Green Room

A Monstrous Vision For Media Reform

posted at 8:57 am on February 19, 2010 by

It took 90 minutes but Tuesday evening’s panel discussion about the future of news ultimately devolved into a predictable attack by media “reformers” on commercial media and communications companies that see the Internet as their “plaything.”

The panelists — Robert McChesney and John Nichols of Free Press, Jane Hamsher of the blog Firedoglake, and Ivan Roman of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists — all said their ideas for media reform depend first and foremost upon winning a fight for control of the Internet. Their idea of victory is government oversight and massive federal spending.

“We are talking about spending money, substantial amounts,” Nichols said at the National Press Club.

McChesney lobbed the first grenade at cable and telecommunications companies near the end of the question-and-answer session. In defending the kind of spending he and Nichols advocate, he accused the government of giving “enormous subsidies to support commercial media” in the form of broadcast spectrum and “monopoly licenses to telephone and cable companies that they could build these Internet empires on.”

McChesney, whose group is part of a coalition that this week called on the FCC to impose sweeping regulations as part of a national broadband plan, said communications firms are among “the most hated companies in America,” not just by consumers but also by businesses that he said would benefit from such a broadband plan.

“The battle for a ubiquitous broadband that’s inexpensive and that is uncensored by the phone and cable companies at the bottleneck is absolutely essential,” he said. “Without that, everything else we’re talking about won’t take place.”

Free Press is subsidized by the deep pockets of billionaire George Soros and the current FCC is friendly toward the Free Press agenda of government interference in the Internet space, but McChesney still thinks the broadband deck is stacked against his side.

“This fight, we’re going up against King Kong and Godzilla on steroids,” he said.

McChesney accused phone and cable companies of having a business model aimed at “buying off politicians.” He called them monopolists who want “to take over and effectively privatize the Internet, make it their private plaything.”

McChesney’s rant against an imagined “rip off” perpetrated by “commercial media” is consistent with his oft-stated (but under-reported) “ultimate goal” of dismantling the capitalist system in general and getting rid of the “media capitalists” in particular. His perverted vision of a “free” press features a government that has regulatory and financial influence over both the infrastructure underpinning journalism and the people producing it.

Hamsher was a voice of reason at times during the roundtable. She joined other Internet media entrepreneurs who at an FTC workshop last fall rejected the idea of public subsidies for journalism.

“They tend to be fashioned to reinforce weak, existing structures,” Hamsher said. “If you start subsidizing the wrong thing, you freeze the innovation in that one model.”

But she also advocated an “egalitarian infrastructure spend” by the government on broadband in order to foster the growth of publications like hers so they can compete with the “elite media.” Hamsher claimed that telecom and media companies “cannibalize” the Internet by controlling the infrastructure.

“For people who really live and eat and breathe and need to be on the Internet just to be able to perform their day’s functions and live in society as a functioning, proactive person, [broadband access] is the prerequisite for everything,” she said.

The NAHJ’s Roman added: “Fighting against four companies that basically want to control the Internet in this country to me is the fight that we must have now for the future.”

And Nichols blasted Comcast and NBC for good measure, arguing that Free Press’ friends should invest some energy into preventing the firms from merging.

To recap: America’s truly free media market, the one we have now and that offers greater opportunity thanks to the Internet, is a rip-off. Cable and telecom companies that build networks and make the widespread dissemination of independent journalism possible are evil, money-grubbing monsters. And the government can make it all better.

That’s all you need to know to reject the reformers’ vision for media in a digital society.

[Cross-posted at Digital Society, where the author is the editorial director]

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


by K. Daniel Glover

I’m glad you have stopped calling yourself by the same name as a certain Hugo Chavez loving actor. It was disconcerting.


Disturb the Universe on February 19, 2010 at 9:03 AM

And the government can make it all better.

You will read your Pravda and you will like it, comrade.

Disturb the Universe on February 19, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Good grief. When Jane Hamsher is “a voice of reason” we are in real trouble.

Laura on February 19, 2010 at 9:08 AM

I thought the same thing when I wrote those words, Laura. My boss keyed in on them, too. We figured that was the most newsworthy part of the event. 🙂

K. Daniel Glover on February 19, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Air America went down in flames because they couldn’t compete with Rush and all the other conservative talkers. If nobody listened, eventually nobody will read, either.

Kissmygrits on February 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Air America went down in flames because they couldn’t compete with Rush and all the other conservative talkers. If nobody listened, eventually nobody will read, either.

Kissmygrits on February 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Obviously expecting voluntary absorbing of Politically Correct Media isn’t working. Therefor, with great reluctance (throw arm over forehead) the next step will be mandatory listening/read PC Media.

rbj on February 19, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Losers hate competition. It is an axiom of life.

percysunshine on February 19, 2010 at 1:34 PM

So everyone wants a trophy.

Robert17 on February 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM