I have read several books lately by John Kenneth Galbraith; while they are older, they are very informative. In “The Affluent Society” I think he was still formulating some of his later ideas but he has a whole chapter on conventional wisdom. When you break it down to its simplest explanation conventional wisdom is simply what most people find acceptable. This doesn’t seem completely negative until you start to consider what that really means in that it is simply the net average of the most common shortcut to understanding.
Conventional wisdom therefore can be a very functionally useless but dogmatic and dangerous thing when applied to politics, economics, or any other social based and therefore intricately complicated process. Because these processes inherently contain so many different variables they are constantly changing; often rapidly. In other words, since these fields are affected by an almost limitless array of variables, the rate of change in the basic laws of social systems is likely to be exponential. Therefore, a constantly evolving understanding is necessary to deal effectively with these changes. This requires a great deal of effort and concentrated study just to keep abreast of changing conditions so that one can even begin to know how to deal effectively with basic social concerns. Conventional wisdom, by its very nature, is fundamentally incapable of effectively dealing with changing circumstance yet it is the core principle of most of our modern political parties.
In other words, politicians cannot get elected unless they understand how to play upon most people’s perception of conventional wisdom. It is an absolute necessity for success at the polls in our modern system. The logical inverse to this is the ability to gain political power by controlling media so that you can shape conventional wisdom; now you have something that is infinitely powerful even though it is also functionally unable to deal with changing circumstance. The very tool that tends to strengthen a candidates ability to get elected weakens his ability to effectively govern. The upshot is that politicians cannot ever really go against conventional wisdom without alienating their own voter base. Unfortunately, this rules out the ability to innovate and deal with issues in a proactive way. Instead, politicians must wait for conventional wisdom to convincingly fail in order to prove the necessity for innovation. Conventional wisdom is the natural enemy of innovation of any kind. Therefore, both in the field of economics and politics what we have are groups of people steadfastly devoted to anachronistic systems that are outdated but cannot be discarded until they completely collapse. At that point, innovation must come about to solve the issue and we start the whole cycle all over with this innovation now becoming the new Conventional wisdom to be protected against further innovation until it also fails because it is not allowed to innovate for changing circumstance; ignoring the truth that circumstance is always changing.
Most of our social beliefs and economic theories have historically been controlled by this cyclical process of conservative resistance to change followed by failure. We are always far behind in reacting to change because we are so enamored with conventional wisdom and the mental laziness that nurtures it. Imagine if we took this model and applied it to scientific studies (although it could be argued that this is exactly what creationist theory is all about). We would still be riding horses and struggling to grow enough food to eat every day. For some reason we have accepted that our understanding of science is constantly evolving and that every theory is just that…. a theory that only remains to be proven wrong before we adapt a new one. Yet in the social sciences of economics and politics we treasure conventional wisdom and will often violently oppose innovation that threatens it. I would venture to say that most wars can actually be traced to this kind of collision between circumstance and conventional wisdom that becomes both outdated and fanatically defended.
This is exactly the reason why American politics is so enamored of opinion polls. Successful politicians are not leading they are following. Any successful politician on the American political scene today is much more interested in finding out what the majority of the voting public believes than actually searching out solutions to problems that come from ever changing circumstance. This tendency is not limited to one political party or another. It is also not limited to conservatives vs. liberals as both are equally careful to avoid contradicting the perceived conventional wisdom of the voter base that put them into office. The key to power is holding office, not in effectively governing once elected. Unfortunately, this pandering to conventional wisdom of any kind is the exact opposite of the innovation that is needed to solve the issues arising from the circumstantial complexity of the social and economic spectrum.
While there is a growing effort to control conventional wisdom by propaganda in this country there seems to be no effort to understand the real problem behind our inability to deal with changing circumstance; our fundamental reliance on conventional wisdom and its inherent inability to deal with change. It is the crippling deformity that paralyzes our government from the very top downward. We seem much more interested in finding men who have the wisdom to spout our own beliefs back at us than finding men who want to solve problems. What we need is the understanding that, like scientific knowledge, political expertise must first accept the premise that every theory is only as good as its most recent proven effectiveness for dealing with problems. We seem to value politicians who are principled beyond those who are willing to innovate. To be seen as someone who “flip-flops” on the issues is to be seen as politically weak or possibly even corrupt and is usually the death knell of an election effort. Innovation in almost all fields is well understood to be both desirable and necessary to increase efficiency but innovation in political or economic fields is looked upon as weakness or worse yet, fundamentally foolish.
The term Conservative in its most basic sense implies an effort to preserve. This preservation can extend to many different areas or beliefs but is most often a basic resistance to change and supports the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports in society. While most conservatives would probably agree that a certain amount of change in society is inevitable, it is their basic belief that the amount of change should be minimal so as to provide stability. Unfortunately, this puts them in the insupportable position of resisting change in a modern world where technological advancement has literally exploded in the last 30 years. The fields of modern communications, economics, manufacturing, and energy are vastly different than they were just a short time ago. Advances in these fields have impacted every strata of modern society and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The conventional wisdom of the conservative agenda is quite literally unable to deal with how these changes have impacted society effectively. To be fair conventional wisdom in any form is incapable of dealing with innovation but a political movement that insists in basing its core beliefs on conventional wisdom to the exclusion of innovation is especially prone to this tendency. Abraham Lincoln was fond of explaining to his detractors that he “dealt with circumstances as he found them” rather than trying to control them to meet his preconceived beliefs. It is that spirit of understanding that we need to promulgate in politics and economics today. The spirit of modern conservatism can be captured in two observations.
1) Those who have power are the most anxious to maintain the status quo.
2) Fear of the unknown is directly proportional to how comfortable you are right now.
It is my own basic antithesis to the idea that conventional wisdom is an effective means of governance that leads me to say that I am not a Conservative. It is this same understanding that deeply confounds me when so many people who are obviously at the bottom of the social strata proudly proclaim that they are.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Ownership of the Media
As discussed in my last post, there were originally two main supports for avoiding propaganda on the publicly owned airwaves in this country. The first was the Fairness Doctrine which was the guiding principle behind the FCC’s efforts to make sure that custodians of the public airwaves focused on presenting the news instead of pushing an agenda. In other words, it is the basic difference between the efforts to inform vs. the efforts to convince. By the ultimate but limited usage of the FCC’s ability to control who had a license to use the airwaves the FCC attempted to make sure that no one political viewpoint could completely dominate the system. Propaganda, to be effective, must control the spread of information so that opposing viewpoints are not heard or considered and complete editorial control over what is broadcast is the first step in successful propaganda. With the Reagan administration's demolition of the Fairness Doctrine that I discussed in my last post, the door was open to removing the second support.
The second support for maintaining the integrity of the publicly owned airwaves consisted of a steady effort by the FCC to control the ownership of media as a means of assuring the spread of accurate information. The idea of a free press in this country is as old as the nation itself. The protection of this idea has taken many different forms but by and large it still springs from the basic concept perhaps best expressed by Thomas Jefferson, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." It is the idea of a press as free as possible from vested interests of ownership that has shaped our national policies concerning the media since the early 1920's.
With the rise of corporate interests in this country it became obvious that this idea needed protection from the inevitable control that would come from unrestricted ownership of the media by the wealthy as both the Supreme Court and Congress have on numerous occasions ruled and legislated that the American public owns the airwaves. It is the duty of the FCC to see that the public interests are served by those who obtain license to utilize the airwaves. If a corporation or even a wealthy individual owns the radio or television station through which a local community gets its news it is all too common for viewpoints opposing the vested interest of that ownership to be censored or even altogether silenced by editorial authority. While this is an inevitable result of our modern business tendency for corporate entities to be vested in diverse industries it can also be a dangerous temptation for propaganda as opposed to information as corporate entities seek to convince rather than inform public opinion.
