By clicking here, you may SUBMIT your own comment, and/or you may READ the other comments made by public contributors.

Oligarchic Control of Media

Item 1  31-MAY-2001 21:40 Richard Farson

I take a special pleasure in introducing all of you to Richard Pollak, whom I have known for fifty years. While in graduate school at the University of Chicago, I roomed with the Pollak family, one of the great educational experiences of my life. Dick was then just into his teens but already showing the kind of independent thinking that has characterized him ever since. He is the former managing editor of The Nation and is now editor-at-large there. His article in the current issue, on the role GE has played in the pollution story of the Hudson river, presents a decidedly different picture than the one most people see. He has held several major journalism posts, having been editor of the Baltimore Sun, press editor and then associate editor of Newsweek, and perhaps most important, founder and editor of MORE, the highly regarded, but now defunct, critical magazine about journalism. He has written several books, the latest one exposing a dark side of famed psychoanalyst Bruno Bettleheim. Dick is especially qualified to address the issues of this conference, because it has been an issue of concern for him for more than a decade. I'm sure we will enjoy this ride and learn a lot. Welcome, Dick.

1:1) 01-JUN-2001 15:03 Richard Pollak

Thanks, Dick, for the glowing introduction. So glowing, I fear, that you promoted me to editor of the "Baltimore Sun". I never rose to such an exalted height, but I did have a good deal of fun there in the early sixties and look back wistfully on that time, especially given the topic of this forum. The Sun was then a locally owned paper of considerable distinction. It was eventually swallowed by Times-Mirror and quickly became less distinguished. Whatever luster remained dimmed entirely when the Times-Mirror was swallowed by the Tribune Co. This, of course, has proved the normal course of consolidation over the past 30 years, so that now fewer than a dozen media giants hold sway in the United States. I am sixty-seven, and my young friends tell me not to fret so, that the worldwide web offers thousands of alternatives to the Gospel According to Rupert or Bertelsmann. To get this forum going, I'd like to hear some thoughts on the www as an alternative to the media goliaths.

1:2) 01-JUN-2001 19:47 Richard Farson

The first thought that occurs to me is that although there are thousands of sources online, the oligarchy is quite present online also, and I suppose could even be considered dominant - CNN for news, every network having its own service, NBC in league with Microsoft, etc. The major companies are certainly alert to the power of the Internet - health information is presented by the drug companies, etc. Do you expect the media giants to take control as they have of the airwaves? The Internet seems so democratizing, but so did television when it was first introduced.

1:3) 02-JUN-2001 09:40 Richard Pollak

I share your view, Dick. The media giants are, indeed, embracing the Internet. But, what I was hoping to elicit in my initial comment was at least some indication that there are some serious sites out there that offer, say, serious alternative political information. Meanwhile, I note that the beat goes on: the French conglomerate Vivendi will acquire Houghton Mifflin, the venerable U.S. publishing house and one of the last independents.

1:4) 02-JUN-2001 12:59 Richard Farson

I am attending a wedding today of a vice president of MP3, one of the more famous of the dot.com Internet sites that challenged the power of the major corporations, along with copyrights, etc. It, also, has just been acquired by Vivendi. Curiously, Vivendi owns Universal, which was the major litigator against MP3.

1:5) 02-JUN-2001 22:02 Raymond Alden

Of the presence on the Internet of alternative news sources, I have no doubt. But, I don't know where they are, and I do not have the time, or the inclination, to search, screen, evaluate and then set up a "favorite" or two to visit regularly. Net: I receive the news according to Rupert, etc.

The Internet, per se, is nothing more than a data bank, a foundation on which one might, with skill and imagination, build something useful. On the subject of ‘news’, as far as I'm aware, nothing useful has, as yet, been built.

I hope that I'm just uninformed.

1:6) 03-JUN-2001 03:02 Richard Farson

Searching for "alternative news" on the Internet yields 6,104,092 sources.

1:7) 03-JUN-2001 20:03 Richard Pollak

You are not at all uninformed, Raymond. Like it or not, we are long-used to having the news mediated for us in sources ranging from the NY Times and CBS to The Nation and The New Republic. The problem with the Internet is precisely what you describe, and what Dick Farson confirmed, when he turned up 6+ million hits for "alternative news". What mortal has time for this?

For more on this general subject, I urge ILF visitors to download "Adding Up the Costs of Cyberdemocracy" from the NY Times of June 2. This longish, thoughtful piece is by Alexander Stille and provides much grist for future exchanges in this corner.

1:8) 04-JUN-2001 01:51 Alex Soojung-Kim Pang

The Web was SUPPOSED to be the great medium for ‘e-zines’, and the space in which the small publisher or offbeat individual would finally have a voice; and, to some degree, this has proved to be the case. However, those voices are increasingly hard to find.

For one thing, there's so darn many of them. The challenge of finding the worthwhile content online is THE great problem for everyone; it has been for years, and there's no end in sight to the problem, despite lots of brainpower and computer cycles thrown at it. Apparently, most people solve the problem (or merely avoid it or manage it) by visiting about the same number of Web sites as television stations they scan - around 13. It also doesn't help that these sites are also of amazingly uneven quality (not just comparing different sites, but looking at the same site over time: a promising start may turn to a fizzle in a few months), which makes developing stable favorites tough. Whatever else can be said about CNN, you always know what you're getting.

The amazing fungibility of digital content, and the reluctant need of Web sites to acquire steady sources of words, has worked to the advantage of big producers: think of how many sites you see that have headlines from Reuters, AP, UPI or CNN. The ease with which this content can be acquired is a real selling point for lots of enterprises that don't want to cultivate their own editorial staffs and voices. Indeed, despite all the talk that "content is king", the culture of Web companies has been one that considers content to be kind of like soybeans and wheat: yes, you need them, but it would be awfully tiresome to make them yourself. The buzz, the hot action, the real money is to be made in deals: leveraging synergy, building the brand and getting that cross-marketing relationship with Snap.com. (Even at Britannica, where I worked for several years, this mind-set eventually took over. The editorial department was seen as this weird place, full of graduate school dropouts who "didn't get the Web"; the Britannica.com side, which bought or outsourced everything it could, saw itself as the place where the REAL action was.)

Finally, while the barriers to entry for new publishers on the Web look low, maintenance costs are high. It's pretty easy to put together a Web page that looks decent; it takes some time to do a whole site; but the work involved in managing an ongoing enterprise is as substantial as with any business. As if that weren't enough, the damnable view that "information wants to be free" makes it nearly impossible for anyone to develop a responsible business model.

1:9) 04-JUN-2001 15:49 Richard Pollak

Thanks, Alex, for your wise mini-essay. Like good print journalism, good web journalism needs editor and publishers with a vision. No site will be valuable unless someone has a compelling formula to make it so. Such people are, alas, in short supply. Up through the sixties, many publications had a clear voice that came from the founder and/or editor: Luce, Hearst, Pulitzer, to name just a few. But, with the homogenization of the media, the publication with an independent voice became an endangered species. Imagine Luce's view of AOL Time Warner, which is ‘dumbing down’ daily (it's now closing its magazines' research library and firing half the staff). There are, of course, lots of shouters on the web; but, as Alex points out, serious sites with thoughtful, alternative commentary are very hard to find, just as serious publications with thoughtful, alternative commentary are rare and have small circulations.

1:10) 04-JUN-2001 16:45 Richard Farson

The problem that both Dick and Alex point to is partly financial (it costs real money to maintain a well-edited, comprehensive and current site) and that problem, in turn, is partly political, in terms of what kinds of enterprises our system is willing to subsidize. It subsidizes big the corporate networks (to the tune of many billions), but it is difficult for small businesses or independent institutes to compete for funding with what most people call "the establishment".

1:11) 04-JUN-2001 18:19 Raymond Alden

Passing thought: Google has become phenomenal as a preferred search engine because of some rather complex algorithms having to do with how often a site is visited, how many other sites contain links to it, etc. I wonder if, at the core of their system, there might be an idea to be applied to the "Favorites" feature of a web browser. Something to update or re-order my Favorites list on the basis of the number of times I visit, the amount of time spent when I get there, the order in which I select that site after going online, etc.

1:12) 04-JUN-2001 21:00 Harlan Cleveland

I find this interesting conference surprisingly downbeat so far. I am especially struck by Richard Pollak's nostalgic recollection of the "clear voices" of Luce and Hearst. When (in the '50s) I was executive editor (and for a while, also publisher) of The Reporter magazine, our take on Henry Luce and William Randolph Hearst was that they were (in modern-speak) the ultimate examples of "consolidation" and "homogenization of the media". How did they get to be heroes so fast (comment 1:9)? Henry Luce might well have regarded AOL Time Warner as a nirvana he couldn't quite figure out how to achieve.

I'll have more to say, but dinner is ready. If this response-box doesn't disappear, I'll be back tomorrow.

1:13) 07-JUN-2001 08:55 Richard Pollak

In quality, style and politics, Hearst's journalism differed significantly from Luce's, certainly more than Time magazine differs from Hearst newspapers today. Regardless, in offering Luce and Hearst as examples, I didn't mean to imply that I shared their views of what journalism should be. What I expressed (badly, I fear) was my view that their personalities informed their organizations, for better or worse. As, for that matter, did Max Ascoli's personality very much mark The Reporter? Such singular voices are now extinct in the corporate media world, whose homogenization now obliterates the few distinct voices left. Democracy desperately needs singular voices to flourish, and the issue here is how we nourish them, in print and on the web in the face of overwhelming corporate conglomeration? Dick Farson is right that establishing a viable website is capital intensive, as is establishing even a small magazine, let alone buying a radio or television station. Still, I keep hearing young voices saying that ‘the web is the alternative’. I think it might be useful if Raymond Alden expanded a bit on what he observed about Google.

1:14) 07-JUN-2001 17:13 Harlan Cleveland

Thanks, Dick (Pollak), for the clarification. I had thought that in citing Hearst and Luce you were worrying about their size and reach. But, if you were praising them as "personalities [that] informed their organizations", why aren't Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner (again, moguls with very different worldviews) also praiseworthy? The thing to worry about, it seems to me, is what's implied in your title for this conference, "Oligarchic Control of the Media". As in other kinds of business, when the oligarchs become fewer, they threaten the competitiveness of the marketplace of ideas. And, in the resulting noncompetitive climate, it's not necessarily ‘wonderful’ to have the bosses' opinions "informing their organization" that we're stuck with reading or listening to.

So, I welcome the discussion about whether, and how, the Web can reintroduce competition and diversity into the ideas market. That should, theoretically, be possible, even probable. In my limited personal experience, I find I'm able to keep track of a variety of views and opinions by subscribing to any number of free e-mailed newsletters. Some of them try hard to mould my opinion (for example, fulminations from Jan Oberg of Transnational Forum, whom I frequently disagree with, but that's a form of stimulation too); others are just trying to keep me up to date on a range of subject matter that I try to follow (a good example is the Benton Foundation's excellent Communications-Related Headlines, which I do read every weekday). This kind of up-to-date Web-distributed material isn't readily found in journals and magazines that have to be printed and stuffed into mailboxes days or even weeks later.

The Web also has all sorts of potential for serious study, since there are acres of background on almost any subject, if you know how to look for it. I mostly don't. But, just now, I have the research assistance of a young woman who lives in Pondicherry, India, and has a good track record of scanning the Web for information, analysis and insights, then converting them into thoughtful essays in response to assignments - both assignments and responses being conveyed by e-mail, of course. Ten or 15 years ago, I would probably have recruited, for this purpose, a post-doc from a nearby university; but, now, "distance education" is a two-way street.

My editorial conclusion, based on admittedly narrow slices of experience, is this: we should worry about the oligarchies but not be mesmerized by them. As Ken Boulding suggested long ago, in "the Great Forest of society", the brontosaurus can do a lot of harm if he steps on you, but his feet don't take up much of the available acreage, and there is plenty left over for the nimble and quick.

1:15) 07-JUN-2001 19:39 Raymond Alden

If I understand correctly what I have just read, one difference between the oligarchs (is that a word?) of the 1930s, and those of today, is that the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner (then Hearst's main outlet) could each thrive on reaching a modest part - say 30% - of its market. Today, market share drives everything, and a strong and consistent expression of editorial opinion might drive away a part of the market and is, therefore, not to be risked.

Is that also true of the Internet? The "great face-off" between AOL-Time-Warner and Microsoft comes to mind.

While they do battle with each other to dominate some sort of market - by what definition I don't know - there are a few thousand alternative voices to be listened to, if only we had the time, the patience and the networking skills to find them.

That's what I had in mind with the reference to "Google" - although I did not know then, and don't know, if the analogy is really appropriate. Google's algorithm is based in part on the number of "hits" and the number of "links" associated with each site having certain key words - I think. The idea is to measure the value of that site as perceived by large numbers of people.

A parallel, for example, might be to make a statistical count of the places on the net visited by Harlan Cleveland, his research associate in India, Richard Pollack, Ralph Keyes, Dick Farson and a few dozen others with a similar range of interests, and then bundle those sites in a package to be marketed (as one might market a newsletter, I suppose).

Eric Drexler and his associates at the Foresight Institute have been promoting and developing a scheme based on a similar idea - and it is now in use in a sort of "beta test" mode somewhere on the net. His idea was to post a statement or essay, of which almost anything posted here might serve as an example. Those of us who comment on the statement would have our comments linked to the original and would appear (almost like marginal notes) along with the original. Except, perceptive readers could decide that they respect Harlan's comments and don't think much of Ray's, and (Google-like) only the comments of respected critics would appear thereafter to that reader. In this way, each person's perception of quality would be acknowledged and used advantageously.

Intriguing, anyway.

1:16) 08-JUN-2001 12:02 Richard Pollak

I agree with Harlan (via Boulding) that there is plenty of acreage available for the nimble and quick. The problem, as we all seem to agree, is how to find (or establish) garden plots on the Internet that are genuinely instructive and appeal to individual tastes and needs. We ‘print-heads’ and/or ‘TV addicts’ are so used to having our information mediated for us that the search for the garden plot(s) too often is not worth the time and headache. Still, I like Raymond’s bundling idea. Perhaps, we here in this forum should pick a couple of topics - say, the Bush Administration’s view on global warming and the lack of women orchestra conductors - and explore the subjects online. We, then, might create a tightly written one-page newsletter summarizing each topic and supplying the links we think are most helpful. In theory, at least, the newsletters could be the prototypes for a service that WBSI might eventually furnish, either on demand or at regular intervals. Of course, even if we and other forum participants are willing to pursue this experiment (not a given, I realize) someone would have to pick up the thread after we decamp, if WBSI wanted to carry the newsletter idea forward. Thus, we are back to the need for capital that Dick (Farson) noted is a key obstacle.

It occurs to me as I re-read the above that younger users of the internet may well be less used to and dependent on mediated information than I am, and more willing to patiently search online for what they want.

