William A. Barrett
San Jose, CA
November 15, 1998
|
|
The Hon. Tom Campbell
2442 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter regarding your views the impeachment inquiries. We differ to some extent in our opinions, but I appreciate the care and attention that you have given to this issue. Perhaps you will have an opportunity to participate in the process. I feel that it needs more voices of moderation and wisdom such as your own.
I'd like to address another issue that you might want be
persuaded to tackle. I realize that
it's not in line with your committee activities, but one never knows where
these things lead. It has to do with better regulating the activities of
commercial television.
I've long been fascinated by just where people get their ideas. I'm a person who likes to check out my sources and search for the real truth behind issues. I'm also disappointed that so few others share my views.
I believe I already know the answer to that question, having observed the life styles of my relatives and friends. Mostly, they get their ideas from network television, mostly from the popular daytime talk shows, and some from the so-called network news programs.
But just look at the sort of "information" that comes over the commercial networks, disguised as a "talk show" or a "news program". Why should anyone be surprised that an ordinary guy thinks that:
· the federal government does so little and costs so much,
· my voice is never heard in the halls of Congress or the administration,
· big money runs the government,
· my vote doesn't count,
· my taxes are much too high,
· I receive few if any benefits from my tax money,
· the public school system should be abandoned for some kind of privatized system,
· "they" are going to take away my guns,
· my tax money just goes to welfare cheats,
· it's all corrupt in Washington,
· we need fewer regulations and more freedom, etc.
I happen to agree (partially at least) with some of these ideas, but on the whole, they are either over-simplified distortions of a more complicated truth or just outright lies.
How did commercial television get this way? There are several contributing factors:
· Commercial television has a single goal, to maximize its market and its profits. Whatever draws the biggest audience is what gets shown. Provocative discussion of real issues must be avoided because it bores most folks and irritates some, losing audience to a competing network. Presenting balanced opinion and truth is not important, regardless of what Peter Jennings and his ilk claim often and loudly. Entertainment is the important thing, whether in a movie rerun or the news hour.
· Poking fun at any government figure or agency is safe (the station won't be sued) and easy, and it seems to draw audience. Rush Limbaugh is a model of this kind of reckless hit-and-run tactic.
· Government generally has no real access to the media, except for an occasional ad to recruit military personnel, or to inform people about civil defense or changes in Medicare or Social Security policies. I'm referring of course to administrative agencies, and not to ads sponsored by a political party or an office candidate. Yet government has a great message to tell, and the public should be kept informed of its many successes, and not just continually reminded (in a snide way) of its occasional failures.
· Political campaigns are conducted in a gladiatorial fashion, with a lot of money spent in the last few months of a campaign on attack ads on commercial TV. Much heat and smoke, but very little light is generated.
· Our public school system is rather ineffective in teaching our citizens how our democratic system really works, and how to counter all the distortions and lies promulgated by the commercial media. This is (or should be) taught in civics and English classes, but it's clear to me that it's promptly forgotten through lack of reinforcement later. Democracy is a complicated business and requires our full attention on a regular basis. Most people just don't bother.
So government and politics are used as target practice by almost every TV personality, and they cannot or do not effectively defend themselves through fair impartial debate. Why should not people believe that government is the enemy given this toxic informational framework?
Obviously, PBS has a vital role to play in all this. And that's partly why I contribute heavily to PBS (all three Bay Area channels get monetary support from me) and believe that more federal support for PBS is so essential. I would like to see the current level of federal support for PBS increased back to the level of the 1970's, so that PBS can continue its distinguished role as a provider of intelligently produced news programs, debate and documentaries.
But something has to be done about commercial television. The great tragedy of commercial television is that it depends on a public grant of frequency bandwidth; it is supposed to use that exclusive bandwidth in the public interest; instead it works incessantly to generate a toxic informational environment. The toxicity is not only in what is presented as "truth", but in what is not presented.
I have some remedies in mind, and perhaps you could find a way to build some interest in them. They basically amount to restoring some of the power that the FCC used to hold to regulate programming content, as part of the contract in granting airwaves space to broadcasters. Here's what I'd like to see as part of every commercial broadcaster's license contract:
· Require the commercial networks to carry a minimum number of hours of free political commentary and candidate's speeches, especially in the months before an election. I contribute fairly heavily to various political campaigns, and what I resent most is the knowledge that 80% of my money will go to make the networks profitable. It's spent on attack ads. Both political parties are driven into this unsatisfactory situation by the networks' failure to carry out the public interest.
· Require the commercial networks to carry a minimum number of hours of free airtime to government agencies, and to help them prepare documentaries on what they do and how they serve the public. There are a large number of government agencies at the federal, state and local levels that are doing a wonderful job in making life safe, interesting and profitable for all of us, but their message rarely gets out.
· Require the commercial networks to carry "anti-commercial" commercials, prepared by non-profit consumer interest groups (the Consumer's Union comes to mind). Like anti-tobacco ads, these would show the public just how its attitudes and opinions are shaped by commercial interests. That could have a salutary side-effect of forcing companies to develop more informative and truthful ads. The San Jose Mercury-News does something like this by running a daily panel that analyzes various political commercials, and pointing out how they often distort or misrepresent the truth. (The Merc does not publish articles attacking their advertisers. They know which side of their bread is buttered.)
· Require the commercial networks to develop and air programs that show why everyone should be concerned with politics, and how ordinary people can become successfully involved in politics. At present, you have to read the newspapers carefully to find examples of success stories. There are many of them, but they never reach the network channels. Such stories, widely distributed, would go far toward combating the feelings of cynicism and lassitude toward politics that most people now have.
· Set up an independent commission, perhaps starting with a Congressional investigation, on just how well the commercial networks are carrying out their public interest requirements. At the least, this might shed more light on their self-serving and corrosive policies and practices. Having a permanent commission in place, with opportunities to air their findings, might also improve the current television fare.
None of these ideas run counter to our constitutional liberties. I am not proposing that any government agency be allowed to set up an exclusive propaganda machine. I'm only proposing that the government sector (which includes our school systems, park services, transportation agencies, health services, etc.) should have a reasonable share of access to the public information media, at least a fraction of the share that our major corporations do. It cannot now acquire any share because under the current pay-for-time system, it's expensive, and the public will not tolerate any government budget that includes such advertising. There's also an excessive fear (unwarranted in my view) that the government is so powerful that any public informative channels would lead to a tyranny. My view is the opposite -- government is now weak compared to the corporate and financial interests. A redressing of interests is called for.
I am also not proposing an expensive and intrusive expansion of the federal government's powers, with some big new appropriation. Much of this could be regulated and managed by a relatively small wing of the FCC, perhaps in cooperation with some non-profit groups operating under small federal grants.
The odd thing about this is that if all networks were required to turn over a percentage of their air time to truly informative public-service programming, even in prime-time air space, their revenues and profits would not be reduced. The remaining airtime would simply become that much more valuable to the advertisers. In fact, profits might even be higher than now, because people like me who are looking for real information and thoughtful programming might actually start watching some commercial TV.
In the absence of any such regulation, the networks are forced to compete with each other every minute of every day in building audience and are free to present whatever suits that goal. Their programming therefore sinks to the lowest common denominator in a purely economic game that works to destroy the public interest altogether.
Yours,
William A. Barrett