DESIGNS FOR A DIFFERENT MEDIA FUTUREBy Norman Solomon
What we see is what we get, or so the adage goes. But when we see
the designs of mass media, what do we truly get? That's a troubling
question for those who wonder what the constant barrages of media-generated images are doing to our lives.
Journalists who use words on the job are not the only media
professionals who have cause to doubt the merits of their labors. The
visual images that surround us -- whether on screens, printed pages,
billboards, T-shirts or store shelves -- are the products of highly skilled
designers, enormous amounts of money and state-of-the-art technology.
Behind the images, some of the talent is growing vocally restless.
For a couple of years now, many designers and art directors have
hotly debated "First Things First 2000," a global manifesto urging "a
reversal of priorities in favor of more useful, lasting and democratic
forms of communication -- a mindshift away from product marketing and
toward the exploration and production of a new kind of meaning." The
original signers, 33 prominent design professionals, have been joined as
endorsers by hundreds of colleagues.
"Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertising,
marketing and brand development are supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages that it is changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond and
interact," the statement says.
While assessing the arguments sparked by "First Things First," the
latest issue of Adbusters magazine (www.adbusters.org) offers observations that are directly relevant to various aspects of the media industry. Today, we face "the desperate need to preserve a space for other forms of thinking and ways of being -- a protected zone free of the commercial inferno."
When dissident designers lament the impacts of prevalent visual
images, their comments also apply to routine journalistic output. Rick
Poynor, founding editor of the international journal Eye, puts it this way:
"What we are rapidly losing sight of, in the rush to add seductive
stylistic value to commercial goods and services and to transform life into
a brand- and status-obsessed shopping spree, is the idea that design, as a
way of thinking about systems, structures and relationships -- large and
small, conceptual and visual -- could have uses other than commercial
promotion."
Visual design, Poynor suggests, "might also be an imaginative tool for solving non-commercial problems; for shaping a sustainable environment and an equitable public realm; for encouraging democratic participation and
new kinds of social interaction; for expressing ideas, values and ways of feeling that originate down below, among ordinary people -- us! -- in our own neighborhoods, from our own concerns." Creative design could be used
"in service to our collectively determined community needs, not just to deliver top-down fashion diktats and purchasing imperatives from megacorp boardrooms and conquer-the-world marketing teams."
Privatization of public space -- from sports stadiums and museums
to buses, classrooms and "public broadcasting" -- has been on an insidious bender for decades. We become accustomed to what was once unthinkable, and the trend moves in only one direction. Public reclamation of corporately
privatized space is rare. Big money commonly rolls over other concerns.
Reversing such momentum would mean reclaiming truly public areas
while banishing the endless panoplies of logos, branded concessions and
investor-driven joint ventures. But even when no commercial interests seem to be involved, the heavy hand of capital often provides a strong tilt, with key media outlets continuously inflicting their relentless priorities
on the public.
So, simultaneously, on one afternoon in late June, the hosts of
programs airing on CNN and MSNBC were talking about the by-now-famous incident in San Jose when a man flung a dog named Leo into oncoming traffic. Ostensibly about a murdered pooch, the coverage reflected the ability of profit-fixated networks -- owned by companies like AOL Time
Warner, Microsoft and General Electric -- to focus national attention on psychodramas like the gruesome demise of a doggie.
This enormous power to subject the American public to serial
triviality is far from trivial. It has everything to do with the leverage
exerted by multibillion-dollar media conglomerates as they skew the words and images undergoing mass distribution.
We're told that the public's appetite for human interest stories
about crime and punishment is insatiable. But most of all, the latest
breathless news sagas are cases of force-feeding. Crammed down the throats of the public, the scoops and scandals of the day seldom tell us anything about dominant power structures and ongoing inequities while we consume the
latest frothy media sensations.
