Pols dare not challenge giveaway to media gods

0 Comments | Insight on the News, May 12, 1997 | by Donald Devine

Picture a large business quietly being given a $70 billion gratuity by the federal government. Imagine the moral outrage from the establishment media against this conspiracy to line the pockets of corporate America. But these chattering scribes of the public interest made their reputation fighting corporate greed way back in the days of the old robber barons. Today, when the beneficiary of the largess is the media itself, the silence is deafening.

Like the robber barons of yore, the three television-network giants originally invoked the sacred term "public interest" to justify the government's grant of oligopoly for privileged use of the public airways to beam their lucrative programming/advertising to the public. With limited spectrum space, whoever received it would broadcast in the "public interest," so the monopoly should be free.

While there was precious little to defend this enormous giveaway from the beginning, with the rise of multiple-outlet cable television there is none. Still greedy, the moguls forced government to require cable to carry their signal and, in the piece de resistance, six megahertz of new spectrum space was granted free to existing holders of across-air licenses with the hope they would use it to develop new "high-definition," high-clarity digital television. The space was valued as high as $70 billion. Quite a nice present.

While some members of Congress (and some reporters) were out of town for Easter, the Federal Communications Commission announced that the poor networks could use their gift billions way they want. All they have to do is broadcast digital signals "comparable in resolution to today's service" and to accept the responsibility of "public-interest programming," the definition of which it "may adopt" sometime later.

How do they get away with this superhighway robbery? This is a media ready to report the slightest blemish of any breathing thing. Even newspapers have been quite civil about the graft won by their electronic competitors. Why? Because, like the old robber barons, the new TV ones have so much power no one is willing to displease them. Former Sen. Bob Dole was one of the very few who dared to contest the multibillion-dollar giveaway. With his subsequent political demise and the lesson of TV displeasure well demonstrated, no politician has the nerve even to suggest that the taxpayer be reimbursed, or even that bidding be open to other than the oligarchy players. The bill to require bidding rather than a giveaway failed 408-16 in the House. Few took on the robber barons either, until the mass-circulation newspapers displaced them in their ability to influence the voters. Now, it is television.

It is difficult fully to comprehend the dominant power in one's own time. Probably few were aware of the political power of the railroad and financial barons at the end of the last century. In a democracy in which people can vote special interests out, quiet power is effective power. Today, the media make the president and Congress the bad guys holding all the power. But if elected officials have the power, why are they deathly frightened of the media? No media mogul is afraid of President Clinton or House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Clinton and Gingrich, however, live in constant dread of falling under media displeasure. While government officials do make the laws, their ability to maneuver is small and they basically move in the direction the media tell them is acceptable.

Today's media obsession is focused upon the evil of campaign financing. The media frenzy pushes officials to limit the candidate donation per person (currently $1,000) even smaller and to hobble the political parties with the same limits. As it is, politicians spend a fraction of what the media do to influence voters. Apparently, the media want to get politicians out of the communications business entirely to have the field to themselves. The public knows something is very wrong, but all it hears is that the problem is money. Most people do not want to contribute anyway but, by 60 to 35 percent, they oppose government financing of elections too, because they do not trust the government even if candidates agree to limit spending. By 59 to 37 percent (according to CNN/ USA Today/gallup), people do not support elimination of political ads from TV either, although they do support free time to candidates from the media.

People do not know what is wrong but sense something fishy about the media. The new poll of the People Research Center for the People and the Press reports that by 56 to 37 percent, Americans believe that media stories and reports often are inaccurate as opposed to believing that news organizations usually get the facts straight. Belief in accuracy was high as recently as 1985. In dealing with political and social issues, 53 percent believe the media tend to favor one side, as opposed to 34 percent who believe they deal fairly with all sides. Fifty-seven percent believe newspapers unnecessarily invade privacy, and 64 percent say the same about TV.