-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Media Freedom: U.S. vs. Other Countries
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 17:36:32 -0700
From: Dan Koenig <[log in to unmask]>
To: Ed Burns <[log in to unmask]>
References: <v01510100b41683e474ca@[203.17.23.134]>
<[log in to unmask]>

There are six media conglomerates that dominate the constructions of
reality, the
attitudes, values, lifestyles, etc. of  the entire world whether one is
in a
remote village of China without clean water or in Washington D.C.  I
think that a
very strong argument can be made that it is their socializing effect
upon global
values that opened the way to the so called global village so beloved by
monopoly
capitalism rather than global monopoly capitalism socializing people
into a
global culture.  When Lech Walensa was asked the origins of his protest
that was
to become the Solidarity Movement leading eventually to the collapse of
Communism
in Poland, he reportedly pointed to a television set and said "it all
came from
there."   Similar protests earlier in Prague (1968) and Budapest (1956)
undoubtedly were strongly fueled by values and attitudes (and, no doubt,
some
myths) being communicated by Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, etc.
It is, I
am sure, no coincidence that the Communist regimes went to as great
lengths to
jam such broadcasts as the U.S. went to provide them.

More recently and closer to home, when the Vancouver group, Adbusters,
wanted to
buy a 30 second spot (with cash in hand) two years ago to promote "Buy
Nothing
Day", the major U.S. networks turned them down cold.  For the
uninitiated, Buy
Nothing Day is set for the day following the American Thanksgiving
(which is the
fourth Thursday in November), which is the traditional kick off for the
intensive
Christmas advertising blitz.  You can find out more from the Adbusters
website
(any search engine should turn it up), but the gist of it is to reclaim
some
autonomy buy avoiding purchases on that day to fight the
overcommercialization
and manipulation of our lives. The networks, of course, derive most of
their
revenues from commercial enterprises and were unwilling to allow a
counter-message on their networks that might have the effect of
encouraging
people to adopt new attitudes and behaviors, or even to reflect upon
their lives
(in a meaningful way, that is, as opposed to whether they need a new
deoderant --
we all have already been socialized to buy and apply commercial
chemicals to our
bodies rather than to live naturally).

Freedom of speech?  Yeah, right, wanna buy a bridge?

Ed Burns wrote:

> On 28 September 15:37:18, Bill Bartlett wrote:
> > Ed Burns wrote:
> >
> > >I was watching the 1993 movie, "Manufacturing Consent" and in it,
> > >Chomsky states that he believes the media in other countries is more
> > >free than in this country (I'm paraphrasing here).  I think he means
> > >that in other countries, the media is not so much a tool of control and
> > >platitude repition as it is in the U.S.  My question to you, the CHOMSKY
> > >list readers is: is this true in 1999?
> >
> > I suppose one test of that would be whether Manufacturing Consent has
> > actually been broadcast by the TV networks. I know it was shown here in
> [...]
>
> >
> > How about in other places?
>
> I never saw it on the air.  It's hard to find to even rent in the San
> Francisco Bay area.  I'd love to hear from other parts of the world,
> though.
>
> [...]
>
> > the analysis seems to lack solid substantiation. As I recall, Chomsky's
> > argument was that the US being the home territory of capitalism, it was
> > much more important to maintain "consent" in the US, whereas it didn't
> > matter much what people in Canada thought - they didn't have any say in US
> > foreign policy anyhow.
> >
> > Ther'd be an element of truth in that, but I'm not sure it's safe to assume
> > that the US's dominant place in world capitalism rests *entirely* on
> > physical force, that "consent" is only required by US voters and that
>
> Well, not just military power, but the economic power of corporations
> based in the US, which is what Bartlett mentions below.  I think consent
> is more important when it comes to letting corporations get away with
> their operations.
>
> > I can't help wondering whether it is not that economic stick which is the
> > more powerful force.
>
> > All these factors have an influence on policy to varying degrees. I am
> > curious as to how much the alleged distinctions between the media in the
> > US, and the media in other western countries, might be shaped by
> > differences in the mood of the US people, rather than vice-versa?
>
> Let me try to understand you.  You want to know how the distinctions
> [between U.S and other western media] are shaped by differences in the
> mood of U.S. people?  Differences between what?  Do you mean that
> U.S. people have different moods than other western people and this
> influences their views of their media?
>
> In that case, I think most U.S. people are too busy running to stand
> still in our current economy to pay attention to what the media has
> actually become.  Or, if they do have the time, or desire to pay
> attention to what the media has become, the situation seems so hopeless
> and there is such a lack of community, that they feel nothing can be
> done.  That's my problem.  I know I'm being fed lies all around, but I
> don't know what to do about it.  Join the CHOMSKY list for starters.
>
> Bill?
>
> Ed