Women's Institute for
Freedom of the Press
Communication News
continued
| More Information |
|
Earlier Articles: Access and Speed: The new currencies of the digital era and the future of the Internet, by Jennifer Braudaway, WIFP V.A.M.P. Works to Expand Media Democracy, by Sara Burnes, WIFP Fast Lane Hierarchy on the Information Super-Highway, by Carissa Brooks, WIFP Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America Access and Speed: The new currencies of the digital era and the future of the Internet By Jennifer Braudaway, WIFP The future and preservation of the Internet and its vital role in contemporary society is a chief concern among media critics, scholars, reformers, consumers and the like; therefore, it is important to be aware of some of the current issues surrounding the Internet and its policy and legislation. The Internet has not only become one of the principal forms of communication and media, but also the most open and egalitarian. It has changed the way government, businesses, researchers, teachers, artists and countless other individuals go about their work and daily lives. For the public, it has provided instant and open access to information, from personal finance to health to alternative news sources, allowing for informed and self-reliant citizens. It has provided community and open forums for discussion on virtually every interest and topic, broad or specialized. It has also provided for a truly free market in which entrepreneurs, non-profits and start-up companies can compete with corporate giants. And these are only some of its benefits. As the Internet continues to grow and develop, some of the major concerns that accompany its growth center on a few key issues, in particular, access and speed. Access and speed directly affect the end-user and the way she or he interacts with the Internet. This in turn, affects the end-user’s efficiency and productivity in all things concerning his or her needs and uses for the Internet. Broadband Access: An Increasing Digital Divide Despite its giant role in propagating the Internet and its technologies, the United States now ranks 16th in the world in broadband penetration (broadband subscribers per capita) behind such countries as Israel, Hong Kong and South Korea, according to “Broadband Reality Check II,” a report conducted by Free Press, Consumer’s Union and the Consumer Federation of America. Cable and telephone companies hold a duopoly over broadband services accounting for a 98 percent share of the residential market, providing Americans little choice in service providers and forcing them to pay higher prices for slower connections. According to a Government Accountability Office study, the median number of providers available to American consumers is two, with nearly one in ten consumers having access to no providers at all. Consumers in other countries like South Korea enjoy broadband connections through fiber optic networks (versus the copper wire cable and DSL networks most widely available in the U.S.) that are 20 or more times faster and half as expensive. Less than one tenth of one percent of U.S. connections are faster than 25 megabits per second (Mbps) and only 4 percent of all U.S. connections are faster than 10 Mbps, with monthly broadband fees ranging from $37.95 to $54.95, according to the Free Press, Consumer’s Union and Consumer Federation of America report. In comparison, Japanese consumers can get a 100 Mbps connection for less than $35 per month, South Koreans can enjoy the same for around $32 per month, and 24 Mbps connections are widely available throughout Europe for similarly low prices. In addition, many Europeans can get triple play services in which broadband Internet access, cable television and telephone services are bundled into packages that cost less than most U.S. standalone broadband services. Why are Americans paying more for slower connections? The answer is simple. With incumbent cable and telephone companies dominating the broadband market, there is no competition that exists to foster better, faster services and the reduction of prices. Suggested measures to increase competition such as local loop unbundling and open access policy are deemed unfair by the incumbent cable and telephone companies, and they claim they are a hindrance to investments in new network technologies, and therefore innovation and competition. In contrast to the U.S. and according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, most OECD nations have based their policies for expanding broadband infrastructure and services on a non-discriminatory and open access framework that ensures new Internet service providers can compete with incumbents. This is made possible by the policy of local loop unbundling (LLU), which the OECD explains, “is built upon the recognition that incumbent carriers have a dominant position in the provision of local communication access by virtue of their control over the local loop,” and requires incumbent carriers to lease wholly or in part a segment of their network to competitors through bit stream, line sharing or full unbundling. LLU requires regulation to ensure incumbent providers have incentives to keep the market open, leading to the oft-cited argument by media and telecommunications corporations that regulation leads to less competition, rather than more and fair competition. It is the classic free market myth that government regulation necessarily hinders competition and that the market will always correct itself; the OECD found that in the broadband market, it is extremely difficult for new entrants to compete with incumbent service providers without open access