MEDIA BEAT
Watchdogs Have a Blind Spot--for Themselves
I've just read a stunning new report titled "Off the Record: What Media Corporations Don't Tell You About Their Legislative Agendas." Unfortunately, the information in it will not be coming to a television set near you.
In the hours after release of the report, the big cable TV networks were devoting lots of live coverage to breathless stories about tragic deaths that occurred years ago. Yet again, mighty news operations focused on JonBenet Ramsey and Princess Diana. And none of the outlets were more transfixed with those stories than CNN--owned by Time Warner, the largest media conglomerate.
As it happens, Time Warner figures prominently in "Off the Record," a carefully researched document from the nonprofit Center for Public Integrity. "No media corporation lavishes more money on lobbyists or political campaigns than Time Warner," the report explains. "The media giant spent nearly $4.1 million for lobbying last year, and since 1993 has contributed $4.6 million to congressional and presidential candidates and the two political parties."
For Time Warner, which has shelled out $15.77 million for lobbying since 1996, the stakes are high along Pennsylvania Avenue. Right now, the company is awaiting federal approval of its merger with America Online. Many other media firms are also accustomed to finding gratification in Washington as regulators decline to regulate.
In theory, broadcasters hold licenses to use the public airwaves in the public interest-but despite all the profit-driven junk on TV and radio, the Federal Communications Commission doesn't hesitate to renew those licenses.
Meanwhile, under the guise of protecting "intellectual property," huge multimedia companies have developed legal mechanisms to tighten their grip on what passes for popular culture. And sometimes, the lobbying goals of media corporations extend into areas that might surprise us.
"Last June, the Senate joined the House in passing legislation to repeal estate taxes," the center's report noted. "The measure was strongly supported by some well-known family-owned publishers." Such maneuvers usually take place behind the scenes.
Powerful media outfits fight "against restrictions on tobacco advertising in print and alcohol advertising on the air, for eliminating the FCC's rules designed to prevent the concentration of the public airwaves and the press in too few hands, and to block any attempt to give candidates free air time, a move that could reduce the cost of political campaigns."
What's up with the FCC while all this frenetic lobbying is underway? Well, it seems that many of the staffers at this watchdog agency are all too happy to keep rubbing up against the legs of media titans. According to the center, "Federal Communications Commission employees were taken on 1,460 all-expenses-paid trips sponsored by media corporations and associations since 1995, costing a total of $1.5 million."
Elected officials and media outlets are apt to seem independent of each other, but the ties that bind are sturdy and longstanding. Politicians crave positive media coverage, and the corporate parents of news organizations are determined to prevent government actions that would crimp the flow of mega-profits. Compared to the riches gained by media firms, the money paid to sway decision-makers in Washington adds up to little more than peanuts.
So, in context, the influence-buying pattern documented by the Center for Public Integrity should not be surprising: "Since 1996, the 50 largest media companies and four of their trade associations have spent $111.3 million to lobby Congress and the executive branch of the government."
And media conglomerates can look forward to the next presidency. Al Gore and George W. Bush each received "more than a million dollars in political donations from media interests" during the past seven and a half years, $1.16 million for Gore and $1.07 million for Bush.
"Off the Record" includes plenty of important revelations that will not be televised. But the whole sordid story is available to those who go to <www.publicintegrity.org> and click on "Center Reports." It will make a lot of people mad.
Among those who already sound angry about the emerging media monopoly is former CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite, whose comment provides a fitting epigraph to the report: "Our big corporate owners, infected with the greed that marks the end of the 20th century, stretch constantly for ever-increasing profit, condemning quality to the hindmost . . . compromising journalistic integrity in the mad scramble for ratings and circulation."
Dr. Laura Gets a TV Show--But at What Cost?
After many months of controversy over her anti-gay statements to millions of radio listeners, Dr. Laura ascended the airwaves to an even higher and mightier pulpit. Her crusade has reached televisionland.
Over the summer, Schlessinger held onto the misconceptions that led her to describe homosexuality as "a biological error" manifested by "deviants." Meanwhile, she tried some damage control--but couldn't let go of her bigotry.
In a July interview with Time magazine, she insisted: "Not being able to relate normally to a member of the opposite sex is some kind of error. I do not see that as insulting at all. It is a statement of biological fact."
Actually, it's nothing of the kind. Dr. Laura is about as scientific as William Jennings Bryan was at the Scopes trial, thumping the Bible as a backbeat for old prejudices. Fortunately, these days, most clergy are far more enlightened.
"The anti-gay beliefs you espouse on a regular basis--that homosexuality is 'deviant' and that gays can and should be cured--are entirely outside the mainstream of scientific thought," said an open letter to Schlessinger, signed last February by more than 100 religious leaders, along with heads of medical, child-welfare and civil rights groups.
Dr. Laura should be known as "Dr. Ignorant." Her persistent claim that being gay amounts to being ill has been repudiated by such organizations as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association.
Yet it seems that Dr. Laura is enmeshed in her own rhetoric, which isn't just inflammatory--it's also very harmful. Using the mass media to denigrate gays is especially injurious to young people.
The open letter that Schlessinger received (and evidently ignored) seven months ago emphasized the point: "Nowhere are the consequences of anti-gay feelings more apparent than in the high number of suicides among gay youth. . . . While suicide is the ultimate consequence of homophobia, studies find that gay youth--and youth who are perceived to be gay--are more likely to get beat up, feel isolated, and have trouble in school."
Right now, Dr. Laura is a public health hazard.
Many of her fans have the impression that Schlessinger is some kind of doctor, but her degree is in physiology. Whatever her credentials, she excels at passing judgment, swiftly and rigidly. Dr. Laura condemns anyone whose sexual actions--homosexual, heterosexual, or whatever--don't adhere to her line. And Dr. Laura's daily television show offers more of the same.
"I'm trying to teach morals, values, ethics, and principles," Schlessinger said in late summer, adding that her TV program scored with test audiences: "They liked it more and more when I was talking right into the camera, giving people the concept of what's right and wrong on a certain issue."
As Chicago Tribune television critic Steve Johnson has noted, "the radio show seems to consist of some fairly damaged people seeking quick answers from someone who barely has time to grasp even the basics of their situations."
With perhaps undue optimism about the sensibilities of the nation's viewers, Johnson commented: "It is hard to imagine the God-like benedictions and upbraidings that Schlessinger dispenses on her radio show going over well on TV."
Under pressure from gay rights advocates, several major advertisers--including Procter & Gamble, Priceline.com, Sears, and AT&T--stopped sponsoring the Dr. Laura radio program. But so far, Dr. Laura has been able to sustain the momentum of her show-biz bandwagon. Despite all the efforts to block it, she remains on a roll.
Days before the Sept. 11 premiere of Dr. Laura's syndicated TV show, some of her adversaries were striving to put the best face on recent events. For example, the Horizons Foundation issued a news release saying that "several gay rights activists and business leaders saw the public and corporate backlash against Dr. Laura's homophobic stances as a turning point for attitudes toward gays and lesbians."
Perhaps. But most of the way through 2000, the fortunes of Dr. Laura indicate that some of the largest media institutions in the country are still willing to heavily promote national broadcasts that disparage the humanity of certain people because of their sexual orientation.
And too often, it's easy to be complacent--if the poisonous barbs aren't aimed directly at us.
_________________________________________________
--Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."