_______________________________________________
Norman Solomon's latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media." His
syndicated column focuses on media and politics.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
FROM GLOBAL SOUTH'S SIDE OF THE MEDIA LOOKING GLASS
By Norman Solomon
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil -- The question, from a participant here at the World Social Forum, was polite and understated: "Sometimes, one wonders if the poor political consciousness and the lack of information about the world of the standard American is not one of the problems of the world today. Do you think we all could help in some way to get Americans more aware of the rest of the world?"
The question -- directed at me because I'd just given a speech -- hung in the air while my brain fumbled for a fitting response. Programming decisions by U.S. media executives loom large at home and abroad. A hundred years ago, when Queen Victoria died, the sun never set on the British empire. Today, around the world, the market shares are shimmering for AOL Time Warner, the Walt Disney Co. and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
When I tuned into CNN International in this city on Brazil's southern coast, a report about fashion was explaining that "today's revolutionary woman" prefers to wear chiffon. More Spanish-speaking people on the planet get their news from one website -- CNNenEspanol.com -- than
from anywhere else on the Web. Editors in Atlanta and Washington, employed by a subsidiary of AOL Time Warner, are deciding what news and views will reach huge numbers of readers online.
Corporate media globalization is part of what's come to be known as "neo-liberalism" -- worldwide policies giving top priority to corporations and their quest for maximum profits. As part of the movement to challenge neo-liberalism, about 4,700 delegates and 10,000 other people
from 122 countries participated in the first-ever World Social Forum to share information and develop strategies.
Key concerns of the global South -- where extreme poverty and rampant inequities are ever-present -- came through loud and clear here in Porto Alegre. The men and women crowding into overflow sessions included 1,700 journalists. But in the United States, even the most avid news consumers didn't learn much about this auspicious convergence.
Don't blame the wire services. For a week, some of the world's biggest -- including the Associated Press -- produced a steady stream of informative news reports from Porto Alegre. But the day after the World Social Forum adjourned, when I did a search of the comprehensive Nexis
database, it was clear that the event didn't make the U.S. media cut.
The Washington Post did better than most American outlets, but it wasn't much -- a single news story on Jan. 27. The Los Angeles Times didn't mention the World Social Forum at all. Neither did USA Today.
During the week, the country's "paper of record" -- the New York Times -- published only one paragraph on the subject, rendered in McPaper roundup style. "BRAZIL: ORDERED OUT -- The French farm workers' leader Jose
Bove, best known for vandalizing McDonald's restaurants to protest globalization, has been detained by the federal police and ordered to leave Brazil. The action came after Mr. Bove, at a forum in Porto Alegre held to counter a world leaders' meeting in Davos, Switzerland, joined Brazilian farmers in attacking a farm owned by the Monsanto Corporation, which grows genetically modified soybeans."
Readily available AP stories had offered much more context for the Bove incident. For instance: "Bove and about 1,300 farmers destroyed five acres of soybeans at the Monsanto farm near Porto Alegre last Friday, saying the beans were genetically engineered. At the Forum's closing rally, Bove urged the Landless Workers' Movement to reoccupy the farm and turn it into an environmentally friendly operation." At that rally, thousands of people chanted: "Bove is my friend, touch him and you touch me."
Landless workers of Brazil and a leader of French farmers joined together to fight for redistribution of land, social justice and environmental protection. It was a dramatic alliance -- just one of many that flowered at a highly disciplined and creative international conference
of activists from all over the world. There were hundreds of other highly significant stories to be told from the World Social Forum. Most U.S. news outlets didn't tell even one.
National Public Radio did send a correspondent to Porto Alegre, and a pair of his reports aired. On "Morning Edition," NPR correspondent Martin Kaste provided a rather upbeat definition of "neo-liberalism," describing it as "the American-inspired philosophy that smaller government is better."
NPR's final report from Porto Alegre mentioned a proposed policy step toward reducing the world's extreme economic disparities. But in that "All Things Considered" piece, the subject came up not to be explored but to serve as a setup for a cutesy -- and disparaging -- tag line.
