The nation recently went to war against a foreign regime whose oppressionwas based largely on control of the information received by its citizens.How ironic, then, that we are seemingly on the brink of establishing aSaddam Hussein-style information system here in the United States.
On Monday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on a newset of media-ownership rules that would allow large conglomerates to devourmore independent media outlets and impose the law of the jungle on themarketplace of ideas. If the new rules pass, we could be headed down adangerous Orwellian path, with an elite thought police controlling our newsand our culture.
Information is not just any commodity, such as steel or textiles. A vibrantdemocracy depends on rich intellectual exchange, on the free flow of ideasfrom a variety of sources. This is a principle embedded in the FirstAmendment's free-press protection and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Butmedia consolidation stifles dissent and drowns out alternative voices,giving Americans a stale, uniform product that barely accounts forindividual community values.
The proposed FCC rules would enrich moguls, discourage entrepreneurship anddiminish quality. Niche content such as children's programming would suffer.Minority populations would be underserved. Music and entertainment wouldbecome homogenized, with large media interests also acting as ideologicalcensors. (If you don't believe it, just ask the Dixie Chicks.)
The rules would further sever the critical bond between media outlets andtheir local consumers, as more journalists would answer to corporate bossesmaking news judgments from thousands of miles away. This kind ofestrangement can even jeopardize community security. Last year, when anearly-morning train derailment in Minot, N.D., released dangeroustoxins into the air, police tried to warn residents by alerting local radiostations. But according to the San Antonio Express-News, they could not reach anyone. Because Minot's radio stations are owned by Texas-based Clear Channel, they are not staffed at night.
If conservatives were faithful to their stated belief in localism, theywould be fighting the new FCC rules. But today's conservatism is based onlittle more than handouts to special interests who bankroll Republicancampaigns. So it is hardly surprising that the three Republican FCCcommissioners appear to support the changes. Nor is it surprising that theBush administration, ruthless enforcers of "my way or the highway"politics, would embrace a policy designed to smother diversity of opinion.
Like the rule itself, the rule-making process has been about silencingcritics and ducking debate. FCC Chairman Michael Powell has put the ruleson a sneaky fast track, holding only one official hearing and giving hisfellow commissioners only three weeks to review the final proposal. Themajor media has been a sleepy watchdog, falling down on the job ofscrutinizing this plan. But should we be surprised that the corporate mediaare reluctant to shine a critical light on a proposal from which they hope toprofit?
I have done my part to call attention to this issue. On May 12, I hosted apublic forum in San Rafael, Calif., featuring Michael Copps, one of the FCC's twoderegulation skeptics. I also support legislation that calls on the FCC toeducate the public about the impact of its proposal and to extend thepublic comment period before issuing a final rule.
The airwaves belong not to Rupert Murdoch but to the American people. They are placed in a trust whose guardian must have an allegiance to the public interest rather than to the bottom line. On Monday, we will find out if the FCC is serious about its guardianship, or if it will violate the public trust.
Lynn Woolsey is a Democratic congresswoman from California.