1:17) 08-JUN-2001 12:59 Raymond Alden

Your suggestion would require that we learn how to do what we advocate being done. <g>

1:18) 08-JUN-2001 15:35 Richard Farson

As I get older, I am inclined more to want interpretations of events, not just the facts themselves. For example, I religiously read the NY Times Op-Ed page and several magazines that give me commentary (including yours, Dick, I hasten to add). In a sense, Dick, I hope what we are doing here already will, indeed, become a source of intelligence and interpretation for the public. As you know, not only will the policy recommendations we arrive at become public, but so will the verbatim dialogue itself. So, perhaps we are already developing the kind of information vehicle that you describe. We could start a discussion of Bush's attitude about global warming, and maybe not only report the facts, but our dialogue would contextualize it, and even provide a format for intelligent debate. No more sound bites. It wouldn't be comprehensive, but the networks, now including even PBS, unfortunately, don't provide that anyway. We are much more likely to offer a full range of opinion and interpretation from a group of people who know what the hell they're talking about. And, we will also have a way for the public to respond, and that's when people really learn and change.

1:19) 11-JUN-2001 09:27 Richard Pollak

The exchanges, so far, lead me to think that if we really want the Internet to serve as an alternative to the mediated news outlets we’ve been used to all these years, our only choice (at this time, at least) is to do it ourselves. And, with some effort, it can be done. I recently wrote a piece for The Nation on GE’s pollution of the Hudson River. I was astonished by how much information I found online: dozens of stories from daily (and weekly!) newspapers in the Hudson River Valley; position papers and scientific reports from the EPA and from New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation; medical background on the hazards of PCBs, which GE had dumped into the river; reports from Scenic Hudson and other area environmental organizations, and much information from GE itself, advancing its solution for cleaning up the chemicals. Searching out some of these sites, and then finding the links that were most helpful, took considerable time; by bookmarking them, however, I slowly created a very useful research bank, and subsequently, was able to negotiate it quite quickly. The same scenario clearly applies to creating a personalized bank of information about any subject(s). Maybe the effort is even good for us. Reading The New York Times, or watching NBC Nightly News, is like pulling a security blanket up to our chins; the carefully mediated information they purvey comforts us by the day and telling us, if not what to think, then certainly, what to think about. A home (page) of our own, with links off the media’s beaten track, could provide us with intellectually invigorating surprises daily. I still think it would be worth trying to create such a package defining this month, if just as an experiment. But, I don’t sense a great deal of enthusiasm for the effort.

1:20) 11-JUN-2001 15:35 Richard Farson

From what you say, I think that would be a fascinating experiment. I think I need to hear a bit more from you on what specifically you have in mind, Dick. Are you suggesting that we each nominate our favorite alternative sources of information, link them in some way and then make a bookmarked site of that cluster for us to use regularly as individuals who seek to be better informed? That might be a rather large cluster - maybe there will be a need for an editor! Naturally, I still desire to generate our own dialogues as the ideal source of information and opinion for the public.

1:21) 11-JUN-2001 18:27 Raymond Alden

You can surely detect enthusiasm from this participant!

Example: my Earthlink account offers me many options about my "home page" - to customize the one they give me (full of links and advertising), or "storage space" to use as a home page of my own. I haven't done any of the above; I don't really know how, but haven't been motivated to try. Perhaps others are in the same position. Let's DO it!

1:22) 12-JUN-2001 14:31 Richard Pollak

I think we should do this experiment around a specific topic. Once we've agreed on the topic, we should each fan out and find, say, five sites apiece that we feel supply valuable information and/or opinion about the topic. The next step would be to collate our sites into a makeshift home page, from which we would all explore the various links, and get a lively discussion going on the quality of the sites, on how deep (or shallow) they are - and especially on what they are telling us that the oligarchic media are not. Raymond, why don't you choose the topic, and we'll get cracking.

1:23) 12-JUN-2001 19:27 Raymond Alden

Well, I will try, but it may require more patience than is good for this conference. That's because I will be traveling for the two weeks, at least, and possibly longer. I WILL be able to reach this virtual location from time to time, but my thinking will be focused elsewhere.

Perhaps others will suggest topics while I continue to think about it, sporadically.

1:24) 14-JUN-2001 00:27 Harlan Cleveland

I very much like the idea of an experiment of the sort suggested by Richard Pollack in 1:19. But, I don't think it should be limited to an effort to link data bases from around the Internet. The group of ILF Fellows assembled by Dick Farson includes people whose analytical comments on almost any prime subject would be worth listening to.

Why not take a subject currently in the news, like the missile defense issue, or global warming and its implications for energy policy, and assemble in one teleconference not only a collection of relevant data bases but also policy analysis by ILF Fellows? (We couldn't do worse, on either of those issues, than the experts and policy-makers whose views we read about on our favorite editorial pages these days!)

1:25) 14-JUN-2001 14:33 Richard Farson

Harlan and Dick, the ILF is set up for just that kind of experiment, and I agree that our adding policy analysis to databases would be of great value. The great learning about information technology that has always impressed me is that, among leaders anyway, given a choice between access to databases and access to the opinions and interpretations of each other, they choose each other. If you want to use this conference to create such an information experiment, fine, but we could also create it (using the missile shield and/or global warming as the topics) in the Topical Issues section, and then discuss and criticize it in this conference.