As an example let us assume that a news organization is simply that; a news organization who's sole interest is the reporting of events. In this scenario it can be argued that such an organization is in fact a purely market based entity in that its ratings are its prime motivation as ratings are directly proportional to advertising premiums which pay the bills. However, the reality of modern corporate America is that media outlets are almost without exception actually individually just one arm of what is usually a multi-faceted corporate conglomerate; usually a very small arm in terms of fiscal returns. Under these conditions is it reasonable to expect that the news media outlet will report accurately on issues that adversely affect the much larger profit share of its corporate ownership? Naturally, if other media outlets are reporting on this same issue even though it negatively affects any one corporate entity it must be forced to at least address the issue, it cannot ignore it completely nor can it arbitrarily report facts and figures without a basis in fact without facing the possibility of being exposed as propaganda rather than news. It is this diversity; the widespread ownership by groups with diverse viewpoints and vested interests that best guarantees the spread of accurate information. It can be reasonably argued that the more diverse the ownership of our media outlets are; the more accurate will be the information they broadcast. Of course the inverse axiom is that the more narrow the ownership of the media becomes the more inaccurate the broadcasts will be and the more likely they will devolve into propaganda as opposed to news.
Unfortunately, this logic has steadily fallen prey to corporate grasp in this country for the last thirty years along with the Fairness Doctrine. On February 8, 1996 the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. This act was the first major legislated change in the industry since the Communications Act of 1934. It was widely touted by its supporters as an act to encourage the free market in the industry and to increase competition which would inevitably drive prices down and improve the quality of communications services. While the main focus of the act was telecommunications such as the telephone industry and cable television it also directly effected FCC rules defining media ownership. Previous to this act the FCC limited the ownership of media outlets in order to assure diversity of ownership and protect the integrity of individual ownership. These regulations limited the ownership of radio stations to forty for any one group and further limited this ownership based upon markets. In other words, no one entity could own numerous stations in one market and therefore monopolize the industry and thereby the spread of information. Television station ownership was similarly limited as were newspapers. All of these types of media outlets were well recognized to be the cogs in the machinery necessary to combat propaganda.
It is interesting to look at the results of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its immediate effects on the industry. While one of the act's basic intents was to foster competition and fight the consolidation of the ownership of media outlets that had been underway since the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan in the early 1980's it has had the opposite result. In 1983 the number of major media outlets in the United States was 50. This number is now reduced to 6. Private ownership of radio stations by individuals has shrunk to numbers lower than have been known since the early days of radio stations even though the gross number of radio stations is growing astronomically. Over 4000 individually owned radio stations were bought out in the first 4 years after the passage of the act by corporate entities. Huge corporate entities with thousands of stations now own the vast majority of radio stations in the United States today. Local news is increasingly not even existent on most of these stations and those that do still retain some news capability increasingly find their content editorially doctored so that the resultant report is almost unrecognizable from its original form.
As the ownership of our media outlets shrinks the pressure to remove remaining constraints to ownership has increased proportionally. In 2003 the FCC under pressures from large media concerns intent upon increasing their monopoly, further loosened the rules concerning media ownership. Unlike previous FCC rulings these changes were not made available to the public for a time period before their release so as to afford the public time to comment. The new rulings did several things to allow for more consolidation of the industry by corporate entities. Market shares for ownership of all media in a given market was raised from 35% to 45% (this had previously been raised in a similar ruling in 1985 from 25%). Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed. Requirements for periodic license review for renewal by the FCC were dropped. In effect, licenses are no longer reviewed for "public interest" considerations at all. Not only is the Fairness Doctrine not considered in these reviews the reviews themselves are no longer conducted under this guideline so a broadcast license is in effect perpetual and subject only to monetary fees with the public interest no longer a consideration at all. We have basically come full circle with this ruling ignoring 80 years of careful protection of the public interest as the basis for all such decisions and instead bowed subserviently to the corporate interest.