policies like LLU. With the U.S. broadband market existing as a series of regional duopolies, big cable and telephone companies intensively lobbying congress for more and more deregulation, and the August 2005 FCC decision to remove open access requirements from DSL service, the U.S. is clearly heading in a different direction in broadband policy than most other developed nations. According to the OECD, “broadband has been viewed as important from the perspective of economic growth and productivity, and provides one of the key foundations for the development of a knowledge-based economy.” As the U.S. continues to fall further behind in broadband speed and access, the public might consider the implications this has toward America’s technological and economic future. In addition to the growing international divide, there is an increasing domestic digital divide based on income level and geographic location, with FCC data reporting that over 40 percent of U.S. zip codes have one or no DSL/cable modem providers reporting service. People living in urban areas are nearly twice as likely to have home broadband access as their rural counterparts, and according to the GAO, families with incomes of less than $30,000 are four times less likely to have broadband Internet access than families with incomes of $75,000 or above. A third of American households still have 56k modem dial-up as their only option for Internet access. Broadband essentially refers to high-speed Internet access, and with web content becoming increasingly sophisticated with its inclusion of video and audio applications, the need for speed has become increasingly important. Rep. John E. Peterson (R-PA) said in April 2006 that, “lack of broadband leads to a lack of access to information, which leads to fewer economic opportunities, which leads to lower incomes, which leads to fewer broadband options. If equal access and opportunity are what our society seeks to provide, perhaps it's time we work to close the real digital divide before it swallows a large section of our country.” Peterson was addressing the domestic digital divide between urban and rural Americans, but the argument carries over to the global arena. Once a world leader in technological development and innovation, the U.S. now lags behind. Network Neutrality: Cable and telephone companies as gatekeepers of the digital era The issue of network neutrality has recently received wider recognition thanks largely to the efforts of the media policy group Free Press, as well as progressive and public media outlets such as Mother Jones and PBS. Net neutrality is essentially the non-discriminatory or neutral treatment of all content over the Internet. Net neutrality allows users to pick and choose what content they want to access and guarantees that no matter what content they choose, whether it be a large corporate website or small niche blog, they will be able to download it at the same speed and without the intermediary role of a gatekeeper. There is still a large debate in Congress over the importance of net neutrality. As it is, the telecommunications companies – namely Comcast, AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon – plan on implementing a two-tiered traffic system for the Internet which would operate much like a toll booth, in which those content providers who pay a premium will be relegated to the “fast lane”; in other words, their content will download faster, while those who do not or cannot will remain in the “slow lane,” in which their content may take significantly longer to download. As bandwidth intensive web content becomes the norm, the telecommunications companies argue that a tiered system with bandwidth limits and prioritized Quality of Service (or fast and slow traffic lanes) will provide a solution to the network congestion continuous high bandwidth applications cause, and will recoup their costs for providing higher quality services, as well as encourage network investment and development. An opponent to net neutrality, Adam Thierer, director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, argues in his “Ten problems with net neutrality proposals” that Internet service providers have certain property rights over their services; that if they can’t expect to offset the costs of technological progress and innovation (as well as turn a profit) then there might not be any service providers to begin with, since business services to the public are ultimately there to make a profit. His contention then is that business interests augment public interests, and are therefore just as important. Advocates of net neutrality and its protection remind the cable and telephone companies of their unfulfilled promise to consumers for wider access and better technology, and their negligence in instituting that technology (i.e. higher quality fiber optic networks) which has been available to them for some time, but would drive down current broadband prices and reduce the companies’ colossal profit margins. Net neutrality advocates argue that if non-discriminatory policies like net neutrality are not preserved, the telecommunications companies will not only take on the role of Internet-gatekeeper, but the tiered system will act as a caste system in which only those who can afford the best access and distribution will get it. Additionally, it will be at the cable and telephone companies’ discretion as to which content providers will receive priority. Stanford Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig and media critic, activist and Professor of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Robert McChesney write in their Washington Post article “No Tolls on the Internet”: “Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use -- all subject to discriminatory and exclusive dealmaking with telephone and cable giants.” According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, there is legitimate potential for a multi-tiered network where Internet providers act as gatekeepers, to limit competition and consumer choice, raise consumer prices and discriminate freely among content providers. The counter-argument is that in a competitive market, if a broadband provider charges unreasonable fees or blocks certain content, users can just go to a competing service provider, and the market would therefore correct itself. The CRS notes however that, “this scenario assumes that every market will have a number of equally competitive broadband options from which to choose, and all competitors will have equal access to, if not identical, at least comparable content.” The fact that the current U.S. broadband market is dominated by a few major cable and telephone companies serves to complicate this free market response to the risks of eliminating net neutrality and other open access initiatives. A tiered system in which the haves get better and faster service than the have-nots will potentially hurt the little guy, the small business owner, the blogger, the non-profits, the independent and public media outlets, and the consumer who is trying to access them. Supporters of net neutrality argue that its replacement by a discriminatory system will ultimately demolish the democratic system the Internet has historically operated by, and once again, put the public interest at the mercy of corporate interests. The issue here again has much to do with access and speed. Telecommunications Legislation: A Call for Reform On June 8, 2006 the House of Representatives passed the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006,” known as the COPE Act (H.R. 5252), a large telecommunications bill with four major provisions addressing national franchising for video providers, network neutrality, VOIP/e911 and municipal services. Although the provision for municipal services serves the public by allowing communities to set up their own high-speed Internet networks, the bill fails to address key issues concerning open and democratic access to the Internet, including protections for net neutrality, local government and consumers. Common Cause points out that the provision for national franchising transfers the power to enforce consumer protections from local and state government to the FCC, which does not have the appropriate resources or authority to completely address consumer concerns and complaints. The provision also does not include build-out requirements which require providers to build their systems in all parts of their media markets, preventing companies from “redlining” or focusing on “high value” areas and customers at the expense of rural, low-income or minority neighborhoods. The bill provides no legal protection for network neutrality or consequences for violations of the FCC’s net neutrality policy statement, which outlines network ethics guidelines for the cable and telephone companies to follow voluntarily. The bill has been reclassified as the “Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act” to go before the Senate, after a nonpartisan amendment to the bill by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) that would have provided protections for net neutrality was defeated. The political climate surrounding net neutrality has changed significantly however since the COPE bill was passed in June, thanks largely to the Save the Internet Coalition (www.savetheinternet.com), the Free Press sponsored public grassroots campaign that began last spring and has gained considerable momentum since, attracting 1.2 million petitioners and a large public following from all ends of the spectrum, including Moveon.org and the Christian Coalition. The campaign sparked public debate about the issue despite millions of dollars in telecom lobbying and very little coverage in the mainstream news. Net neutrality was named the number one uncovered news story in 2006 by Sonoma State University’s Project Censored, which puts out an annual top ten list of important news stories that fail to make it into the mainstream news. Private organizations in support of net neutrality have joined the debate as well, starting their own campaign called It’s Our Net (itsournet.org), with such large companies in tow as Google, Yahoo and eBay, all of which owe much of their success to an open, democratic Internet. After the recent midterm elections in which Democrats won control over both the House and Senate, things may look better for net neutrality supporters. While Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), author of the ATOR telecom reform bill waiting Senate approval, and other Republicans have tried to make the issue a partisan one in Congress, according to WebProNews.com, now that Democrats are the majority in Congress, more Republicans may be willing to take a bi-partisan stance. The incoming Congress will make Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) the new chair of the House Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) the new chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees phone, cable operators and Internet companies. Both Representatives are staunch supporters of net neutrality, Dingell already announcing plans to make changes to the telecom reform bill that will clearly address net neutrality, among other things. New Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has also added net neutrality to