Text of a speech delivered at the Rebellious Media Conference, this weekend in London.
Good media must be free from internal organizational structures and policies that would compromise its ability to deal with its subject matter honestly and fully.
This means good media must not be racist or sexist, which I think everyone here likely understands and tries hard to act on by ensuring that media not have racist and sexist divisions of labor, income differentials, and assumptions - but nor can good media be classist because, if it is, then it will not deal well with issues of class in society.
But not being classist means good media can't be profit seeking, as that would lead to it being unable to honestly address matters of private ownership and profit seeking.
Not being classist means good media can't sell advertising thereby biasing toward audiences with disposable income and away from content that will diminish attentiveness to ads, much less challenge commercialism.
Not being classist means good media can't be organized to empower and enrich a few who occupy elite slots, while disempowering and paying much less to those occupying subordinate slots. Any media that has that old corporate division of labor will not deal well with challenging that type arrangement, or even with noting its existence.
Good media also cannot have top down decision making, whether by owners or by those who monopolize empowering work. If media has top down decision making, it will not do a good job with issues of power, and particularly self management.
We don't have good mainstream media, and we won't until we have transformed all of society, but we can win changes that move mainstream media in a desirable direction consistent with our long run aims
A good mainstream media program here in the UK, or anywhere else, needs to focus on:
n winning changes in accord with reducing and eventually eliminating private ownership,
n winning changes in accord with challenging and eventually overthrowing the old division of labor to ensure that all workers are comparably empowered,
n winning changes challenging top down decision making and, in its place, moving toward workers self management,
n winning changes reducing and finally eliminating ads as a revenue source, and
n winning changes reducing income differentials among workers and finally achieving equitable remuneration.
However the above program will have a hollow ring if our own media aren't practicing what we preach for the mainstream - and all too often they aren't.
Our media typically aren't for profit, but they do have donors largely in command.
They do have the old division of labor, and internal class division.
They do have top down decision making by those who monopolize empowering work, and those with their hands on funding.
They do take ads, and they do have a wide disparity in wage levels.
What Are We To Do?
I suggest a three pronged campaign.
First, we have an international campaign called: Press the Press
The campaign demands labor sections, peace sections, women's sections, and so on, in newspapers and other media.
And it demands that these new sections be staffed by activists with experience addressing the topic - and operate in an anti classist manner.
This means demanding self managed decision making by employees in these divisions.
And it means demanding remuneration only for how long people work, how hard they work, and the onerousness of conditions some may bear.
And it means getting rid of the old division of labor by dividing up empowering work among everyone so that each worker has a comparably empowering work experience - I call this balanced job complexes.
And finally, as much as is now possible, it means polling the actual needs of readers/viewers, not financial bottom lines, including not having ads, but accepting donations.
Then for our own Alternative Media we have the second part of our effort, A Media Rectification Campaign.
This addresses the flaws in our media structures - urging our media to constructively install workers self management, equitable remuneration, balanced job complexes, and a non market logic that rejects selling users to advertisers.
Finally, the third campaign I would suggest is one of Alt Media Creation - which aims at creating alternative mass media also with new classless internal structures, quickly becoming for that reason a model with which to legitimate the Press the Press campaign.
I believe that this combination - Press the Press, Alternative Media Rectification, and Alternative Media Creation all guided by anti racist, anti sexist, and anti-classist vision and all seeking institutional structure in tune with its values would not only go a long way to addressing contemporary media problems, but would also serve as a model for campaigns regarding other parts of society.
If this is true, we should act on the suggestion. If it is false, then we need to come up with some better way to address problems of media. For surely these problems are among the most important we face in the effort to reach out and develop massive, informed movements to create a new world.
A fourth prong...
By Szczepanczyk, Mitchell at May 03, 2013 13:36 PM
Not many radicals I know get involved in the policy front, or even know about basic policy details, much to their detriment. When they're involved in media efforts, it's usually after the fact to protest one or another outlet, and don't even know about further policy-related directions such activism can take. An example from recent experience: activists in Chicago in 2012 regularly protested the Chicago radio station WLS because it airs the program of right-wing radio show host Rush
Limbaugh. Limbaugh had made incendiary remarks against a noted reproductive-rights activist, Sandra Fluke. Sure, protests could be seen outside, but they didn't take some very basic follow-up actions: nobody went into the station to view the station's public file (which by law must be made available to anyone upon request during normal business hours), nobody as far as I know filed an informal objection with the Federal Communications Commission (and it was a perfect opportunity to do so since Chicago radio stations had their broadcast licenses up for renewal in 2013). To be fair, such stations had almost no risk of losing their license, but such comments are made increasingly available online, and reflect a black mark against stations that can be used for follow-up activism still.
Radicals should get involved in pressing on the policy front. Too often policy work is mired in narrow frameworks of markets, audience share, and corporate diktats. An injection of different and wider perspectives on media policy, and involving those in follow-up actions could be a tremendous boon, especially where media help shape activist efforts in the public mind (for example, the success of Occupy Wall Street was due in no small part in that they were able to win the grudging respect of the corporate media in the United States and elsewhere). We are in, as Bob McChesney terms it, a critical juncture in media policy: what happens in the next few years regarding media (especially the internet) will play a significant role what follows, and that could extend well beyond media to activism, society, and (with the climate crisis threat looming ever larger) the planet as a whole.
The wins and improvements in the United States on the media policy front are formidable in the past decade since I got involved in media policy activism: We won a long-overdue national low-power FM radio opportunity, we were able to block FCC attempts at dramatic corporate mergers, we were able to preserve net neutrality and enshrine a (flawed but present) policy on net neutrality, we helped millions of people by winning a months'-long delay of the digital television transition. The more people get involved on media policy, and bringing newer and more diverse perspectives to media policy fights, the better our chances for success, not just in the United States but potentially worldwide.
Reply this comment
Re: A fourth prong...
By Albert, Michael at May 03, 2013 14:14 PM
Without re-reading the whole piece - I notice that the third prong was press the press... I don't see how what you are suggesting isn't part of that - I certainly intended press the press to mean fighting for improvements in existing media - which obviously includes what you call media poicy...or meant to, at any rate.
Reply this comment