Fortunately, there is still a faint heartbeat in the ideas surrounding the belief that the public airwaves are still the property of the American people. In a case brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit the majority ruled 2-1 against the FCC and ordered it to reconfigure how it justified raising ownership limits. Since the Supreme Court later turned down an appeal on this case (Prometheus Radio Project v FCC) this ruling still stands. It is worth noting that the dissenting opinion on this case was turned in by one Antonin Scalia who was also instrumental in striking down the Fairness Doctrine as I pointed out in my last post. Since Mr. Scalia is now on the Supreme Court we will undoubtedly hear from him again on this subject at some point. It is also worth noting that this ruling strictly applies only to the provisions surrounding the market percentage ruling and does not apply to the much more important issue of FCC review of licenses. In 2007 the FCC made another ruling removing restrictions on newspaper and TV ownership in the same market as there was some concern that the court ruling might have invalidated this section as well.
The most disturbing part of this whole situation is the loss of the recognition of how important the idea of a free press is to this nation's survival. There are several ways to attack a free press and limit its ability to inform the public. The first and most obvious way is to simply legislate it out of existence by having the state take over the media directly. This is a highly effective means and both has been and still is utilized with great success in different areas of the world to control political expression. There is little danger of this type of takeover in this country presently. However, it is beyond question that we are now faced with a different type of attack on our institution of a free press. If corporate entities are allowed to use their superior financial and political support to simply buy up media outlets they can control the information that Americans use to decide who to vote for at the polls. Since they no longer are under any restrictions such as the Fairness Doctrine or license review based upon "public interest" they basically have carte blanche control of the levers of public dissemination of information once they attain ownership. As an example of whether this in fact underway I would ask you to consider if you remember any of the major news outlets in this country reporting on the recent FCC rulings above.
The second support for maintaining the integrity of the publicly owned airwaves consisted of a steady effort by the FCC to control the ownership of media as a means of assuring the spread of accurate information. The idea of a free press in this country is as old as the nation itself. The protection of this idea has taken many different forms but by and large it still springs from the basic concept perhaps best expressed by Thomas Jefferson, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." It is the idea of a press as free as possible from vested interests of ownership that has shaped our national policies concerning the media since the early 1920's.
With the rise of corporate interests in this country it became obvious that this idea needed protection from the inevitable control that would come from unrestricted ownership of the media by the wealthy as both the Supreme Court and Congress have on numerous occasions ruled and legislated that the American public owns the airwaves. It is the duty of the FCC to see that the public interests are served by those who obtain license to utilize the airwaves. If a corporation or even a wealthy individual owns the radio or television station through which a local community gets its news it is all too common for viewpoints opposing the vested interest of that ownership to be censored or even altogether silenced by editorial authority. While this is an inevitable result of our modern business tendency for corporate entities to be vested in diverse industries it can also be a dangerous temptation for propaganda as opposed to information as corporate entities seek to convince rather than inform public opinion.
As an example let us assume that a news organization is simply that; a news organization who's sole interest is the reporting of events. In this scenario it can be argued that such an organization is in fact a purely market based entity in that its ratings are its prime motivation as ratings are directly proportional to advertising premiums which pay the bills. However, the reality of modern corporate America is that media outlets are almost without exception actually individually just one arm of what is usually a multi-faceted corporate conglomerate; usually a very small arm in terms of fiscal returns. Under these conditions is it reasonable to expect that the news media outlet will report accurately on issues that adversely affect the much larger profit share of its corporate ownership? Naturally, if other media outlets are reporting on this same issue even though it negatively affects any one corporate entity it must be forced to at least address the issue, it cannot ignore it completely nor can it arbitrarily report facts and figures without a basis in fact without facing the possibility of being exposed as propaganda rather than news. It is this diversity; the widespread ownership by groups with diverse viewpoints and vested interests that best guarantees the spread of accurate information. It can be reasonably argued that the more diverse the ownership of our media outlets are; the more accurate will be the information they broadcast. Of course the inverse axiom is that the more narrow the ownership of the media becomes the more inaccurate the broadcasts will be and the more likely they will devolve into propaganda as opposed to news.
Unfortunately, this logic has steadily fallen prey to corporate grasp in this country for the last thirty years along with the Fairness Doctrine. On February 8, 1996 the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. This act was the first major legislated change in the industry since the Communications Act of 1934. It was widely touted by its supporters as an act to encourage the free market in the industry and to increase competition which would inevitably drive prices down and improve the quality of communications services. While the main focus of the act was telecommunications such as the telephone industry and cable television it also directly effected FCC rules defining media ownership. Previous to this act the FCC limited the ownership of media outlets in order to assure diversity of ownership and protect the integrity of individual ownership. These regulations limited the ownership of radio stations to forty for any one group and further limited this ownership based upon markets. In other words, no one entity could own numerous stations in one market and therefore monopolize the industry and thereby the spread of information. Television station ownership was similarly limited as were newspapers. All of these types of media outlets were well recognized to be the cogs in the machinery necessary to combat propaganda.
It is interesting to look at the results of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its immediate effects on the industry. While one of the act's basic intents was to foster competition and fight the consolidation of the ownership of media outlets that had been underway since the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan in the early 1980's it has had the opposite result. In 1983 the number of major media outlets in the United States was 50. This number is now reduced to 6. Private ownership of radio stations by individuals has shrunk to numbers lower than have been known since the early days of radio stations even though the gross number of radio stations is growing astronomically. Over 4000 individually owned radio stations were bought out in the first 4 years after the passage of the act by corporate entities. Huge corporate entities with thousands of stations now own the vast majority of radio stations in the United States today. Local news is increasingly not even existent on most of these stations and those that do still retain some news capability increasingly find their content editorially doctored so that the resultant report is almost unrecognizable from its original form.
As the ownership of our media outlets shrinks the pressure to remove remaining constraints to ownership has increased proportionally. In 2003 the FCC under pressures from large media concerns intent upon increasing their monopoly, further loosened the rules concerning media ownership. Unlike previous FCC rulings these changes were not made available to the public for a time period before their release so as to afford the public time to comment. The new rulings did several things to allow for more consolidation of the industry by corporate entities. Market shares for ownership of all media in a given market was raised from 35% to 45% (this had previously been raised in a similar ruling in 1985 from 25%). Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed. Requirements for periodic license review for renewal by the FCC were dropped. In effect, licenses are no longer reviewed for "public interest" considerations at all. Not only is the Fairness Doctrine not considered in these reviews the reviews themselves are no longer conducted under this guideline so a broadcast license is in effect perpetual and subject only to monetary fees with the public interest no longer a consideration at all. We have basically come full circle with this ruling ignoring 80 years of careful protection of the public interest as the basis for all such decisions and instead bowed subserviently to the corporate interest.
Fortunately, there is still a faint heartbeat in the ideas surrounding the belief that the public airwaves are still the property of the American people. In a case brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit the majority ruled 2-1 against the FCC and ordered it to reconfigure how it justified raising ownership limits. Since the Supreme Court later turned down an appeal on this case (Prometheus Radio Project v FCC) this ruling still stands. It is worth noting that the dissenting opinion on this case was turned in by one Antonin Scalia who was also instrumental in striking down the Fairness Doctrine as I pointed out in my last post. Since Mr. Scalia is now on the Supreme Court we will undoubtedly hear from him again on this subject at some point. It is also worth noting that this ruling strictly applies only to the provisions surrounding the market percentage ruling and does not apply to the much more important issue of FCC review of licenses. In 2007 the FCC made another ruling removing restrictions on newspaper and TV ownership in the same market as there was some concern that the court ruling might have invalidated this section as well.
The most disturbing part of this whole situation is the loss of the recognition of how important the idea of a free press is to this nation's survival. There are several ways to attack a free press and limit its ability to inform the public. The first and most obvious way is to simply legislate it out of existence by having the state take over the media directly. This is a highly effective means and both has been and still is utilized with great success in different areas of the world to control political expression. There is little danger of this type of takeover in this country presently. However, it is beyond question that we are now faced with a different type of attack on our institution of a free press. If corporate entities are allowed to use their superior financial and political support to simply buy up media outlets they can control the information that Americans use to decide who to vote for at the polls. Since they no longer are under any restrictions such as the Fairness Doctrine or license review based upon "public interest" they basically have carte blanche control of the levers of public dissemination of information once they attain ownership. As an example of whether this in fact underway I would ask you to consider if you remember any of the major news outlets in this country reporting on the recent FCC rulings above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)