EMAIL
PRINT
48 COMMENTSShare and save this post:
Also in MediaCulture
What Happens When Blogs Go Mainstream?
Annalee Newitz
A Heathen's Guide to the Rapture
Jim Gerard
Media's Political Coverage Like Kindergartners Playing Telephone
Megan Garber
Misogyny Is America's True National Pastime
Bob Herbert
Press No Longer Qualified To Help Us Pick a President
Eric Boehlert
A small group of activists in the rural northeastern corner of Tennessee in the United States persuaded their local public radio station, WETS, to start broadcasting the progressive news-hour Democracy Now two years ago. This pocket of Appalachia would seem to be unwelcoming territory for such an endeavor since the economically depressed farming and mining region votes overwhelmingly Republican -- by as much as 75 percent in the last presidential election -- and is, according to Joseph Fitsanakis, organizer of Democracy Now Tri-Cities (DNTC), "the kind of place where 30 years ago you couldn't really do anything politically unless you were a Klan member."
And there was an immediate response; some donors to the mostly listener-supported radio station, which is a partnership between East Tennessee State University and the listeners, warned that continued donations would depend on Democracy Now being taken off the air. It could have been much worse; Fitsanakis points out that in this part of the country, political activism has sometimes been met with personal attacks, including bullets through windows and dog poisonings. "People that got involved in organizing mining, the unionists, have a lot of that kind of story to tell you."
One of DNTC's main objectives is to have a network of vocal supporters in place in case a campaign is launched against the program. But Democracy Now seems to have a good chance of surviving on its own merits. Despite the early objectors, overall reaction has been, according to WETS director Wayne Winkler, "most gratifying ... The positive response has far outweighed the negative." Although there has been some backlash against the program, "we lost track of the numbers of people calling in to say they became first-time contributors because of Democracy Now." It is now one of the most successful fund-raisers for the station.
Thanks to such grassroots organizations, the broadcast reach of Democracy Now's "War and Peace Report" has been expanding in the United States at a remarkable rate: An average of two radio or television stations now add the show to their lineup each week. Its informal network combines university, listener-supported National Public Radio (NPR) and low power radio stations; with satellite and public-access cable television stations; as well as the internet, where it is offered in video, audio and text format. When the show began broadcasting out of New York 12 years ago, it was aired on about 30 stations; today that is approaching 700. Some of the program is translated into Spanish and aired on 150 stations, mostly in Latin America.
This rapid growth is a testament to a widespread desire for the critical journalism and extended, banter-free discussion that characterizes its broadcasts. Like mainstream morning or evening news programs, the show can be relied upon for a summary of the day's events. But unlike them, Democracy Now takes a critical stance toward its subjects, interrogating the policies and statements of those in power, regardless of party affiliation. Amy Goodman, the executive producer and primary host, is fond of quoting a comment by reporter I.F. Stone to a group of journalism students: "If you're going to remember two words, remember these: Governments lie."
The heterogeneity and financial autonomy of the outlets offers the world a model of broad-based and independent media networking. Bill Moyers, perhaps the only critical journalist on U.S. broadcast television, recently praised the program's "network that is not an institution." But contrary to many recent independent media endeavors, it is not merely internet-based. Robert McChesney, media scholar and founder of the reform organization Free Press, argues: "What really distinguishes Democracy Now ... has been the success of their enterprise in the last 10 years, going from being a program on a few community stations in the U.S. to having now an enormous audience on a network they've cobbled together."
Still, Democracy Now remains at the margins of media because its coverage is routinely dismissed as partisan, despite being the sole focus of a not-for-profit organization that is not affiliated with any political party or organization and that receives no financing from advertisers, corporations or the government. Before moving to rural Tennessee, Fitsanakis worked with a group in Nashville trying to bring the program to the airwaves there. "We organized a huge petition drive, we got 3,000 to 4,000 signatures ... and the station just basically told us, 'We don't care how many signatures you get, this is too partisan for our area, end of story.'"
Alternative top stories
The accusation of partisanship is best understood in the context of the ongoing consolidation of U.S. media into the hands of a few large corporations, which spend millions lobbying the five members of the Federal Communications Commission, upon whom they rely for friendly regulatory policies. This process intensified in the 1990s with measures enacted under President Bill Clinton. According to Eric Klinenberg, professor of sociology at New York University, "the government did not so much deregulate the market as reregulate it," allowing "big media companies [to] expand and consolidate ownership across outlets." The Telecommunications Act of 1996 had especially dramatic effects on radio, allowing a single media company to own eight or more radio stations in a community.
See more stories tagged with: journalism, mainstream media, alternative news, independent news, democracy now
Danielle Follett teaches at Paris-VIII university, and Thomas Boothe is a photographer and film director; they would like to thank David Ramm for his help in researching this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment