Asaf Rashid
August 24, 2007

(*My emphasis*): “…our media activism has often been confined to critiquing the mainstream media, coupled with attempts to get our 20 second sound bytes on the networks, as if that will solve the problem. Others are happy when their work gets published in the mainstream, little realizing that this isn’t necessarily a good sign. It often means that what that person wrote was acceptable within the mainstream media spin or that the writer censored her/himself and the result is that mainstream media can claim to be showing ‘both sides’ (both sides meaning 2,000 articles/books/whatever from the conservative/corporate viewpoint; 1 from the self-censored radical perspective….What we want is for mainstream media to include peace and justice programming, prepared by the peace and justice movement, in their daily reports. *If they do not agree to this demand, we picket their offices, occupy them if necessary, and shut them down.*”—Lydia Sargent, March 2003, (Z Magazine) Lydia Sargent is co-founder of South End Press and Z Magazine)

Those are some powerful and timely words by accomplished U.S.-based media activist Lydia Sargent. They were obviously spoken in the context of frustration and desire for tactical change in response to systematically poor coverage of the voices of anti-war activists in the lead-up to the U.S.-led (escalation of) war on Iraq in 2003. Terribly imbalanced coverage has helped contribute to the production of a politically disarmed public, who are limited from making rational choices as a result of being provided with insufficient information about key political issues. Those who actually are able to arm their minds have to search madly amongst the journalistic rubble for empowering content by engaging with alternative and autonomous media sources, or even do their own journalism – and they rarely get paid. A major result of these poor dynamics of information flow is a condition arguably worse that mass apathy: the majority of people are without political building materials, which prevents the construction of ideological foundations and the organization of, and participation in, actions for social change.

The problems have not gotten any better since Sargent spoke the above words; they have in fact greatly worsened in both Canada and the U.S. – more on the Canadian context below. Arguably the largest problem – that leads to an exaggeration of the others that Sargent alludes to – is the concentration of the media into larger and larger corporate media empires, creating massive concentrations of information control within corporate hands. Focusing on Canada, media giants (CanWest Global, CTV Globemedia, Irving, etc; see http://www.yourmedia.ca) have only grown in size and wealth over the years.

The major reason that corporate mass media (mainstream) crimes against political engagement persist to the extent that they do is that these institutions in both Canada and the U.S. have not yet been taken to task for their behaviour in a major way – up to and including their overhaul. The direct actions Lydia Sargent proposed never happened to any significant degree, and just as in the case of any other sociopath who has not been challenged for his/her actions, mainstream media behaviour has not been altered. Their foundations continue to act like prison walls, where the voices of the oppressed are trapped, and to most, the cries from within are muffled and distant.

It is an important time to re-hash proposals for radical action against the mainstream media. Another major threat is looming: a consolidated set of corporate (trans-national-capital)-led assaults are taking place in North America and most people are not aware of the nature and extent of the amassing of corporate power and axing of social and environmental standards that is happening around us; thus, the amassing and axing continue.

The corporate-driven Atlantica (inception 2000) transportation and energy corridor + free trade zone (“free” = marginalized indigenous peoples’ rights, falling labour standards, and annihilation of environmental standards) designed for priority/privileged service of energy and commodities – as well as associated economic benefits – to U.S. markets and U.S. and Canadian corporate giants is being rammed through in Atlantic Canada and the Northeastern States while most are entirely unaware of what it is, what interests lie within it and how peoples’ rights are being negotiated away behind closed doors through it (see www.stopatlantica.org, www.atlantica.org). Then there is the bigger picture, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which Atlantica fits neatly into. This terrifying plan (inception within corporate Canada and U.S in January 2003) combines the destructive neo-liberal policies of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the fear and paranoia of post 9-11 "Homeland Security" policies, trampling over immigrant and refugee rights, indigenous peoples’ lands, civil liberties in general and the environment. Through the SPP, 30 corporations (North American Competitiveness Council) will have direct access to the governments of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico in a setting where they will participate in the construction and change of policies (around 300 are on the table) that will affect all people within “Fortress North America”. The imperialist/corporate masters will reap the rewards in a hierarchical fashion, while everyone else fights for whatever scraps the thieves make available. It is in effect a corporate coup (see www.psp-spp.com, http://www.psp-spp.gc.ca).