"One of the most talked-about plans is a worldwide tax on international financial transactions, something that defenders say could raise money for developing countries while at the same time making it harder to move funds across borders," the news report said. "Even this
concept, however, is not embraced by everyone. At the start of the conference, an anti-globalization delegate from Holland was seen loudly cursing the Brazilian cash machines for not accepting her Dutch ATM card. Martin Kaste, NPR News, Porto Alegre, Brazil."
From North America, it's difficult to get a clear look at the global South -- and at the pro-democracy movement against corporate rule -- with nose pointed high in the air.
__________________
Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."
Other columns posted on eMediaNews written by
Norman Solomon:
OUR DEBTS TO NEW MEDIA TECHNOLOGY
Everywhere we turn, new technologies for communication have us surrounded. The online sensations of just a few years ago are now ancient cyber-history, and the process continues to accelerate. The computer on most desks seemed to be cutting-edge when it arrived -- but now is already on the verge of obsolescence.
When we decide that yesterday's breakthrough purchase has become today's outmoded albatross, we may gripe about the hassle and expense of upgrading to new systems. Sometimes, no doubt, we buy more for reasons of
consumer vanity than practical functionality.
But the common determination to keep up with the (Digital) Joneses isn't mere status-seeking. As the Internet continues to gain momentum, we're apt to believe -- for good reasons -- that we must not be left behind. In professional and financial realms, those who lack access to the latest in techno-communication are likely to find themselves at a distinct disadvantage.
Wild as the last few years of computerized innovation may have seemed, the floodgates of products have only begun to open. Quickly multiplying, a wide range of permutations are available, blending such formerly separate entities as PCs, televisions, radios, CDs, videos, pagers, fax machines and cell phones.
Each day, news reports and advertisements trumpet the latest glories of cyberspace. Certainly, large numbers of people are benefiting from the swift correspondence and vast informational storehouse provided by e-mail and the World Wide Web. Americans are indebted to new media
technologies -- but also, increasingly, in debt.
The costs of new high-tech products -- and related offerings such as online service, broadband connections, cable television and satellite TV -- all add up. For the average household budget, those kinds of expenses
scarcely existed a decade or two ago. Today, they're likely to amount to thousands of dollars per year.
The cycle feeds itself. The more we get, the more uses we're apt
to see for what we don't (yet) have. Constantly, the new media stoke the
fires of consuming desire. The spiffiest, most heavily promoted and most
trafficked websites encourage us to avail ourselves of marvels like
streaming video, web TV and countless other latest things. All we've got to
do is keep wanting and keep buying.
This pattern, according to routine media coverage, is marvelous
progress -- to be fueled and applauded. The customary hype is filled with
gee-whiz wonder. But we should be asking whether this business-driven
avalanche of consumer technology products is a major factor in spiraling
personal finance woes.
At a time when pundits constantly tell us that "the economy" is
robust, the cash flow in plenty of homes is actually worse than ever.
"Bingeing on a seemingly endless stream of easy credit, America's middle
class is spending more and saving less than ever before," the Wall Street
Journal reported on Sept. 28. "And yet in many cases, the inevitable
hangover takes years to develop, precisely, say some in the credit
industry, because it's so easy these days to postpone the reckoning simply
by borrowing more."
In late September, the Commerce Department announced another drop
of the savings rate in the United States -- to the lowest level since 1959,
when the agency began to collect such data. "With spending outpacing
income, the amount of after-tax income left over after spending fell to a
negative 0.4 percent," said a news dispatch from Reuters.
An economist at Wells Fargo Bank commented: "One concern I have is
that consumers are highly leveraged, and when the economy slows and
interest rates spike some day, it's going to really hurt consumers."
As communications technologies keep proliferating, the direct
costs are just a fraction of the added burden on households. Pervasive in
many lives, the new media are great at urging us to spend money on an
ever-increasing array of glitz.
A new-media industry analyst sounded gleeful on CNN the other day
when he explained that computers will become more and more like
televisions, and vice versa. It is a huckster's vision of technological
heaven. What it does for -- and to -- most of us is another matter.
_________________________________________________
Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His books include "The Trouble
With Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh."
--------
--------
--------
THE DECEPTION CONVENTION: DON'T STOP WINKING ABOUT TOMORROW
By Norman Solomon
LOS ANGELES -- On the televised surface, the Democratic National
Convention exuded plenty of sweetness and generosity. One speaker after
another explained that America's working people have a wondrous friend in a
party that is committed to fighting for their interests. It was great
theater -- of the absurd.
Behind the carefully crafted media facade, however, advocates for big
business had ample reason to celebrate. For them, the two-party system was
functioning just fine. No need to worry about the two teams of horses in
the presidential race when they're both running in the same general direction.
Past sources of irritation or challenge inside the Democratic Party were,
so to speak, subdued. Jesse Jackson was often moving yet also restrained
when he spoke to the convention. "Old-line liberals had their night," USA
Today reported the next day, under a headline that used the derogatory term
"old guard" to describe speakers strongly critical of corporate priorities.
Maybe someday the mass media will widely describe the New Democrats -- in
control of the party and the White House for about eight years now -- as
the highly effective tools of capital that they are. But don't hold your
breath.
When the Clinton-Gore duo romped through the 1992 convention at Madison
Square Garden, there was palpable satisfaction among reporters and pundits.
Today, most of the same journalists -- after reflexively labeling as
"special interests" such political constituencies as low-income people,
workers and seniors -- accept the assumption that outfits like huge
military contractors and other conglomerates are part of the "national
interest." Corporate America is us!
At a press briefing inside the convention center, I asked a media liaison
from the Democratic National Committee to provide some examples of when
Sen. Joseph Lieberman had taken positions contrary to Wall Street's
desires. She said that she couldn't think of any.
A former labor secretary in the Clinton administration has provided some
clarity. In a targeted opinion article that appeared in The Financial Times
on July 14, Robert Reich inadvertently supplied context helping to explain
why some protesters would arrive in Los Angeles four weeks later wearing
mock Gore buttons that simply said: "Whore 2000."
Although he didn't use such imagery, Reich made a convincing case that
Clinton and Gore have excelled at prostituting themselves and their party
to some very high bidders. "If they were true profit-maximizers, textbook
illustrations of rational self-interest, U.S. corporations and their senior
executives would be flooding Al Gore's campaign with money," Reich wrote.
Of course, they already are -- and with good reason, as Reich went on to
attest.
"Rather than gamble on the unknown George W. Bush, they would be betting
on the proven Mr. Gore," the ex-secretary of labor asserted. "No
administration in modern history has been as good for American business as
the Clinton-Gore team. None has been as solicitous of the concerns of
business leaders, none has generated as much profit for business..."
I thought of those words when standing in the convention hall while
President Clinton bade farewell to grateful delegates, whose enthusiasm had
been stoked by an adulatory intro film about him. (The production was
similar to the flick about George W. Bush screened for similar purposes at
the GOP convention just before Bush's speech.) Since it is no longer enough
to merely present oratory, bunting, confetti and red-white-and-blue
balloons, Hollywood's most modern artifice techniques must be utilized. For
the good of the cause.
"Remember, keep putting people first," Clinton said at the close of his
speech. "Keep building those bridges. And don't stop thinking about tomorrow."
But beyond the well-cooked fantasies served up in medialand, such a
tomorrow -- truly putting people first in national priorities -- never
comes. And how could it, when the conventional rhetoric is so disingenuous
and so disconnected from human realities?
Unless we've been unduly credulous about dominant media messages, we
shouldn't be surprised to learn that Reich, in his recent narrow-cast
missive to moneyed interests, declared: "In short, Al Gore is the ideal
candidate for American business, with a record to show it."
_________________________________________________
Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The Habits of
Highly Deceptive Media."
-----------------------------------------------------------
HOLY
SMOKE AND MIRRORS: THE RISE OF CENTRIST THEOCRATS
By Norman Solomon
It's always dangerous when politicians claim to
be doing God's will. So, as the novelty fades from Al Gore's selection
of Joseph Lieberman, journalists should ask some probing questions
about the ticket's conspicuous piety.
Over the years, Republican policymakers have been
fond of saying that they rely on divine guidance. Cementing his alliance
with fundamentalist Christian groups, President Reagan loved to perform
at high-profile prayer breakfasts and the like. All too often, political
leaders -- especially conservative ones -- have tried to blur the
separation between church and state.
Now, the Gore-Lieberman campaign has launched
itself with a very public display of devout posturing. For them, the
Old Testament has become fine grist for the centrist mill. The New
Democrats are morphing into New Theocrats.
At the formal announcement of his selection for
the V.P. slot, Lieberman declared that Gore "has never, never
wavered in his responsibilities as a father, as a husband and, yes,
as a servant of God Almighty." The vice president stood a few
feet away, beaming.
>Evidently, in the current political milieu, private
beliefs and personal prayer aren't sufficient. To really do the trick,
faith must be flaunted. What good is religiosity if you don't wear
it on your sleeve and get a lot
of good press?
Colleagues laud Lieberman as someone of impeccable
morality, a judgment echoed by countless reporters and pundits. Yet
a strong argument could be made that he promotes extremely immoral
policies -- if we look beyond such matters as sexual behavior and
public profanity.
By all accounts, Lieberman is personally nice.
But he is politically cruel. For instance, his scrupulous morals do
not extend to Iraq, where several hundred thousand children have died
in recent years due to the U.S.-led sanctions that he enthusiastically
supports.
Connecticut's junior senator urges quick deployment
of the perilous "missile defense" boondoggle. And this Bible-quoting
moralist has continued to push a wide range of new multibillion-dollar
weapons systems, which just happen to mean huge revenues for the arms
manufacturers that have fattened his campaign coffers. For military
contractors, Lieberman is a visionary prophet for profits.
Whether Al Gore is truly "a servant of God
Almighty" can only be a subjective matter. But the guy he chose
for his running mate is certainly a devoted servant of Dollar Almighty.
Few Democratic members of Congress are more eager to undermine the
public sector. Lieberman wants taxpayers to subsidize vouchers for
private schools. He has been outspoken in support of partially privatizing
Social Security.
In contrast to his media reputation as a consumer
advocate, Lieberman joined with only three other Senate Democrats
in 1995 to put a cap on punitive damage awards in product liability
cases. He's on record in favor of slashing capital gains taxes. Like
Gore, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, he is a fervent backer of NAFTA,
the World Trade Organization and other devices for globalization on
corporate terms.
The world's poor people rank quite low in Joe
Lieberman's universe of values. As for Palestinians, his brow does
not even furrow for them. A down-the-line supporter of Israel, he
has proved to be comfortable with the systematic violations of human
rights in occupied territories, underwritten by billions of dollars
from the U.S. government.
>"Lieberman may be a committed Orthodox Jew
in his personal practice, but in his role as a public spokesperson
he has gone far away from the best aspects of the Jewish tradition,"
Rabbi Michael Lerner points out. "He has none of that prophetic
voice that leads Jews to criticize our own Jewish community and Israel
in the name of Torah values. He has none of that Jewish sensitivity
to the oppressed that would place their needs above the needs of the
wealthy."
Like most other senators, Lieberman has built
his career by serving the interests of the rich. Now that he looms
very large on the national political stage, Lieberman is well-positioned
to further corporatize the Democratic Party. Lerner is on target when
he comments: "Lieberman is likely to accelerate the process in
which the two major parties seem to be merging into one pro-business,
pro-wealthy, elitist and morally tone-deaf governing force."
The men on the 2000 Democratic ticket represent
a new theocratic style. Eager to evoke Judeo-Christian unity, they
make a show of rejoicing in shared monotheism. But judging from policy
priorities, the one god that they most revere is Money.
Corporate media outlets keep praising Joe Lieberman
as a paragon of moral virtue. But actions speak much louder than pious
words. He is a disaster.
_________________________________________________
Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The
Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."
