Behind "Big Money and Politics"
MEDIA BEAT by Norman Solomon
TIME MAMGAZINE recently offered some notable journalism. A 14-page investigative
report--"Big Money and Politics: Who Gets Hurt?"--provided extensive
coverage of how government decisions really get made in the nation's capital.
The cover story, by Donald Barlett and James Steele, was terrific. But the
mass media's response to the new exposé was dismal.
Barlett and Steele don't bother with the fluff and psychoblather that dominate
political reporting. They bypass the styles and personal traits of politicians.
Instead, in the Feb. 7 issue of Time, the two journalists illuminate a process
that normally remains in shadows. Money doesn't talk. It screams. And it
gets heard.
The crux of the real story is that "Washington extends favorable treatment
to one set of citizens at the expense of another," Barlett and Steele
write. For those with megabucks behind them, the doors swing wide. For others,
the portals of democracy are unlikely to open more than a crack. "If
you know the right people in Congress and in the White House, you can often
get anything you want. And there are two surefire ways to get close to those
people: contribute to their political campaigns. Spend generously on lobbying."
As a case study of how big money purchases big favors, Time devotes several
pages to shrewd efforts by Carl Lindner, the chair of Chiquita Brands International.
He poured a few million dollars into the coffers of key politicians in Washington,
while US trade policies vital to his firm's banana fortunes hung in the
balance.
People who send large checks to politicians and top lobbyists "enjoy
all the benefits of their special status," Barlett and Steele explain.
For example: "If they make a bad business decision, the government
bails them out. If they want to hire workers at below-market wage rates,
the government provides the means to do so. If they want more time to pay
their debts, the government gives them an extension. If they want immunity
from certain laws, the government gives it."
Meanwhile, lacking deep pockets, most Americans "pick up a disproportionate
share of America's tax bill ... pay higher prices for a broad range of products,
from peanuts to prescription drugs ... pay taxes that others in a similar
situation have been excused from paying ... are compelled to abide by laws
while others are granted immunity from them. . . ."
The well-documented account of "Big Money and Politics" couldn't
be more timely. As Barlett and Steele note, "In this presidential election
year, companies and industries that hope for special treatment in the new
decade are busy making their political contributions and their connections."
The fact that such intrepid journalism made a splash in Time magazine is
encouraging. But other media--including wire services, big daily newspapers,
and broadcast networks--failed to pick up on the superb cover story. Days
later, no interview with Barlett or Steele had aired on any major TV or
radio outlets. (One segment was apparently in the works for CNN, also owned
by Time Warner.) In effect, national media reacted with a yawn.
Compare that non-response to what happened in mid-December--eight months
after the Columbine High tragedy--when Time printed a cover story about
videotapes made by the young killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The
night before publication, CNN aired an interview with Timothy Roche, the
Time reporter who had seen the videos. Within hours, interview footage of
him appeared on dozens of local TV newscasts across the country. But that
was just a start.
The day that the magazine went on sale, ABC's "Good Morning America"
featured a long interview with Roche. ("Good to have you here,"
host Charles Gibson greeted his guest. "I was just reading your excerpts.
It strikes me these boys were psychopaths. But your impression?") Simultaneously,
on NBC's "Today" show, Katie Couric discussed the same subject
at length with another Time reporter, Nancy Gibbs. Later in the day, CNN
repeatedly aired portions of its interview with Roche, while CNBC used tapes
of both Roche and Gibbs.
Not to be outdone by commercial shlockmeisters, National Public Radio's
"All Things Considered" devoted a segment that evening to an interview
with Roche, who reprised his description of the killers' videos. "At
times you think they must be high on drugs," he said, "and at
times you think they must be evil or possessed."
That's how you might view the gatekeepers who decide which stories should
reverberate in the national media's echo chamber.
E-Vandalism & the Power to be Heard
A SPECTER is haunting cyberspace--the specter of e-vandalism. Media alarms
have been loud recently: electronic commerce is under siege. A virtual crime
wave threatens to wreak havoc on the World Wide Web. Any site is vulnerable,
no matter how big.
Let's not bother to shed tears for the likes of E*Trade, Amazon.com, and
Buy.com. Sympathy seems misplaced for massive outfits that are blights on
the Web as they strip-mall every pixel in reach. And I can't summon much
empathy for the targeted website run by the Time Warner subsidiary CNN,
a cable giant with millions of viewers every day.
But at the same time, even when electronic attacks occur against corporate
sites with little or no socially redeeming value, I won't cheer for cyber-saboteurs.
Efforts to censor or block communication are odious--whether based in government
offices, corporate suites, or secret hacker locations. What we need is not
less but more speech: and especially more diverse speech.
Predictably, officials in Washington responded feverishly as FBI anti-hacking
squads moved into action. The aggrieved firms were mostly huge players in
e-commerce and mass media, accustomed to always reaching large numbers of
people. So, the cyber-disruptions were egregious. "We are committed
in every way to tracking down those who are responsible," Attorney
General Janet Reno told a news conference.
Top law enforcers are eager to catch the culprits who interfere with the
communication systems of well-capitalized enterprises. But there is no search
for clues as to why millions of Americans are excluded from big media if
they happen to be poor. What about their right to be widely heard--via TV,
radio, major print outlets, or heavily trafficked websites?
The muzzling of voices that lack corporate backing is so routine that we
do not expect to hear them in the first place. And no official in Washington
declares a commitment to "tracking down those who are responsible."
We don't see any investigative units rushing to probe the constraints on
the freedom of low-income people to be heard.
If it's going to provide nutrients for the flowering of democracy, speech
can't be bottled up. In this country, just about everyone has freedom of
speech, at least in a narrow sense. But what about freedom to be heard?
Tacit censorship is especially bad for those who live inside the nation's
jails and prisons. As a practical matter, the nearly 2 million people behind
bars in this country rarely have direct access to the public's eyes or ears.
We don't expect to see them exercising their First Amendment rights on television
or hear them expressing their views on the radio, or see their websites
for that matter. Yet America's prisoners have freedom of speech--they can
always talk to the walls.
"The most beautiful thing in the world is freedom of speech,"
the Greek philosopher Diogenes remarked about 24 centuries ago. He neglected
to mention freedom to be heard.
In the here and now, theoretical assurances about freedom of speech are
presumed to suffice. Politicians mouth the requisite platitudes. Generally,
we nod in agreement or nod off in boredom.
Facing the wrath of corporate America and government agencies, the insurgent
hackers now making headlines are living dangerously. Their slight interference
with the rights of corporations to be widely heard is a definite no-no.
Too bad we haven't been able to summon such outrage against the social order's
continual interference with the rights of poor people to be heard by the
public.
In effect, a price tag is dangling from the First Amendment. Those with
deep pockets enjoy its full freedoms in news media. Those with empty pockets
are pretty much beside the point; the constant blocking they face creates
no headlines and sparks no vows of remedial action from Washington's movers
and shakers. Just another typical day in the media neighborhood.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread,"
the writer Anatole France commented a century ago. Today, the media terrain
offers a similar kind of equity.