1:26) 15-JUN-2001 18:37 Richard Pollak

Expanding my idea to include ILF fellows is fine by me. But first, we have to decide on a topic. Missile defense or global warming would both be good. Since I'm the (putative) leader of this conference, I'll take the plunge: global warming. I will come up with five sites in the next few days. Others, please do likewise. Then, we can create a home page, and fellows can begin weighing in.

1:27) 15-JUN-2001 19:08 Raymond Alden

And, after we've practiced with that topic, perhaps we can later try another! Good idea!

1:28) 18-JUN-2001 14:37 Richard Pollak

Hello, fellows.

Below, as promised, are five sites dealing with global warming. They are, for the most part, informational, which I thought would be a good way to begin. The sites contain many links to related sites. In coming up with five sites of your own, don’t include any of these links, but try to find new sites that expand the discussion of global warming beyond what these first five sites offer. After I’ve received sets of five from other fellows, I will contact WBSI’s Webmaster, who has kindly offered to set up a WBSI Global Warming home page for us.

Good hunting!

1) This is the Environmental protection Agency’s global warming site:

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

2) This is the Woods Hole Research Center guide to climate change: http://www.whrc.org/globalwarming/warmingearth.htm

3) This is the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/

4) This site tells us the "good side" of carbon dioxide: http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/

5) This is the Pew Center on global climate change:

http://www.pewclimate.org/

1:29) 24-JUN-2001 17:34 Richard Farson

I'm sure one of the best sites is located at UCAR, the University Center for Atmospheric Research, operated by a consortium of universities, located in a fabulous I. M. Pei building in Boulder, Colorado. The late Walter Orr Roberts, one of the favorite faculty members in our School of Management and Strategic Studies, founded and headed that organization for many years. Fifteen years ago or so, he alerted us to the dangers of global warming, and the UCAR staff has done some of the basic research on that problem.

http://www.ucar.edu  

1:30) 29-JUN-2001 14:05 Richard Farson

Dick, I think that you may have expected more debate on the question of oligarchic control of the media, but the facts that you present are rather compelling. It may be, however, that there are those among us who are less disturbed by that fact - not just because there is the alternative of the Internet, but also because they not only do not fear global corporate reach, but welcome it. And, they may not feel that the dumbing down of network and cable news is a product of concentration of media in a few hands, but comes from other bottom line reasons, or perhaps from the merging of entertainment and information and design and technology that has been predicted for a very long time. They might argue that these forces would be present, no matter what the size of the owner might be, nor how few of them there were.

1:31) 29-JUN-2001 14:39 Eleanor Goldstein

Richard, I saw your comments about Bush and education and feel that is an important issue. From what I hear, "this education president" is presiding over many cuts in education and many appropriations to the wrong places. I will be more specific in my comments at a later date. Just wondering if this message is getting through.

1:32) 30-JUN-2001 00:30 Richard Farson

One more thought, Dick. In general, I think we all see the possible dangers to democracy that the oligarchic control protends, but I wonder if you can spell out, or we can spell out, some of the specific implications. Otherwise, how can we develop policies to reduce the dangers? How do you see this working out?

1:33) 01-JUL-2001 16:27 Donald Straus

On this anniversary of the Pentagon Papers, it might be interesting to speculate on whether we would have pulled out of Vietnam without even further destruction to our national prestige and welfare if it were not for the direct power of the average citizen. Many pundits are now linking this action to the leadership of the hippy cultural revolution. But, I believe that the movers and shakers of ending that war were a different group of leaders - most of whom came from the "intellectual establishment". In my view, this might be the most significant exercise of "we, the people" power of the 20th century.

This is a hard idea to document or to express, but I think it fits into our discussion here.

1:34) 01-JUL-2001 17:08 Richard Farson

Dan Ellsberg was certainly one of the members of the establishment at one time, but became a darling of the cultural revolution. We often forget that his partner in the exposure of the Pentagon Papers was Tony Russo, who may have been closer to the heart of the revolution of the 60's and 70's. I suppose that even if the NY Times had decided not to publish them, they would nevertheless have been published, and no doubt had impact. I'm sure there are other good examples of citizen influence, but right now none come to mind that compare.

1:35) 01-JUL-2001 17:14 Richard Farson

In today's San Diego Union-Tribune, its critic-at-large Welton Jones writes an explanation of his quitting after 45 years, citing as the main reason, "anybody with enough computer to tap into the Internet can launch themselves into the criticism game. And, who is to say this isn't a better arrangement? Certainly, it's more democratic and more market-driven. Possibly, in the long haul, it will produce better criticism."

I wonder if it is truly more market-driven. To me, it would seem less so.

1:36) 02-JUL-2001 20:19 Raymond Alden

The Internet market is surely driving, but those trying have no way to corner the market in the traditional sense.

