Overview

This time, we were told, the revolution would indeed be televised. In the years and months leading up to1996, a collection of self-styled visionaries – including the Democratic president, a bipartisan majority of Congressional leaders, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the CEOs of national and global media empires, a swarm of media industry lobbyists, and the influential editorial boards of most of the mainstream press – proclaimed they saw what their critics failed to see: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 would liberate the airwaves from the heavy hand of big government and free the market to work its entrepreneurial anddemocratic magic. The result would be nothing short of revolutionary. Newly tuned to the rhythms of the digital age, the airwaves would shake off the dust of radio-age regulations and burst into the coming millenniumwith a kaleidoscopic range of exciting new channels, viewer choices, and alternative voices.Media companies, free at last to compete,would unleash creative waves of diverse programming and cutting-edge technologies at lower cost to the consumer, in the process reinvigorating the marketplace of ideas and reviving political culture and democracy.

This was the theory and the pitch, the subject of uncritical and celebratory media coverage at the time. It remains the rhetorical fuel of public relations efforts on behalf of media conglomerates to this day. Rich Media, Poor Democracy, featuring influential media scholar and activist Robert McChesney, tells a dramaticallydifferent story.

McChesney, along with media critic Mark Crispin Miller, surveys the contemporary media landscape through the lens of constitutional democracy to correct the myopic corporate vision of these telecommunications visionaries. Cutting against the grain of self-interested mainstream media reporting on the media industry, the video uncovers the mostly uncovered story behind the push for so-called "deregulatory" policies. The baseline motive of the video: to consider the consequences of these policies and the media system they have created for free speech and democracy. The result is a devastating examination of how and why we have ended up with precisely the opposite of what was promised in 1996: the radical re-regulation of the media industry at the expense of the public interest, the command and control of the public airwaves and public discourse by a handful of corporate empires, and the judicial and legislative triumph of corporate speech over the free speech rights of individuals – in short, a creatively flat and flattening media system averse to competition, entrepreneurship, and the democratic interests of the true owners of the airwaves, the American people.

While McChesney argues that our democracy and the public interest are being corrupted, he also looks to the future with determination and hope. As he reminds us throughout, the media system we live with today is neither natural nor inevitable, but the evolving product of ongoing human decisions – of policies enacted byelected representatives who survive by responding not only to the highest bidder, but also to the loudest voice. The recent storm of public protest against further proposed FCC de-regulations could not have made this moreclear: when people understand the meaning and crucial importance of telecommunications policy, they do not

1. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. It also guarantees freedom of the press. In your view, do you see any circumstances in which the right to free speech might interfere with freedom of the press?

2. Who do the airwaves belong to? Who is in charge of them? What rules have traditionally been in place to manage and govern their use?

3. What, in your view, is the relationship between information and democracy?

4. Do you believe the mainstream media in the U.S. serve the interests of democracy? Explain yourself with specific examples.

5. In your view, has the increasing number of available channels over the years brought diversity to the airwaves? Diversity of content? Diversity of perspective? A freer flow of information?

6. What’s your opinion of news coverage in the United States? On what do you base this opinion?

7.Do you feel the American people are well informed about the issues that matter most in their lives? Why or why not?

8. How much media do you consume a day? Be sure to factor in all forms of media.

9. Do you consider yourself well informed about the issues and decisions that stand to have the greatest impact on your life, and on the lives of those you care most about?

10. What does "FCC" stand for? What is it? What does it do?

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

» Given that we live in a society immersed in media, in which the average person spends 10-12 hours a day consuming media of one form or another, it is vital to understand not only media content, but the nature of the industry that produces it.

» Understanding the media industry begins with understanding the difference between the politica lrhetoric and actual meaning of "deregulation."

» The "deregulation" of the media industry, ongoing for years and radically accelerated by theTelecommunications Act of 1996, was supposed to transform the airwaves into a freer, more open,more democratic space.

» Instead these changes have delivered the opposite: not a blooming garden place of diverse ideas and healthy competition, but a monopolistic desert of commercial conformity.

to other possible ways to structure and run a media system. And consider how these differences might createdifferences in the kind of media content that gets produced.

2. Before moving more deeply into McChesney’s analysis in the rest of the video, what is your sense of what

he means in his introduction by "deregulation"? What definitions would you give for the terms "deregulation" and "regulation"? Deregulation and regulation by whom? For whom? Finally, how do you think deregulation and/or regulation have shaped our media system over time, leading to what we have today?

3. Do you agree that the media landscape today features a diversity of viewpoints? Alternative points of view? A free flow of information? If so, describe, with specifics, the range of information and content you see in mainstream media. If not, give specific examples of viewpoints or content that you feel get marginalized orleft out.