Obama Ratchets Up His Attack on the Media

by: Matt Stoller

Mon May 19, 2008 at 18:31


On Friday, I wrote about how Obama is subtly sending out signals that he is going to reform media by emphasizing a more diverse ownership structure.  Currently, radio station ownership is mostly held by white men.  Latinos own  2.9% of all radio stations and African-Americans own  3.4% of them.  TV is even worse.  According to Free Press, "people of color own just 3.15 percent of commercial television stations in the United States... while women own just 5.87 percent of television stations."

Pledging a more diverse ownership structure is a serious challenge to the current media environment.  Today, Obama pledged to use antitrust tools to work on media consolidation.

"I will assure that we will have an antitrust division that is serious about pursuing cases," the Illinois senator told an audience of mostly senior citizens in Oregon.

"There are going to be areas, in the media for example where we're seeing more and more consolidation, that I think (it) is legitimate to ask...is the consumer being served?"

I wrote about this in November, 2007, when Obama came out with his media and tech proposals.  He's got a strong open source, almost libertarian attitude, as evidenced by his technocratic advisors and slightly more conservative stances on economic stimulus and health care.  While cautious instincts are part of his DNA, when it comes to media, they serve the public extremely well.  Unlike health care and the green economy, elites in technology are extremely powerful and progressive, so they counterbalance the more corrupt and conservative telecom and cable interests.  The Obama camp is close with Silicon Valley, which is both libertarian in general matters and progressive when it comes to technology; venture capitalists were some of Obama's first Presidential backers, and you can get a really good sense of who he is by reading this blog post endorsing Obama by Marc Andreesen, the founder of Netscape (and a Mitt Romney donor).  Google itself is willing to get into the fray, pushing back against Joe Lieberman's demands to censor Youtube.

Obama's media policies are quite progressive, and you can see the outlines of what it will take to keep the Obama camp going in a progressive direction.  The combination of activists, elites, businesses, nonprofits, and labor has been quite successful in the media reform movement.  Replicating that in health care, the green economy, and international trade will produce similar fruitful results.

It's going to be really interesting to see how Obama's administration takes on the media, and frankly, if I were a network executive, I'd be worried.  The White House and Brian Williams may find the Pentagon Pundit scandal to be nothing more than what happens on liberal blogs, but Obama is wondering if their business model is really "serving the consumer," and what the Justice Department might have to say about that.

Matt Stoller :: Obama Ratchets Up His Attack on the Media

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Ratchets Up His Attack on the Media | 29 comments
as someone who's not white and has worked for the media (4.00 / 2)
i can tell you that a progressive needs to be really careful about.  diversifying ownership along identity lines is extremely important, but it does little in and of itself to address class bias in the media.  This makes sense given  that Obama comes from  a multicultural elite and seems to demonstrate similar sensibilities to me (and believe me, there is some racism i have felt in working in the media in the u.s., though as with so much other identity stuff in "progressive spaces" it can be unstated, left in the gaps for you to figure out.)

so i wouldn't oppose something like this, but i want to see specifics before i say it's actually good, rather than just a mild improvement.

Bye Bye Obama (4.00 / 2)
He just gave himself the Kiss of Death. Guaranteed.

I've long stated that the MSM picked Obama to be our candidate thus his press honeymoon complete with praise from the likes of David Brooks et al to pump him up. And I long stated that should he become the nominee that they would turn on him in a NY Second. As we know that has already started to happen.

But now Obama is going to make the press go nuclear on him because he just made the biggest mistake one could ever make. It is a mistake that took Howard Dean from front runner to also ran almost overnight and cost him the nomination and probably the Presidency.

And that mistake is saying you are going breakup the media conglomerates. You just don't do that before you are elected. Rest assured that every, and I mean every writer and columnist, and broadcaster has got their marching orders and if they still want to be employed by the very people who Obama wants to hurt they will write what the boss wants them to write, say what the boss wants them to say, and do everything in their power that the boss gets what he wants and that is the defeat of Obama.

A costly rookie error that will haunt him from now until November. The Swift Boaters just got billions of dollars of free press when today, May 19, 2008, Obama opened his mouth.

I agree (4.00 / 2)
This seems like the sort of issue where you play nice during the election and knife the big media corporations in the back once elected.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
yeah, its like toooooootally over (4.00 / 3)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I know you're keeping your fingers crossed (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
You better keep your crossed (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Nonsense. (4.00 / 6)
The press was always going to go nuclear on Obama once they got Clinton out of the way.

McCain is the one they want, they're his base, remember?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
guaranteed? (4.00 / 1)
He just gave himself the Kiss of Death. Guaranteed.

Alright, guaranteed.  Guaranteed!

Is that a money-back guarantee?

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't dismiss him so easily... (4.00 / 3)
  ...but I do agree with your general premise, though I wouldn't be so categorical about it.

 I don't think it's the smartest public position to take anytime before November, but then again, he DID survive a two-month hurricane of horrid press coverage, and the voting public is heavily predisposed already to casting its lot with the Democratic Party. The electoral dynamics in 2008 are far, far different from those of 2004.

 It's risky, for sure. But unlikely to be fatal.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
We will see (0.00 / 0)
The same thing did kill Dean.

A 4 for actually having something of substance to say. A reasoned argument that is not afraid to acknowledge both sides of the argument.

[ Parent ]
YOU are the arbiter of substance? hee hee (4.00 / 2)
Thanks for the comedy stylings.

You have never acknowledged both sides....it's your way or the highway.

Really, what do you think you're accomplishing here?  

[ Parent ]
what the Justice Department might have to say about that (4.00 / 1)
ask John Edwards.

(fingers crossed)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

If Obama can deliver (4.00 / 4)
RADIO THAT DOESN'T SUCK he will be my hero for life.

Seriously, I remember a time when you could turn on the radio and they would play, if not great music, at least music decent enough that you didn't have to switch stations every three minutes. And I'mnot that old.

Of course this was all before Clear Channel, before the Republicans bought out the airwaves and turned them into all crap music, all the time.

Montani semper liberi

internet saved radio! (0.00 / 0)
You want some dank radio?  kexp.org.

That's a Seattle station - nonprofit - with the illest web presence in existence.

[ Parent ]
Thanks, man! (0.00 / 0)
.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
except (0.00 / 0)
- internet radio is in the process of being strangled and brought under corporate control thanks to disproportionate "artist fees" that, funnily enough, never actually reach the pockets of artists

- and now, per-play fees are being proposed for broadcast radio as well, because as we all know playing music on the radio has absolutely no promotional value. those payola schemes never happened.

all of this is coming to you courtesy of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Leahy is the sponsor of the broadcast radio royalty act, for gosh sakes. it's a classic case of an issue that sounds technical, narrow and boring, and so is left entirely to the discretion of the people who stand to make money on the outcome.

so i wonder what Senator Obama's position on all of this is.

(plus, like people are saying above, what he might do after getting into office and what he's willing to do before the election are likely not the same thing. that's a pretty long window to get a lot of crap passed.)

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

[ Parent ]
Also, KTRU.ORG (0.00 / 0)
out of Houston (Rice Univ., I think) plays stuff you will hear on no broadcast anywhere.  

As for more middle of the road, but definitely NOT clear channel flavor, there's WXPN.ORG (UPenn) in Philly and KCRW.COM (public radio out of Sacramento, I think).

Now if I can only get this stuff in my car, I'll never have to turn on the radio box again.

[ Parent ]
The Current at Minnesota Public Radio (0.00 / 0)
Don't know what yer into, but check it out

http://minnesota.publicradio.o...


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I question the wisdom of being so public about this (4.00 / 3)
   I agree 100% with what Obama is aiming at here. It's absolutely necessary and long overdue -- media consolidation is the single biggest reason our political discourse has become so debased over the last decade and a half or so. And Bill Clinton didn't help matters any with that travesty of a telecom bill he signed in 1996.

  But the elements Obama is threatening are precisely the elements that are best positioned to damage Obama's presidential run. We know that the media has fired its best anti-Obama bullet in Reverend Wright, and that Obama survived it just fine, which might be why he's feeling bold about this. But as we know, the media has no qualms about making crap up if it advances its agenda.

  Obama is no Howard Dean on the campaign trail (thank goodness; Dean's current job is far better for his skill set), so the media might not be as able to bury him quickly like they did with Dean, but this still strikes me as a chancy maneuver -- why not just keep quiet about this kind of thing until he's in the White House? It's kind of a wonky issue, not one that really resonates all that much with the general public -- there's little political cost to avoiding the issue altogether, at least publicly.

   Then again, Obama's instincts have been largely accurate throughout his campaign (though he's always been naive about the media), so maybe it's best to give him the benefit of the doubt...

   

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

There's an upside (4.00 / 1)
I disagree with the assumption of several commenters that media reform is "not [an issue] that really resonates all that much with the general public."  In fact, a very broad public outcry was key to beating back efforts by the FCC to go faster and farther with media dereg and consolidation.  

Perhaps Obama sees an opportunity to mobilize and leverage this expanding and fairly passionate dislike of media consolidation.  It is a somewhat risky strategy, but I think he can pull it off.  And, in pushing it more than most candidates would be willing to, he'll help clarify the battle lines at a time when more citizens than usual are paying close attention and are disgusted with the MSM (ABC's Charlie and Steph debate fiasco being a notable example).

And while the TV media still has lots of power and influence, the large number of viewings of Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech in relation to the numbers watching Wright's rants suggests Obama is succeeding, at least to some extent, in using Internet video (among other tools) as a counterbalance to cable and broadcast.

If this shift in relative media influence accelerates during the general election, the campaign will have achieved a big step forward in achieving the media transformation we need to get this country turned around.  

Yes, this strategy may add some elements of risk, but I think the Obama campaign is very well suited to deal with the risk while taking maximum advantage of the opportunity to reduce the corrosive influence of our mass video media.

[ Parent ]
There's a risk (4.00 / 1)
But the media aren't going to be on his side.

And declarations of war on the media can work. Cf. 'liberal media' remarks, every conservative in the past thirty years.

Nobody really likes the media and if he's antagonistic towards them publically, then the criticism that will inevitably follow will be less harmful.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Agree (0.00 / 0)
At this point, no one knows better than Obama, Dean and, yes, Hillary, the unnecessarily undue influence of media conglomerates on political discourse, for good or ill.  Mainly ill.  Exhibit A: the fact that the media didn't declare Clinton over until IN and NC, well past the actual date of expiration. Hillary wasn't done until Timmeh and G.Steph said she was.

Obama's position on this is perfectly in keeping with his economic speech in New York earlier in the season, addressing the need for re-regulation of the financial sector.  It's heartening to see consistency in his agenda.

Might be a little risky to signal this now, but if not now, when?  It's a sleeper issue for the public, and one that can be distilled simply enough: having all radio, television and newspapers owned by 6 companies, some of whom also make weapons, is pretty evidently a Bad Thing, as anyone who consumes that media (which means EVERYONE) can attest.

The very fact that we are aware of and discussing the possibility of Blowback by the media lessens the possibility of such a course succeeding (again).

[ Parent ]
This is pretty eventful news (4.00 / 6)
I've been waiting months for this. Obama has nothing to lose by signaling his intentions to reform the media. Everyone knows the media is in the bag for McCain anyway, and now that Obama has kind of planted himself in the public eye and in the middle of the Presidential race, he can dictate to them, sort of.

They will still come after him relentlessly, and twist every little gesture or comment to make him look bad, but he'll be able to talk more directly to voters through one-on-one interviews, press conferences, the internet, etc.

What I'm STILL waiting for is Democrats in Congress to start holding hearings looking at media consolidation,  antitrust violations, etc. There is NO EXCUSE for Democratic Congressmen to drag their feet on this. Democrats and their progressive policies -- universal health care, climate change, ending the Iraq War, etc. -- either get ignored or skewered on TV, and now they have it within their power to put the networks on the hot seat. There's no better time to do this than during their coverage of this campaign.

Below are the Democratic Senators on the Commerce Committee who have it within their power to call for hearings. Perhaps they can be encouraged to do so.

Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI)
John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
John F. Kerry (MA)
Byron L. Dorgan (ND)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)


Isn't it time we brought back the "Fairness Doctrine"? (0.00 / 0)
Don't we the people own the airwaves? Doesn't this problem get solved if we just bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" we lost under RayGun?

This would make it where it does not matter who owns the station, competing points of view must be aired, to show a balance to all sides.

Yes the ownership issues are skewed, but the issues that have stopped our political system from working started with the removal of the "Fairness Doctrine".  Google it, check the Wiki, it would make all of the difference in the world, and we are just ignoring it. We could not have Rush Limbaugh spouting offf without a counter balanced Rachel Maddow being able to respond to him if we had the "Fairness Doctrine" back.

What ya think, Matt?

The fairness doctrine can be gamed... (0.00 / 0)
...as it was during its last years... allowing every and any right wing whacko to challenge any common sense reporting on the radio.

The radio business will fight tooth and nail against any attempt at media fairness.  They make a lot of money off of right wing hate...  even if we could get this passed, the right wing hate machine will just move to satellite radio or whatever...  just like Howard Stern.

I certainly would like to have some progressive talk radio in my area... but, it does seem their influence has waned considerably since the Internet became popular.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
competing points of view that all... (0.00 / 0)
represent the interests of capital? :)
[ Parent ]
Thank You for Writing This (4.00 / 1)
A thoughtful and very interesting essay, as usual.  

This is exactly how we should be thinking now:  how to motivate Obama to do what we want.

Obama Ratchets Up His Attack on the Media | 29 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

blog advertising is good for you


blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox