Continuing with the general theme of public versus private media I want to address the issue today from a somewhat different perspective. While many Americans critiquing media in the United States take as a starting point that solutions to dwindling resources and the fragmentation of audiences must be arrived at within the confines of a private media paradigm, in Venezuela the prevailing powers are moving towards a state-owned media. And many in Venezuela and elsewhere aren't too happy about it.
... Es un error apreciar la actual ofensiva del Estado rojillo en contra de la libertad de prensa sólo en los términos de un conflicto entre su jefatura y los dueños de los medios de comunicación. La cosa va mucho más allá, porque de lo que se trata es de restringir al máximo posible el derecho que tienen los venezolanos a expresar libremente sus pensamientos, ideas y opiniones.
[Is is a mistake to think of the current offensive of the "red" government against freedom of the press only in terms of the conflict between its head and the owners of the mdeia. It goes much beyond that, as what it is about is limiting to maximum possible the right of the venezuelans to express freely their thoughts, ideas and opinions. [my translation]]
In order to avoid the hugely partisan situation in Venezuela I want to keep this post as theoretical as possible. Of course it's possible that the media in any country, after being taken out of private hands, becomes nothing more than a tool for the government to advance its ideological objectives. Obviously. But look what is clearly implied here.
If Venezuelans are being limited in their "free expression of their thoughts, ideas and opinions" is the writer not arguing that this situation previously existed? Now I don't want to go into the details of individual private media operations in Venezuela or elsewhere but it is a truism that private media represent private interests and more often than not, private interests solely interested in profit and/or power.
Why would anyone assume that those interests can be pursued while at the same allowing anyone to freely express their thoughts, ideas and opinions? If theres a TV station that receives huge sums of advertising dollars from a giant multinational - oh let's just say.... Monsanto .... yet the reporters from that station discover that, say, Monsanto is using drugs in cows, that, say, drastically increase the toxicity of the cow's milk and pose a serious health hazard to humans, whose side is that station going to come down on, Monsanto's or the reporters (i.e. the public)? Whose side do you think?
Now a note on being "free to express your opinion. This does not mean that you will be thrown in jail in you say something the government doesn't like. Of course that happens in places but the United States, a very privatized society abundant with highly idealistic platitudes concerning their so-called democracy and the right to speak freely, it is about what you can say that will be taken as "serious" political discussion. And whether you'll be invited back to say it again. (Or as in the Monsanto case the real story will simply never see the air)
This is where great limitations on what you are "free" to say occur. As Chomsky pointed out many years ago - and Greenwald continues to expound on - there are a great many things you can not say if you expect to be taken seriously by the powers that dominate the mainstream media in the U.S.
Of course the most obvious and appalling example was the run-up to the Iraq war. The only mainstream media figure that questioned the prevailing orthodoxy that Saddam had to be removed or the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud - Phil Donahue at MSNBC - was quickly silenced. Two years after the war started around 60% of the American people still thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11. How can one not consider such travesties when addressing issues of private and public media?
In the end there were a great deal of private interests involved in lying to the American people in the lead up to the war, so many it still isn't clear which particular one was predominant. But the point is these private interests had no concern that the citizenry would be misinformed. They wanted what they wanted and would do whatever it took to get it. Is that any more a democratic way to organize media in society than direct government propaganda?
The opinion writer continues:
En otras palabras, el problema central no es que fulano o mengana sean propietarios de tal o cual medio de comunicación. Eso es secundario. Lo primario es que esos medios no sigan siendo un vehículo para que los venezolanos se enteren de las noticias que contrastan abiertamente la realidad cotidiana con la prédica triunfalista de Miraflores.
[In other words, the main problems isn't that "Smith" or "Jones" is the owner of this or that media group. That is secondary. First is that the media don't continue being a vehicle so that Venezuelans hear about the news that clearly contradicts their daily reality with the triumphant preaching from the Government house.]
Of course it matters - and it absolutely is not secondary - who owns or controls the media in a society. Propaganda can be private or conducted by state. I don't believe that statement is particularly controversial. But for those Venezuelans who believe that concerning themselves with who owns and the runs the media is only secondary, there are a million dead innocent Iraqis that if they could, would dispute that. (Not to mention that in a highly capitalistic society it isn't the "Smiths" or "Jones" who own the media, it is the most powerful sectors of that society who do)
No one who truly desires the kind of independent, skeptical and competent media that democracy needs in order to call itself such can favor the propaganda of a government nor a dominant private interest. The specific point I'm making here, however, is that those who feel that in their country government propaganda has put in risk the "free expression" of the citizens of their country are simply deluded if they believe the Murdochs and Ciusneros of the world do any better.
Next up I want to talk about some generally democratic ways of organizing media in a society.
Comments