The Powell FCC: Call it "FLOODGATE"

The Powell FCC: Call it "FLOODGATE"

In today's Op-Ed essay [1] in The New York Times, Bill Safire [2] has a piece entitled "Regulate The FCC."
Read it [1].

Respond. Not to Safire (well, sure, write him if you like), but to your Senator, your Congressional rep.

Safire gives this FCC move a name: FLOODGATE. Steamroll sounds more like it, but Floodgate will do. As in a flood of public outcry.

He cites John McCain's statement: "750,000 people sent messages to the F.C.C.," and the torrent of e-mails prompted by his column on this issue. Safire, with his usual wit, punditry, and incredible ability as a wordsmith, writes that many expressed views saying, "Though I consider you a rightwing nutcase on most issues, I'm 100% with you against this big-media power grab."

Safire often presents what is considered a right wing opinion. I see it more as a well-thought out conservative viewpoint. Despite the fact that my own opinions are often on the so-called other side of the aise, I respect and appreciate Safire and his opinions. He states his case with a certain grace. His use of language is unparalleled. And even when I disagree with him, I find he makes a logical and measured argument for the other side.

Sometimes it is annoying . . . he so well states the opposite opinion that it is hard to disagree! Bottom line: he makes the reader think, he clearly delineates the position. Better to understand the other side's viewpoint than to read Op-Ed pieces screaming with self-righteousness, disdain and hints of imperial certainty. Of course, if one wants that, one can watch the Fox News Channel.

Back in 1978 Safire had a column in which he coined various terms for political leanings. This was the first place I saw the term Neo-Liberal. The described my political leanings. What makes Safire so enjoyable to read is the way he articulates a position, and the structure of his commentary. Neo-Liberal, not an old-line Liberal, not a raging semi-Commie Lefty. No, a Liberal in the modern era, a Neo-Liberal. Yes, this right-leaning columnist, this former Nixon speechwriter, eloquently described my political position. And he did so with grace and respect. Again, just as he makes his points known, he also described a differing perspective, and did so with elegance.

The FCC Power Grab is a major issue. Control of media is a beginning step toward control of pubic opinion. Letting the public know only the opinion of some, only the news deemed worthy by a select few, limits freedoms.

As in Freedom of The Press, Freedom of Speech, freedom stretching to media. It is a short jump, no big leap, from limiting those freedoms to limiting the right to differ.

This is why a freethinker, albeit a conservative one like Safire, is also concerned by the FCC awarding such massive degrees of economic and ideological control to so small a group. Monopoly of media --news distribution, opinion distribution-- is dangerous. One might even call it downright unAmerican.

There is also the financial side. I wrote a while back about the death of the media entrepreneur. Back in 1984 I bought a radio station. Nowadays, with four media companies owning almost all the radio stations in the US, such a move would be economic suicide. The little guy cannot compete with massive financial monoliths that own or control so much of the media landscape in any given market.

On the entertainment side it also shifts economic balances. Clear Channel can decide what music is heard on the radio, what concerts are presented in many venues, what outdoor advertising is or is not to be seen. How does a new act break out? Not every new act is going onto a reality TV show to get exposure.

A type of legalized payola arises. Treat Clear Channel properly, get aired. Get booked in their concert venue. Post outdoor advertising for promotion. This is not the way a local or regional act builds momentum. This is not the groundswell of public opinion and momentum that breaks acts (think back to the early 1970's, and Bruce Springsteen). This becomes commerce and monopoly.

Belief in an act, the bursting of talent that sways public emotion, the rise of a local group to the point of getting regional, then national note --- is no longer an evolving organic or natural sort of process. Under present monopolistic conditions this becomes a business plan. Imagine the next step: Clear Channel develops a "talent we approve of" division, starts a CD company, then airs and holds concerts selecting only from the internal talent pool.

Sounds farfetched? Only so if the tide is turned. Let it keep building, and this will be the mere tip of the iceberg.

Back to the politics at hand: it is sad to note that Safire makes mention of the Stevens-Dorgan action in the Senate, but no mention of Bernie Sanders' initiative. But let us not let political leanings cloud the issue.

Write to your senator. Write to your congressional rep. Let them know that there is public outcry over this FCC move. Be a part of forcing a rollback.

Let them know that the public will not be monopolized by the chosen few darlings (read: contributors, supporters, "land-grabbers") who sponsor junkets and attempt buy the votes of the FCC Commissioners.

This is a call to action if ever there was one.

Write to your congressional representative [3]. Write to your senator [4].