her list of important issues. While this bodes well for net neutrality advocates, the Save the Internet coalition and others are still watching closely for any action that might be taken during the lame duck Congress. New Technologies in the Future The future course of the Internet will in part depend on the course of future relevant technologies. New technologies and services such as municipal fiber optic and wireless networks, broadband over powerline (BPL) and wireless broadband (such as WiMAX) could change things significantly for both the public and the telecom industry, by making Internet access easily available in rural and remote areas and potentially providing competition for the terrestrial incumbent telecom companies, and likewise alternative choices for consumers. These new technologies are still developing, and when and how they will affect the future of the Internet is still uncertain. What is certain is that it will take effective public policy in order for any positive changes to take place in the current broadband climate. Obstacles include legal barriers for municipal networks in many states, and of course, the need for fair competition when wireless broadband does in fact become a viable option; the dominant wireless carriers and spectrum licenses currently belong to the largest DSL providers. Sources “About the Cope Act.” Common Cause. 2006. 2 Nov. 2006. <http://www. Bosworth, Martin H. “U.S. still lags in broadband access.” Consumer Affairs. “Developments in Local Loop Unbundling.” Ed. Atsushi Umino. Organisation for Eggerton, John. “Hold off on AT&T/BellSouth, Says Dingell.” Broadcasting and Cable. Free Press, Consumer’s Union and Consumer Federation of America. “Broadband Gilroy, Angele A. “Net Neutrality: Background and Issues.” Federation It’s Our Net. 2006. ItsOurNet.org. 2 Nov. 2006. <http://itsournet.org>. Lessig, Lawrence and Robert McChesney. “No Tolls on the Internet” The Washington Miller, Jason Lee. “Democrat sweep good news for net neutrality.” Web Pro News. “Net @t Risk.” Moyers on America. 2006. PBS Online. 2 Nov. 2006. Net Neutrality Showdown. 2006. CNet News. 2 Nov. 2006.<http:// Phillips, Peter, Trish Boreta and Project Censored. “Fit to Print: The top censored news Save the Internet. 2006. Free Press. 2 Nov. 2006. <http://www.savetheinternet.com>. “Summary of Cope Act.” Tech Law Journal. 30 March 2006. 2 Nov. 2006. Thierer, Adam D. “ ‘Net Neutrality’ Digital discrimination or regulatory gamesmanship Wu, Tim. “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination.” Social Science V.A.M.P. Works to Expand Media Democracyby Sara Burnes, WIFP The Virtual Alternative Media Project (http://www.uky.edu/Libraries/vamp.html) is an online database of journals of many disciplines. Dedicated to WIFP founder Dr. Donna Allen, it was constructed under the auspices of Dr. Ramona Rush, professor of communications, and the University of Kentucky. V.A.M.P.’s website organizes alternative academic journals, organization websites, and Internet ‘zines both alphabetically and by subject. Several section headings suggest goals near the heart of WIFP’s mission, including “Gender and Race Issues & Organizations,” as well as “Media Literacy and Education,” in addition to alternative “News, Magazines, and Journalism.” V.A.M.P. does not stop there, however; the site includes a substantial section listing resources of “Environment and Ecology,” “Peace,” and “General Reference.” In addition, the top of the site features a button linking the page’s visitor to current events, the most recent of which deal with terrorism. Exploring the site, a visitor might learn how to live a greener lifestyle through Co-Op America, read about body image issues for young women in Teen Voices Magazine, check out alternative non-profit television production at Paper Tiger TV, and investigate conflict resolution through Workable Peace. Throughout the index, publications depicting all shades of the U.S. political spectrum have equal footing. Interspersed among the periodicals are media watchdog groups. All sorts of media who are “off the beaten path” have a home at V.A.M.P. V.A.M.P.’s diversity alone is not the only manifestation of its commitment to media democracy. The Project’s page provides access to organizations such as the Campus Alternative Journalism Project, Freedom of Information Center, Tibet Free Press, and Broken Pencil, “the magazine of zine culture and the independent arts.” A drawback might be that some journals are not available in their full text versions unless the user can log in as a member of the University of Kentucky community. Though the VAMP project does not focus on women’s media, some appear by virtue of their alternative status. Crossover exists between V.A.M.P. and WIFP’s Directory of Women’s Media, as sites from Hip Mama ‘zine to Feminist Majority Report to International Women’s Media Foundation are included in the Gender section. Not to be ignored, WIFP’s site and Voices for Media Democracy appear on the list. Fast Lane Hierarchy on the Information Super-Highway By Carissa Brooks, WIFP
With a computer and a simple Internet connection, anyone can have access to an unfathomable amount of information. From quiche recipes, to directions, to game scores, it has revolutionized the way we communicate, study, and shop. It has become our source for nearly everything, making pre-Internet research methods nearly absolute. Nowadays, if you mention the "Dewey Decimal System" to anyone under the age of 10, you'll mostly receive blank stares, or "get with it" chuckles. The Internet has provided a channel that allows for a free flow of new ideas and contemporary thinking not found anywhere else. It is also a great place where non-profit organizations can post their purpose and encourage further support and/or donations. But, corporations, in an attempt to "better" the Internet are attempting to set up regulations based on monetary tolls paid to the companies that provide Internet access. Internetofthefuture.org stated in its video sequence that "net neutrality = one dumb pipe." In other words, their idea of a more efficient Internet would provide for many more lanes where video streams, and medical and business communication can move more freely and quickly. They argue that with net neutrality, these communications will be forced to move along the same lanes as all of the other less substantial information that travels along this "dumb pipe," thus slowing these things down significantly. And, while this video temps its viewers by promising a much faster and much more efficient Internet, they fail to highlight some of the key issues that are present in this debate. For example, with the creation of these faster lanes, there would have to be someone somewhere who is deciding what information belongs in the fast lane, and what does not quite make the cut. Sound familiar? This is what print media corporations have been doing for years, and this is why the Internet has been such a fantastic communication tool for those organizations who aren't deemed "important enough" by the print media. Sure, the creation of these new and improved fast lanes will make it much more convenient to access information from corporations like AOL, Time Warner, and every other organization that pays their dues, but, this creation also steals the democratic characteristics of the Internet as we know it. Handsoff.org states that with this corporate intervention, they would work hard to bring high-speed connections into rural areas which are predominantly lacking in these connections (http://www.handsoff.org/). And, while this sounds like a pleasant venture, I can't help but feel skeptical. They provide these areas with this service, but their access to the Internet would be censured by speed making it a nuisance to view any website that did not pay a toll to broadband corporations. So, while telecom is hiding under the guise of a generous act, they are also robbing these people of their democratic right to cyber information. There is also speculation that an addition of "VIP" lanes would allow for a faster response to emergencies, such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks, because this information would move in faster lanes that wouldn't contain spam information (http://www.handsoff.org/). However, is it not true that this spam information would also have access to these lanes if they have the money to pay for it? So, yes, it would be nice for this type of information to move quickly to all corners of the Internet, however, it is unrealistic to expect perfection. While it would be fantastic for doctors to be able to communicate more efficiently with their patients, this convenience would come at a pretty penny. And, if they were not willing to pay this price, they would be most likely scattered among the slower lanes of "have-nots." Another defense for the elimination of net neutrality is that the government regulations would prohibit large companies to build fast lanes and to move ahead in the cyberspace race (http://www.handsoff.org/). However, this is exactly what smaller organizations point to as the primary hindrance of a democratic communication system. Corporate betterment of communication systems prevents non-corporate communication, because it renders them less efficient, and, in this case, slower. If this network neutrality were prevented, the act of blogging would become much more complicated and difficult. Handsoff.org runs claims that there would be no threat to the blogging realm of the Internet because the websites that house the blogging sites, such as Google and Yahoo, would be willing to pay for faster service. However, smaller blog sites, such as WIMN online, are not mentioned in their argument. They fail to state that while large Blog sites like Blogger.com would remain influential, smaller site such as WIMN, which is run by Word Press (which is not associated with any large corporations), would fall victim to a competitively slower connection. Corporations responded to network neutrality defense by stating that they will be there to serve customers and not to hinder their Internet abilities by limiting their access to varying web sites (http://www.handsoff.org/). So, are we supposed to believe that these corporations have somehow evolved to not be focused so much on profits and more on their customers needs? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that I buy that type of speculation. Handsoff.org points to the previous AOL/ Time Warner merger in which people feared that they would limit their customers access to varying news sources such as Newsweek. They state that "AOL-Time Warner knew then that doing so would be terrible business and would result in massive bad publicity. And they still know this — Time Warner Cable is a big, big provider of Internet access, and they’re happy to let you visit whatever news source you like best" (handsoff.org). Yeah, they will let you visit any new source that you like as long as you are willing to wait for their website to upload. I would like to also mention the importance of paying attention to the language that is used by these web sites and advertisements on both sides of the argument. On freepress.org, they ask, "what if AT&T and Verizon blocked you from viewing your favorite podcasts and blogs? BellSouth