while they have offered outstanding examples
cf drama, enterainment, and education, we are skeptical of
the long-range chances for publ broadcasting 10 alter the
power strucure of television without other, more funda
‘meatal reforms.
‘We are skeptical fst because there are a limited number
of VHF statins—sull the key to television viewing—and
‘this means that only one station per city ar most will provide
an alternative source of television. In many cites, including
such metropolitan areas az Washington, D.C. and Boston,
public television is available only on UHF ‘hich requires
4 separate dial that must be fine-tuned, rather than clicked
into place.
Second, there is no tradition in this country separating
funding fiom control. Congressmen who offer the loudest
speeches about the specter of socialism and government con-
twol ste usually the fist to protest any chow of independence
by a govemumentfunded project, whether a legal services|
program or a ‘elevision station, And the Nixon admitsta-
tion has already shown it willingness to poltclze public
television. In Novernber of 1971, Clay Whitshead threatened
the Public Broadcasting Service by promising no permanent
financing as long as public broadcasting was unwilling to be
wat the administration wanted Ito be. Thete Is no partiulae130* A Populi Manijeso
reason w think a Democratic administration would be any
more willing to tolerate an independent, government-funded
fervie. And Congress Is already daeply suspicious of the
activities of foundations, an alternative souree of funding.
‘The best guess we have is that public tstevison In America
will tend to develop more along the lines of French TV
~aubservient tothe goverameat in power—rather than slong
the lines of the largely independent British Rrondcasting
Service. (Even the national BBC i not weal; the real recipient
‘of public funds should be local stations, with a requirement
for public access by groups aow shut out of sny relation with
telovsion except as passive viewers.)
‘The key 00 real reform lies in diversity—in breaking the
stranglehold on TV ownership by those who already have
8 voice in tho community and by great corpo
‘As touch a powible, Wwe must civersiy control over the
‘We think the following.
‘power more broadly:
cistrbute
ONE Prohibit absolutely any owner of a newspaper feom
‘owning « radio or television station in is own city
Hf a Chicagoan distrusts the Tribime, he should not, when
hhe toms om his radio or TV, have to listen to the voice of
that same ownership on WGN. Coneervatives who
isssiaed with the Washington Post and ts policies now have
{hana of TV stations 40 choose strong, bet one of the
rest powerful is owne! by the Post, This pattern zepeats|
iteeit all ver America,
Kind of concer
ed ownenthip wore disallowed
Tis hypocrisy to say noone ee has the money, because rasio|
and TV stations are t0 profitable that any kind of
smnity group could find money from e iot of small investors
if the TCC followed the law and treated licenses 26 tr
Whar They Say Ne Wha: You Get The Media * 131
ships, rather than as quitelaim deeds. Forter, newspapers
would not be barred from operating a radio of TV station
in another city, so long as their conglomerate network as
not already in that city. This would mean tha, for instance,
Washington and Chicago popots could buy stations in each
‘other’ eity thus giving ellizens « chance to hear something
sliferent.
TWO Require that community geoups be given time on
any cable television system
Cable TV is going to revolutionize television. A single cab)
sgstem can bring dozens of channels into a person's home
‘This system cannot be allowed to fall into the hands of
corporate giants like Westinghouse, CBS, or Time, Tae. But
that i jst what bas alveady begun to happen.
Tastcad, tho diversity promised by cable TV should he
seized on by the FCC—as Commissioner Nicholas Johnson
open. up scorss to television,
Comunity wld, by petition, win
the sight 10 air i ey qualified, a cable sy
technical staff could be required to given them asitanc
te 8 conéition of the original ioense. Th's means that i @
city, landlords and tenants could debate housing law d
and petients could each produce their shows expressing
attitudes toward hospital cae and doctor's bile. Tae
‘of a towa hall destocracy in which every citizen gete the
chance 0 have his say is fself a real posiilty once we
rake the commitment to disperse the ower to be heard
THREE — Requite congressmen to divest themselves of all
interests in radio and television
‘Today, dozens of congressmen own interess in radio end
‘TY stations and more wor: for law ems with such client.
The possibilities for corrup of interes