1:37) 05-JUL-2001 15:59 Richard Pollak

Fellow fellows,

I am feeling unloved!  So far, no one has chipped in to our global warming site, save Dick F. and me.  I was hoping that we all could create something that would demonstrate the power of the Internet as an alternative to the mainstream media.  I am still up for this experiment, but I need more input if it's to prove useful.  As for the Pentagon Papers, that was a fine moment for Ellsburg.  But, I thought then, and think now, that it didn't show the media in such a fine light.  Yes, the Times showed a certain moxie in publishing what DE handed them, but up to that point most of the media, including the Times for a long time, institutionally bought the Johnson Administration's official line.  This was true, even though certain reporters (Homer Bigart, David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan among them) filed skeptical dispatches.  I hope this speaks to Dick Farson's request that I be more specific in charging that the media in the past thirty years have become increasingly homogenized.  Nowhere is this now reflected more dramatically than in coverage of national politics.  The two major parties set the agenda for the debate and the press slavishly adheres to it, as if this frame were the only way to see the problems of the nation and the world.

A glance at any serious European paper shows how absurd this is.

1:38) 06-JUL-2001 00:24 Richard Farson

You are loved.  The fact that we aren't getting other sites recommended is notwithstanding.  Perhaps their reluctance is part of the same dynamic that makes them less interested in databases than in each other.  A discussion of global warming in which their opinions are expressed might be more attractive.

I am really fascinated by the homogenization of the media.  I wish I could figure out the process by which that homogenization occurs and why it would lead editors to submit to the framework supplied by the two parties.  I sort of understand it, but not really.

1:39) 06-JUL-2001 09:52 Donald Straus

Richard, I am with you in your #37 in "hoping that we could create something that would demonstrate the power of the Internet as an alternative to the mainstream media".

I also believe that one of these "somethings" is an urgent need to develop a stronger culture and familiarity with deliberative problem solving.

As Dick has said elsewhere, we need to combine and/also with either/or in our search for solutions.  And again, for me, he expressed this urgency in #38 above when he wrote: "A discussion of global warming (or I would add about anything else) in which their opinions are expressed might be more attractive" -- and again I would add -- than seeking by consensus an elegant solution.

1:40) 09-JUL-2001 19:49 Raymond Alden

Yes, Ralph, you are loved!  <g>.

Travel has inhibited my participation.  Where will I find this "global warming site"?

1:41) 09-JUL-2001 20:04 Richard Farson

Ray, your loving remark would no doubt be a bit more appreciated if you had directed it to the person who was feeling unloved--Dick Pollak, not Ralph!  Or maybe you were just kidding.  It’s hard to tell on this medium.  Anyway, we're all glad that you are in a loving mood.

The global warming site is available on the Topical Issues section.

1:42) 11-JUL-2001 20:05 Raymond Alden

Charge it up to senility!  Both are loved!  When I travel I get confused easily.

1:43) 16-JUL-2001 18:54 Hallock Hoffman

This is just to let you know that I am reading this discussion with intense interest.  I wish I had something to contribute.  It seems to me that the era of print media eminence is fading, and the replacement that gets our attention is some combination of TV and the Internet and perhaps some undiscerned system of connections, maybe cell phones.  Meanwhile, the dominance of the electronic media giants is related to the point a couple of you have made: it's so easy to tune in and feel you KNOW, when in fact, as Harlan so clearly states, we don't know and we don't even have good examples of news sources that steer clear of the two-party line, so we don't even know we don't know.

Well, enough of my not participating.  I am deeply impressed and a devoted reader.

1:44) 18-JUL-2001 02:03 Richard Farson

The lack of a full spectrum of opinion and commentary on our networks is increasingly evident, even on PBS.  In spite of the idea that the press is liberal, there is simply no true left wing representation, but plenty of right wing.  And the other day, the New York Times in an editorial criticizing Bush for his right wing leanings in judicial appointments said that ‘there should be judicial appointments that were conservative and moderate’.  Not conservative and liberal, let alone radical.

America has swung to the right, and some blame the influence on the media of the right wing think tanks--nine of the top ten are conservative.

1:45) 21-JUL-2001 22:37 Raymond Alden

Does that make them out of step with the people?  I wonder.

Who says that what we used to regard as "liberal" and "conservative" should be equally represented in the judiciary?

It's a plausible assumption, but still an assumption.  Isn't it?

1:46) 22-JUL-2001 01:55 Richard Farson

I don't think those labels should be the basis for consideration for judicial appointments, but they are.  If elected officials create litmus tests for appointments to the bench, we will not get the best minds.  For the leading newspaper to ignore the left and argue for only conservative and moderate judges is irresponsible.

And yes, they are out of step with the public.  They are not in business to reflect public opinion, of course.  But pick an issue--abortion, gun control, defense, environment, internationalism--and the public is still to the left of the talk show hosts, the think tanks, the legislators, and not only this administration, but the previous one.

Are you aware that both national and local media are saturated with right wing talk show hosts, and very few from the left?

The wealth and corporate interests of the controlling forces of the media determine this misalignment.  That is one of the dangers to our democracy of the concentration of media in so few huge corporations.

1:47) 22-JUL-2001 09:14 Donald Straus

I believe we need to re-define political decisions. Left/right and conservative/liberal are rapidly losing their meaning in my favorite "dichotomous trap".  One of the most conservative "leaders" in the Northeast Harbor community (not far from where I now live) is a fortune 500 CEO who is in political lockstep on one issue with the top labor leadership of the nation -- Globalization of Trade.  They both want to ban cheap products from low-wage countries. And of course there are other examples.

To stick my neck out, I think the more valid "dichotomies" are based in environmental planning, adversarial/collaborative decision making, the role of the public in decision making, and of course others.  While each of these do have expected adherents from the traditional liberal and conservative groups, the differences are based on quite different perceptions than the traditional ones.

1:48) 22-JUL-2001 14:23 Donald Straus

The two Richards in items 18 & 19 outlined a proposal for "inventing a format for intelligent interpretation", and "no more sound-bites".  In rereading subsequent items, I think there is real enthusiasm for such an experiment here that has been somewhat lost in the subsequent wealth of other ideas that have been added.

Am I right that Global Warming has been accepted as the preferred topic?

Am I also right that the format for achieving intelligent debate (and perhaps "understanding") is still an open issue?

Let me describe a perhaps over-simplified direction:

Some time back, I suggested that our public discussions rely too much on adversarial exchanges (sound-bite?) and need an accepted protocol for guiding the exchanges, and I mentioned the relatively new skill of facilitation.

Dick Farson responded (if I understood him, which may not be the case) with his preference for letting the participants develop their own procedures.

I think that this is a critical item of procedure which needs to be consciously accepted.

From past experience with Dick F., I am more than willing to follow his leadership on this point, but I also feel that it is important enough for some further explanation and conscious acceptance.

1:49) 22-JUL-2001 17:11 Richard Farson

I'm interested, Don, that you find enthusiastic the comments in response to Dick Pollak's suggestion that as an exercise we try to use our discriminatory capacities to assemble what we would find to be a credible list of websites on a particular subject, say global warming.  If you were to ask him now, he would say that he feels badly that he wasn't able to generate much interest in that activity.  So, he might not agree that there was enthusiastic response to his idea.  I think he has abandoned hope on that.

My only contribution (other than suggesting a good website) was to say that I hoped the site would include commentary by this group, because, like most managers, I want to know the interpretations given to subjects by people I trust and admire.

But you are certainly right that the format is still an open issue.  The exchange is taking place on the Topical Issues site under global warming.  But either here or there we would be interested in your further discussion of an accepted protocol for guiding the exchanges, particularly what you mean by facilitation.  We need all the help we can get.

1:50) 22-JUL-2001 20:50 Raymond Alden

Ah the "Rolling Present".  Excuse the shift, please.  <g>

So, Dick Farson, now that your dander is down a bit <g>, can you support the statements you make in 1:46?

I AM very concerned about the bias shown in the media that may be traceable to massive concentrations of ownership.  But, I'm ALSO concerned about the number of people who are prepared to tell us what "The American People" want.

1:51) 23-JUL-2001 12:25 Richard Farson

Ray, I reviewed my statements in 1:46 and even though my dander is down right now, I still stand by the substance of those remarks.  I'm not quite sure what bothers you about people who tell us what "The American People" want.  Is it that you are opposed to surveys, or that you don't trust them, or that politicians and others often make claims that are unfounded, such as the belief in the "moral majority"?  Or do you object to our leaders being guided by focus groups?  I could join you on some of those concerns, of course.  As a social scientist, however, I am interested in what surveys can tell us.  But I recognize that, as with every other profession, surveyors come in the usual range of competence, from good to poor to dangerous.  Or is your concern that you don't believe that the public, on practically all surveys, comes out to the left of our leaders?  Or maybe you don't believe that the reason our leaders don't act on that information is that they are indebted to wealthy special interests that run counter to what the public really wants.  Now, we are back to the concentration of power in the media--and a few minutes ago I heard that Disney, for three billion, bought up another media company, Fox Family Cable TV, outbidding AOL/Time Warner, and giving Rupert Murdoch enough cash to buy Hughes Electronics, owners of Direct TV.  Those transactions will have to pass through a regulatory review, but that review will be determined by individuals placed in those regulatory bodies by leaders who are bought and paid for.  Yesterday, that kind of regulatory review by the FCC on another transaction just gave Rupert Murdoch two more NY television stations.  The concentration of power is accelerating.

Oops, now my dander is up again.

1:52) 24-JUL-2001 00:40 Raymond Alden

Yeah, but this time I understand it completely!  <g>

“I'm not quite sure what bothers you about people who tell us what "The American People" want.”

What bothers me is that they seem to believe that they KNOW, and I don't think they do know.

I have little confidence in surveys.  Perhaps that is because I've encountered very few that seem trustworthy -- a low level of experience on my part, admittedly.

As a social scientist you can learn much from surveys -- especially if you know who took them, and how, and know something about those survey-takers.  On that, you are 'way ahead of me.

But not so far ahead that I'm prepared to concede that "The American People" stand here, or there, or whatever.  It is my impression that the people I talk with or read from (in the letters, columns, etc.) or hear about from friends stand generally to the right of where they did some years ago.

1:53) 24-JUL-2001 01:35 Richard Farson

No doubt about it, people in America have shifted right, still left of center on most issues I think, but more right than they used to be.  It has been argued that the reason they have shifted is because of the huge influence of think tanks on the media, and, as you probably know, nine of the top ten think tanks are strongly conservative.  When you see someone from a think tank on TV, it is usually someone from the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, The Cato Institute, etc.--all right wing, highly ideological and partisan.  All well funded, of course.

You're right about needing to know how a survey was done, and by whom.  But, it is a field that has produced some very good researchers.  We have one of the best, and most famous, in our Fellows group, Dan Yankelovich.  I hope he weighs in on this discussion.  It is possible to know a great deal about our society by surveying even a relatively small sample of people, if the surveyor is top notch.

I have to tell you, Ray, that even the worst surveyors are better than you are.  You are a former captain of industry, and to form your judgments you are talking to your friends, living in rural Santa Rosa, California, reading columnists??  Give me a break.  (I'm glad I know you well enough to be sure that you are smiling as you read this).

1:54) 24-JUL-2001 08:08 Donald Straus

Once again, let me suggest that the old terms, left/right and conservative/liberal need redefining before we can profitably engage in the kind of emotional jousting above [yes, Dick F., I say this with a smile :)]  Just one example: Jim Wolfensohn of the World Bank has all of the credentials of a right-winger.  From some intimate knowledge, I would call him an innovative liberal.

1:55) 24-JUL-2001 12:35 Raymond Alden

Yeah, Dick.  Even chuckling!

Besides, I'm a life-long Republican -- who has in recent years mostly voted for Democrats.  <g>

1:56) 24-JUL-2001 16:22 Richard Farson

I think one aspect of this conference that may have been disconcerting to Dick Pollak has been the lack of dispute over the main issue.  That is, it would seem that the ILF Fellows have no difficulty sharing Dick's view that the concentration of media power in an oligarchy is undesirable, and that we should come out strongly against it.  I suspect that there are members, as yet unheard from, who might dispute that, but I'm not sure what their arguments might be.

Indeed, I have not heard much to favor the "vertical integration" of these corporations, to use the euphemism applied to conglomeration, even in other sources beyond this conference.  I would like to know what the "pro" arguments, might be.  To get us started with that, I will quote from this morning's report on the new Disney acquisitions, giving them not only ABC but 16 broadcast and cable channels including ESPN, Lifetime, A&E, the History channel, plus numerous foreign television properties, movie studios, amusement parks, etc.  To explain that this is by no means the end of the building of the Disney media empire, CEO Michael Eisner and COO Robert Iger met with the press.  Here is Iger's explanation of their strategy: "In this day and age, given the huge competition that media networks all face, mostly through the proliferation of new program services...the need to better amortize program costs across multiple channels, as well as the need to aggregate viewers or eyeballs, is extreme."

1:57) 24-JUL-2001 16:38 Richard Farson

Another argument might be that the great financial resources of the conglomerates would serve the information interests of the public better by improving the quality of coverage, or by underwriting courageous journalism.  As far as I can tell, neither of those eventualities has happened.  Indeed, just the opposite.  Network journalism has become more constricted and timid, and the quality of reporting and commentary has diminished greatly.  Just take the CBS example.  When it was an independent broadcast company under Bill Paley and Frank Stanton, CBS was considered the "Tiffany Network".  This was largely due to the reputation for stellar journalism of its news division, led by Sig Mickelson, and employing Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Eric Severied, etc.  Now, even with the deep pockets of a huge conglomerate, it is like all the rest.

1:58) 24-JUL-2001 16:59 Richard Farson

Don, I don't want you to think that your persistent efforts to get us to see the flaws in partisan labeling fail to hit their mark.  I agree totally, and am a case in point.  I am not defined by those labels.  My party loyalty is shaky, I think of myself less as a liberal than as a radical, yet at the same time I favor many "conservative" causes, e.g. I believe we are greatly over-regulated--I don't believe in professional licensing, I worry that raising the minimum wage will unfairly force children out of the labor market (I wrote a book about children's rights, or the lack of them), I think protectionism is a questionable strategy in the 21st century, etc. etc. So your point is not lost on me.  I will try to be more circumspect in the future.

1:59) 25-JUL-2001 20:24 Raymond Alden

"Radical" doesn't define direction - only degree.

The arguments against conglomeration are philosophical.  The arguments in favor are financial.

Philosophical vs. financial in the short time frame is an uneven battle -- actually it's uneven in the long time frame, too, and in the other direction, but who thinks long-term these days?

1:60) 25-JUL-2001 22:29 Richard Farson

Actually, radical only means one is interested in "root causes"--but it has come to mean one is farther out on either the left or right.  I'm a radical at both ends of the continuum.

Do you think that there is any dispute about the philosophical issue in this forum?  And shouldn't we be long-term thinkers?

1:61) 27-JUL-2001 22:27 Raymond Alden

"No" and "Yes".  Our problem is what to do about it.

Strategy: Exploit the Internet in ways that are better for this purpose than has yet been done.

Tactic: (We await a stroke of genius.)

1:62) 02-AUG-2001 14:58 Richard Farson

Now that I am especially alert to it, news that the consolidation is proceeding apace seems to arrive daily.  Today, a formerly left-wing New York City radio station sold to ABC, who will turn it into ESPN sports programming.