cut off your net phone because you weren't using their service?" Words like "block" and "cut off" are a little harsh in reference to the corporations' intentions. To be fair, these corporations and anti-government legislation organizations have stated that they do not intend to block or prohibit their customers from using public web sites, they simply intend on placing paying websites in a faster lane. Although this does not “block” our access to other web sites, it does deem them less accessible, meaning slower and less desirable by the American public. This would, in turn, rob the Internet of its democratic ideals, creating a sort of hierarchy where only patient people would take the time to view the less accessible Internet sites. On the other side of the argument, handoff.org states that legislation on network neutrality would be considered "preemptive," and thus unnecessary. This statement appears to disguise certain evidence we have on this topic. In previous print media mergers and corporate takeovers, a slow decline in plural news sources has occurred. In other words, print media from people who work for causes other than profit such as women’s groups and groups of people of color have slowly become overshadowed by repetitive corporate publications such as Time Magazine and Newsweek. Sure, these non-corporate publications are still out there, but you rarely find them next to Cosmopolitan and Maxim at the newsstands. If this is the case, the word "preemptive" seems inefficient. It appears as if the corporations are simple calling it as such so that they can change the Internet indefinitely, making it nearly impossible to return to a democratized source should authorized legislation pass. So, although this elimination of net neutrality would not "cut off" our access to web-sites, it would deem non-paying web sites inconvenient and inefficient, making it difficult for Americans to view these slower pages. Well, then, what can you do to defend your democratic rights to Internet access? Just as in any important political movement, it is important to stay informed on both sides of the argument. There are thousands of web pages and blogs about this topic that are not monetarily supported by major corporations or organizations available who provide a less bias stance. You can also write your local congressperson telling them that you would like to maintain your democratic right to Internet access. Some sources that you might want to look at are: Arguments for net- neutrality: http://www.freepress.net/ Arguments against net-neutrality: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2006/tc20060316_119464.htm Unbiased articles: http://www.artsandmedia.net/cgi-bin/dc/newsdesk/2003/12/02_net_neutrality Works Cited: Free Press. 2006. Free Press and Free Press Action Fund. 29 June 2006. Hands Off the Internet. 7 July 2006. Hands Off the Internet. 29 June 2006. The Future of the Internet. 29 June 2006. <http://internetofthefuture.org/>. SavetheInternet.com Coalition Statement of Principles We believe that the Internet is a crucial engine for economic growth and democratic discourse. We urge Congress to take steps now to preserve network neutrality, a guiding principle of the Internet, and to ensure that the Internet remains open to innovation and progress. Network neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment. Without it, the Internet is at risk of losing the openness and accessibility that has revolutionized democratic participation, economic innovation and free speech. From its beginnings, the Internet was built on a cooperative, democratic ideal. It has leveled the playing field for all comers. Everyday people can have their voices heard by thousands, even millions of people. Network neutrality has prevented gatekeepers from blocking or discriminating against new economic, political and social ideas. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=act
By Peter Phillips Mainstream media is the term often used to describe the collective
group of big TV, radio and newspapers in the United States. Mainstream
implies that the news being produced is for the benefit and enlightenment
of the mainstream population-the majority of people living in
the US. Mainstream media include a number of communication mediums
that carry almost all the news and information on world affairs
that most Americans receive. The word media is plural, implying
a diversity of news sources. New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and
Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi Can we trust the news editors at the Washington Post to be fair and objective regarding news stories about Lockheed-Martin defense contract over-runs? Or can we assuredly believe that ABC will conduct critical investigative reporting on Halliburton's sole-source contracts in Iraq? If we believe the corporate media give us the full un-censored truth about key issues inside the special interests of American capitalism, then we might feel that they are meeting the democratic needs of mainstream America. However if we believe - as increasingly more Americans do- that corporate media serves its own self-interests instead of those of the people, than we can no longer call it mainstream or refer to it as plural. Instead we need to say that corporate media is corporate America, and that we the mainstream people need to be looking at alternative independent sources for our news and information. ____ Peter Phillips is a professor of Sociology at Sonoma State
University and director of Project Censored a media research organization.
www.projectcensored.org Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press |