BCLA Information Policy Committee
Antidotes to Spin Doctors: Librarians
vs. the Global Media
Governments and Information Policy
Globalization, GATS and the WTO
February 22, 2002
Since September 11, we have witnessed an astonishing intolerance for opinions that challenge mainstream beliefs. UBC Professor SuneraThobani’s outspoken critique of American foreign policy at a recent conferencedrew condemnation from political leaders, journalists, and members of thepublic. This objection to dissent is at odds with fundamental democraticvalues. UBC Vice-President Barry McBride defended Thobani’s right to speakher mind, calling this right “the stuff of democracy . . . a core valuethat our society seeks to protect in its struggle against terrorism.” Hearingall sides of an issue helps one to sharpen one’s own opinion. Sowhat happens when non-mainstream points-of-view start to disappear fromthe public realm? As mergers and takeovers result in greater concentrationof media ownership, and the “for-profit culture” dominates traditionalsources of information, reference librarians must ponder the larger implicationsof these trends and take an activist role to ensure that access to allviewpoints, including those that may be unconventional or unpopular, remainsconstant.
Libraries are democratic institutions. In “Of the People, forthe People: Public Libraries Serve Democracy,” David Tyckoson asserts thatthe three basic elements of democracy—that power is derived from the people,that the majority rules, and that rights of individuals and the principlesof social equality be respected—are part of the daily practice of the publiclibrary. The accumulated collection of the library mirrors the valuesand desires of the community and becomes an intellectual record of thatcommunity. Yet, because public libraries serve all citizens, theyalso have materials that interest those on the fringes of the society. By preserving the rights of the minority, libraries ensure the rights ofall. An informed citizenry is the pillar of any democracy, and thelibrary is the only non-partisan institution in which a citizen can obtaininformation covering all points-of-view on virtually any topic. Libraries,then, are the great preservers of the freedom of the mind.
So how are the forces of globalization threatening this freedom, distortingdemocratic ideals, and putting libraries at risk? Robert W. McChesney,in “Global Media, Neoliberalism, and Imperialism,” discusses the significanceof media systems to democracy from a socialist perspective. Accordingto this writer, neoliberalism promotes unfettered market activity, supportedby government systems that serve corporate interests and minimize any enterprisethat might undermine power of the wealthy business elite. Neoliberalistpolicy requires, among other things, complete deregulation of media andcommunication markets, which leads to convergence and consolidation.
For example, four firms now control
the U.S. market for educationalpublishing, and the global media market is dominated
by seven multinationalorganizations like Disney, AOL Time-Warner, and Sony.
Fifteen yearsago, none of these existed as media companies. In its pursuit ofprofit,
business has pressured governments to eliminate barriers to concentratedmedia
ownership, and these new arrangements have been bolstered by suchthings as NAFTA
and the World Trade Organization. Domestic regulatorybodies have strayed from
their traditional commitment to public servicevalues to serving the economic
interests of “national” companies, and withinnational boundaries,
these so-called “second-tier” media firms dominate.For example, one
corporation—Bertelsman and Kirch—virtually controls Germantelevision.
But the impression of local control is false; these companiesgenerate much revenue
from multinational corporate advertising and haveextensive ties with larger
media conglomerates. They support expansionof global media markets, which is
not necessarily the wish of the peoplein their home countries.
These global media firms exert political influence at all levels,getting their
way with politicians often at the expense of public interest,which may be too
amorphous to have a specific advocate. In addition,these corporations control
the media where citizens might expect to findopen discussion and criticism of
global corporate control. The highlyconcentrated nature of present-day media
ownership violates the fundamentaldemocratic notion of a free press. Journalists
are stifled by theowners, who stand to benefit from the preservation of the
status quo. Implicit in the content of the media product is a self-serving politicalbias
which says that consumerism, class inequality, and so-called “individualism”are
natural and correct, whereas political activism, civic values, andantimarket
opinions are marginalized. This message subtly discouragesany of the latter
activities and rewards adherence to the former beliefs,thereby supporting commerce
and denigrating citizenship.
Protection of democratic values through
marketplace competition no longerapplies (if it ever did!), as it is impossible
for a citizen to launcha commercially viable media company; outsiders are completely
shut out. Also, the nonpartisan aspect of journalism is beside the point as
powerresides with the owners. Quality journalism is the provenance ofbusiness,
while journalism for the masses takes the form of light entertainment,such as
the Style section of the newspaper. This entertainment drivelserves as an escape
from the sad realities and uncertain futures of sociallyand educationally impoverished
people. It also furthers their depoliticizationby depriving them of real news
and opportunities. After all, businessdomination of society works best in a
democracy where there is a high degreeof depoliticization, especially among
the poor and working class. Big media feeds them televised pap, much in the
way that Big Brother fedbad gin and insipid music to the proles in 1984. Both
efforts distractand squelch potential political dissenters.
Global journalism is politically conservative. Becausethis system is only interested
in its own values and ignores or denigratesanything that cannot be incorporated
into its mission, homogeneity results. Much like the loss of biodiversity in
ecosystems around the world,so too a sense of sameness begins to pervade human
culture and values. As popular taste becomes more uniform, desire for diversity
disintegrates.
McChesney ends on a somewhat optimistic note. Although there isa desperate lack of public discussion of these trends and of their long-termimplications for democracy, the entire global corporate system is increasinglyunstable and fragile. Widespread opposition, such as the WTO protestin Seattle, has begun to emerge and is increasingly targeting the media.
McChesney’s views may seem radical, but some are supported by more mainstreampublications like The New Yorker. Ken Auletta, in “Battle Stations,”asks, “How long will the networks stick with the news?” The answerseems to be, “Not long.” Networks are owned by enormous media conglomerateswhose primary profits and values derive from the entertainment industry. CBS anchor Dan Rather decries the “Hollywoodization” of news, complainingthat the networks will choose to broadcast a piece on how to stop snoringrather than on the crushing of dissent in China. The president ofCBS, Leslie Moonves, says that networks have changed greatly since becomingpart of large corporations, and are more interested in pleasing Wall Streetthan delivering news, as news tends to bring lower returns than other areasof the business. Advertisers, too, are not keen on placing theirproducts next to programming about war “and other vexing subjects.”
In other words, the citizens of the nation that tells the rest of theworld what to do are being mind-massaged by “infotainment” instead of beinginformed at any level by actual news. How might libraries respondto this phenomenon? Perhaps by ensuring that their mission statementsdefine the library as an educational and cultural institution first andan entertainment centre second?
Indeed, the idea of a public library as primarily a centre for educationrather than entertainment must be resurrected, according to Miroslaw Krukin “Death of the Public Library.” Even if the entertainment factorbrings more people to libraries, the habit of visiting libraries exclusivelyfor escapism can be harmful. Kruk criticizes the Baltimore PublicLibrary (and others), known for the “give ‘em what they want” philosophy,for making their already disadvantaged (i.e., socially and economically)users even more disadvantaged by giving them “the childlike happiness ofthe illusory and sanitized world created by advertisers and opportunisticwriters and publishers.” He reiterates the point that the survivalof democracy depends on the political and social engagement of well-informedcitizens and argues that libraries have a role to play in the creationand maintenance of a civil society.
Kruk incidentally mentions Ortega y Gasset’s concept of “mass man” withhis homogenous tastes, interests, and intellectual qualities, who neverdoubts or questions, takes everything for granted, and never understandsor appreciates the efforts of exceptional individuals—often those who goagainst the grain—without whom progress and civilization is impossible. Again, one is reminded of Orwell’s 1984 and the unquestioning acceptanceby Party members of the official version of reality. Picture hordes ofsmug, indistinguishable “mass” humans blanketing the planet. Thisvision just might be the future if we don’t take steps to reduce the massthinking (or non-thinking) that global media culture promotes.
The library now attracts many users
who come not to read books, butto use the Internet, and instruction in effective
Internet use has becomepart of a librarian’s role. Not long ago, the Internet
was calledthe “Information Superhighway” and there were great hopes
that it woulddemocratize the production and flow of information, encouraging
citizenparticipation and popular involvement in social movements and politicalprocess.
However, as Vincent Mosco points out in “Media Concentrationin a Dot Com
World,” large media companies such as AOL Time-Warner havebought up cyberspace
with remarkable ease, and are now rapidly commercializingit. The desktop is
branded with portals for their other companies,easing access to their own material.
The Internet, therefore, is fulfilling not the democratic vision, butthe commercial
one. It is a giant shopping mall, selling goods, services,and information; and
“e-commerce” has replaced the earlier buzzword. At the close of the
twentieth century, a handful of U.S. based global conglomeratesdominated the
worldwide production and distribution of information andentertainment, including
the Internet. An article in Business Week entitled,“Media Ownership: Why
Bigger is a Big Mistake” echoes Mosco’s assertionthat the Internet
will not democratize media. AOL Time-Warner alreadycontrols the content many
online users get. Most of the news peopleread on the Internet comes from existing
media giants. The articlerecommends that policymakers attempt to preserve some
limits on corporateownership to ensure a spectrum of views not only in traditional
media butin the New (i.e., electronic) Media as well. Library instructionmust,
therefore, teach discrimination and evaluation, as well as searchskills, to
Internet users.
Canada has its own version of media monopoly as every sector of thecommunication and cultural industry came under the control of a dominantfirm such as Conrad Black’s Hollinger Corporation in newspapers, and RogersTelecommunications in cable systems and magazines. Anthony Wilson-Smith,in his Maclean’s article, “Would We Lie To You?” asks the question: Inan era of media convergence and mega-mergers, when journalists are reportingon their own bosses or on companies related to their own, how will coveragebe affected? For example, how would CTV report on complaints dealingwith customer service at Bell Canada (their owner)? Or how would a televisioncritic for a Hollinger newspaper, which is now owned by the Aspers whoown Global TV, review a new Global pilot? Wilson-Smith advisesthat Canadians should carefully consider both the quality and the sourceof information they are receiving. Reference instruction that promotesenquiry and demonstrates the importance of healthy scepticism has an importantrole to play.
Libraries can help empower users to discern valid from invalid informationand to resist being swayed by propaganda. Alfino and Pierce, in theirarticle entitled “The Social Nature of Information,” link good informationaccess with personal growth and the health of the community. Theyposit that information is indirectly but crucially important to a personbecoming a morally autonomous individual and to a community’s ability toself-govern. Personal autonomy means being competent to both understandthe world and to make prudent decisions in it. This is cultivatedas we deal with the world successfully and is a key part of our sense ofpersonal identity and power. Libraries empower people by creatingan information-rich atmosphere in which a patron can experience a senseof possibility. As individuals look to libraries to aid personal growth,so communities can consult libraries to self-legislate and become moreautonomous. Librarians, then, must be “public intellectuals,”presenting issues of social and political importance with integrity andfairness, in order to promote good community decision-making. Librariesthat can provide high quality “decision support” to their communities willstrengthen democratic institutions, offer correctives to biased informationservices, and promote a higher quality of discussion in their communities.
Norman Solomon, author of Habits of Highly Deceptive Media: DecodingSpin and Lies in Mainstream Media, reiterated in a 1999 interview withThe Humanist magazine, that the major threat to freedom of the press iscorporate domination, “where huge concentrations of capital are, so tospeak, sitting on the windpipe of the First Amendment.” With 500channels, we have the illusion of choice, but the reality is that thesechoices are very tightly controlled by fewer and fewer people. Onecannot buy a newspaper that is owned by the people who work at it. All national networks are being run for corporate profits. He citesa headline “NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw . . . It’s all you need toknow,” and comments that the message is clear: stick with the corporateprogram and we’ll tell you all you need to know.
What about CBC, and public broadcasting
in general? Is it in thrallto global interests? It is underfunded but still
limping along inboth U.S. and Canada. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien, in his
thirdterm with no effective opposition, is less than tolerant of direct criticismof
his leadership. He has reduced the CBC’s budget more than anyprevious leader.
Is news reporting on the CBC now constrained byfears of more funding cuts? American
public systems, as Solomon illustrates,are increasingly reliant on corporate
donations with a concomitant influenceon programming. He gives the example of
Archer Daniels Midland, acompany that give a sizeable donation to PBS’s
highly-respected nationwidenews show Newshour with Jim Lehrer, in return for
commercials and whatis called a positive veto—the ability to create and
sustain particularprograms which are beholden to the company. In other words,
it’sa disincentive for PBS to do a tough story on a sponsoring corporation.
So an unacknowledged form of censorship exists: stories on child poverty,lack
of health care, or the decline in the standard of living of the averageAmerican
are not reported because they are not part of the corporate valuesystem. When
these issues are touched upon, they are not done ina spirit of enquiry, that
is, certain obvious questions are simply notasked, especially questions that
may point to powerful interests as thesource of a problem.
The interview with Solomon includes a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “Enlighten
a people generally and tyranny and oppression of body and mindwill vanish like
evil spirits at the dawn of day.” To attain thisideal, Solomon advises
that we fight back creatively, build cooperationbetween individuals and groups,
and start from the grassroots. He tellsus to think critically, always be alert
to the things that “just don’tcompute,” and stay away from nihilism
by cultivating our basic human values. Librarians, with their commitment to
equal, free information access, referenceinstruction, and intellectual enrichment
and diversity, are essential antidotesto corporate control of the information
supply.
Marylaine Block, in her article “Keepers
of the Flame,” begins witha portion of a poem, which defines the ultimate
value of a librarian:
As the old folksinger once said:
“The most dangerous political force
In America today is a
Long memory,” and memory
Will not die in the special
Collections room of a good
Librarian . . . Libraries relieve the social alienation that isolates many people
fromtheir history and from each other, by functioning as centres for communitydiscourse
and social activity for people of all stripes. Ideally,the materials and guidance
librarians provide inspire intellectual activity,discovery, and debate; and
library policy defends a person’s right to know. Worldwide concentration
of media ownership means an every-narrowing rangeof opinion and policy options,
and self-serving distortions of historyand current events. In this climate,
librarians become “antidotesto spin doctors” serving the cause of
an informed citizenship by offeringa wide range of information and views on
public policy issues. Librariansare anathema to the corporate profit model:
they remind people how muchmore we can afford when we share, and they don’t
(usually!) charge forservices or access to information. Unlike the competing
commercialvoices that vie for our attention, librarians have no ideologicalaxe
to grind and no economic stake on choices citizens make. In aworld where serious
subjects like politics and history are increasinglydevalued, valuing and promoting
them seems almost revolutionary. Perhaps librarians are the dissidents of the
future!
Colleen Alstad, Master in Library
& Information Studies candidates
School of Library, Archival & Information Studies, University ofBritish
Columbia
Works Cited
Alfino, Mark and Linda Pierce. “The
Social Nature of Information.”Library Trends 49
(Winter 2001): 471-485.
*Auletta, Ken. “Battle Stations.” The New Yorker, 10 December2001, 60.
Block, Marylaine. “Keepers of
the Flame.” American Libraries 32(June/July 2001):
64-67.
Kruk, Miroslaw. “Death of the
Public Library: From ‘People’s University’to ‘Public-
Sector Leisure Centre’.” Australian Library Journal (May 1998):157-167.
McChesney, Robert W. “Global
Media, Neoliberalism, and Imperialism.”Monthly
Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 52 (March 2001): 1-19.
“Media Ownership: Why Bigger
is a Big Mistake.” Business Week, 1 October2001,
70.
Mosco, Vincent. “Media Concentration
in a Dot Com World.” CanadianDimension 34
(Mar/June 2000): 14-18.
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty Four. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1984.
Solomon, Norman. “Sitting on
the Windpipe of the First Amendment.”Interview by
Greg Bates. The Humanist 59 (May 1999): 29-41.
Tyckoson, David. “Of the People,
for the People: Public LibrariesServe Democracy.”
American Libraries 31 (April 2000): 40-41.
Wilson-Smith, Anthony. “Would
We Lie to You? Media Ownership CanLead to
Conflict of Interest in News Coverage.” Maclean’s, 2 October2000,
15.
*The New Yorker always post-dates
its issues!