How many people know about these and other corporate coups (such as Plan Puebla Panama, which intertwines through southern Mexico and Central America)? Very few; I recently had a conversation with a friend in a coffee shop in Halifax that happens to be completely opposed to such amassing of corporate power that Atlantica and the SPP represents, and he was only recently made aware of the existence of the SPP. He was lucky enough to have heard someone talking about it while biking on the streets of Halifax, and has since looked more deeply into it. He and I have both found that almost everyone we ask about the SPP (who is not an activist involved in challenging it or someone involved in the promotion of it) is largely unaware the SPP’s existence. Most have no idea about the nature of the now-completed summit in Montebello Quebec (August 20 – 21) that featured Stephen Harper, George W. Bush and Mexican president Felipe Calderón and corporate representatives from the three countries. As mentioned by one journalist:

“Talk to 90% of people on the street and they won’t know about this upcoming (Security and Prosperity Partnership) conference, and if by a slim chance they do, they won’t know the purpose of the meeting or why the leaders of Canada, United States and Mexico are meeting in the dog days of summer under what amounts to a veil of secrecy.” – Kevin Parkinson Global Research, July 17, 2007.

The problem is thus quite severe. If people have no idea what is even taking place; if debates over the SPP and related subjects are not happening because people do not even know what the subjects for discussion are; then, how can there be any potential even for a meaningful discussion about change?

There are reasons for the silence. The mainstream media institutions are in fact either the same companies seeking to be prime beneficiaries of the advances in corporate power (as in the case with Irving in Atlantic Canada, the largest company in Atlantic Canada, with approximately 300 subsidiaries under its wings, including every English weekly and daily paper in New Brunswick) or stand to be in the company of the major profiteers, reaping parallel benefits. Just one example of “guilty by association” is that CanWest Global, the company that own more daily and weekly papers in Canada than any other media giant is actually a member of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), the most powerful Canadian corporate lobby group. The CCCE are arguably the intellectual masterminds behind the SPP.

Who owns the media, what their interests are, how the media is supported and what the supporters’ interests are will largely determine how their audio and visual spaces are filled, i.e. what gets priority. Answering these questions makes elements of the layout of information through the mainstream media very explainable. Cover stories almost never, not even casually, bring up any challenges to the systemic order; class interests of the owners and supporters are protected and the stories are generally of a controversial/dramatic nature that will attract customers. So much space (40 – 60%) is dedicated to ads because a major goal of corporate media institutions is to sell audiences to advertisers. Corporate media institutions tend not to hire too many “specialty” reporters focusing on environmental and social justice subjects – thereby automatically reducing such content – because it is not their goal to give too much attention to such issues. There is no significant public interest section (or news program) – to balance the business sections (or programs) – because the advertisers and media owners would often become targets in such a section.

One may wonder how a said-to-be-democratic government can allow such systematic amassing of corporate media power and simultaneous production of ignorance to continue. Interestingly, the poisonous (to any semblance of political engagement) nature of the ever-concentrating mainstream media has even been alluded to at the federal government level. As stated in the Final Report on the Canadian News Media Volume 1 of 2, Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, June 2006 (*my emphasis*):

“While the Committee recognizes the importance of sustainable news media organizations, it *does not agree that the unfettered free market is as optimal or benign as its proponents sometimes argue*. Consolidation, that is, the centralization of some activities, is different from concentration and *the Committee has seen evidence that there are news media organizations with excessively dominant positions within individual Canadian markets. Such concentration of ownership could have negative consequences for the public interest*.”

And as followed up on by journalist Steve Anderson of the Toronto Star (August 9, 2007) http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/244472 (*my emphasis*):

“In June 2006, the report on the Canadian news media by the Standing Senate committee on transport and communications concluded that there are ‘*areas where the concentration of ownership has reached levels that few other countries would consider acceptable*.’ Canadians agree…Well before the latest round of mergers, *56 per cent of Canadians said they had less trust in the media because of media consolidation, and fewer than one in five Canadians thought news organizations were independent.*”

Anderson continues:

“The Canadian Energy, Communications and Paperworkers (CEP) union recently published a landmark study focusing on Canadian journalists titled Voices from the Newsroom. The study suggests that *journalists and news consumers are already feeling the brunt of big media domination. Only 9.5 per cent of journalists indicated that they believe the corporate owners of their news outlet valued good journalism over profit*…Canadians have historically supported media diversity. In 2002, an Ipsos-Reid poll reported that *86 per cent of Canadians believed the federal government should do something to alleviate Canadians' concerns about media concentration.*”

As Anderson is pointing out, massive numbers of people (including journalists) are ready for some major changes to be pushed, and it should be pointed out that despite the clearly articulated concerns brought up by the Senate Committee, absolutely NOTHING was done about the problem. The corporate media players shrugged off the charges and no government response followed from the Committee’s concerns. The concentration and consolidation has actually gotten worse. As Anderson also pointed out (same article):

“CTVglobemedia has inhaled CHUM (with Rogers taking the spoils), Alliance Atlantis is on the brink of becoming a part of CanWest and Quebecor Media is poised to take over Osprey Media.”

Journalists are already speaking out in a big way about the problem, which is deeply affecting many of their lives. There is a website that draws attention to this struggle called “Canadians for Democratic Media” http://democraticmedia.ca. A recent post draws attention to a collective letter by Vancouver-based authors and journalists sent to the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (the federal government body that regulates the broadcast media). An emphatic excerpt from the letter is as follows:

“We urge the CRTC to regulate this environment to the benefit of the Canadian public by capping cross-ownership of media outlets. We wish to underscore the fundamental importance to a functioning democracy of an open and diverse news media. A situation of monopoly -- or oligopoly -- gives owners a dangerous level of control over the information and political opinion that Canadians receive. In our experience, the growing concentration of the news media has reduced demand for in-depth investigative journalism, a crucial element of a healthy national media. In this increasingly concentrated ownership environment, we find that media outlets are paying less for freelance work and demanding more extensive control over copyright than in the past. Many fine journalists are responding to these conditions by leaving the profession altogether, a most insidious form of silencing. Others, like us, have responded by working increasingly outside of the country (…) We have grown weary of continual studies and calls for submission: the time to act is now!"”

Almost no one has heard about the fact that so many journalists are leaving the profession as a result of frustration. It is important that these stories are exposed. It is also important to point out what the letter-writers are referring to regarding the CRTC. Essentially, there has been some further corporate pressure applied on the CRTC to justify even MORE media concentration and monopoly + oligopoly formation. The Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, a union that represents many in the journalistic field, has recently focused on this issue in their online newsletter, “The Activist”. They point out a very important issue that is escaping the public radar (*my emphasis*):

“The CRTC is also asking for comments on a Journalistic Independence Code drafted by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, a group created by broadcasters. *The Code would cover print and broadcast journalism*, and is essentially designed to deflect public concerns about the increased pyramiding of media ownership in Canada…The most dangerous point about this so-called code is that while it makes the usual promises about news management's independence, its real purpose is to bless newsroom and newsgathering convergence, which will effectively erode diversity in news and information. The Code's "Introduction" states this right upfront:
‘... the nation's broadcast news organizations have the collective goal of assuring the diversity and quality of information, and the distinctiveness of editorial voices presented to Canadians. This is not inhibited by the common ownership of news-gathering resources and the use of complementary technologies, which can together create greater opportunities to provide information to Canadians; consequently, nothing herein shall be understood as requiring the separation of such resources. The broadcast news organizations of corporate groups that include broadcast and print media can achieve the goals of diversity and distinctiveness while harnessing the benefits of cross-media ownership arising from appropriate economies of scale to expand and diversify the coverage of events.’…*If the CRTC accepts this Code, professional journalism as we now know it will be irrevocably undermined*.”

The CRTC, in order to create the perception of some public accountability, responded to the growing size of corporate media empires as follows (*my emphasis*):

“On 13 March 2007, the Commission announced that, in light of the current wave of consolidation in the Canadian broadcasting industry, the Commission would hold a public hearing to review its approach to ownership consolidation and other issues related to the diversity of voices in Canada. Accordingly, the Commission will hold a public hearing beginning on Monday 17 September 2007 at 9 a.m. at the Conference Centre, Phase IV, 140 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau, Quebec to consider these matters. This public notice sets out the scope of this proceeding. The Commission invites written comments on the matters for consideration set out below. *The deadline for written comments is Wednesday 18 July 2007*.”

Of course, most people never even heard of this opportunity for submissions, including myself. It was never really intended to be a process that brought forth significant public participation. The best way to assure limited participation is through poor promotion of an event. Well done CRTC.

Speaking of lack of public awareness, I return to the issue of the SPP and highlight a recent comment by independent journalist, Tim McSorely on mainstream media coverage of the Montebello protests and the lack of critical coverage of the SPP in general: (http://ottawa.indymedia.org/en/2007/08/5325.shtml):

“In fact, missing from most coverage was any true analysis of the “why” of the protests. Coverage focussed primarily on the fact the issues and groups present were wide-ranging, yet somehow avoided truly delving into what those issues were. A brief survey of the crowd showed environmentalists, feminists, trade unionists, anarchists, Maoists, anti-war activists and queer activists. As most media outlets accurately reported, confrontation between police and protesters only really began in the late afternoon. That left five hours for reporters to get the opinions of those assembled on the streets of Montebello, more than enough time to do more than a cursory over-view. Instead, though, focus remained on the balancing act between demonstrators and riot police, every tear-gas canister launched, every water-bottle thrown, every shove from either side documented and recorded.”

From my own quick sweep of the mainstream media, I would agree with McSorely. One particularly glaring point on missing content is that NONE of the 30 corporations that are represented on the very powerful North American Competitiveness Council – the CEO-based decision/policy-making body created through the SPP – have had their track records critically evaluated in any detectable manner through the mainstream media. As well, there was very sparse critical coverage of the SPP in the days, weeks and months leading up to the summit, which partially explains the low protest turnout. The major new item has ended up being the catching of police undercover agents (provocateurs) amongst a crowd of protesters in Montebello, which should not have been a major news item, but a side-note to the actual issues of contention that brought people out to the actions.

Considering all the above, and focusing on the poor in-depth mainstream media coverage of the SPP and all it represents as a highlight issue, I repeat the words of the Vancouver-based authors and journalists:

We have grown weary of continual studies and calls for submission: the time to act is now!"”

CALL TO ACTION:

A more adversarial approach is needed to challenge the mainstream media’s owners and major supporters. The system of information suppression must be fought, and there are many grounds upon which these challenges can proceed. Not necessarily in order of importance:

1) People have a right to be outraged at the production of systematic ignorance that the mainstream media is guilty of, and they have a right to be further outraged that the federal government has done nothing about the problem. Considering that the corporate media is marginalizing public interests by being complicit in running a cover of silence over critical analysis on major public issues such as the SPP, the war in Afghanistan, continual theft of indigenous lands and resources, etc; considering that the federal and provincial governments have proven to be futile in taking actions to confront the problem despite fair warning; the mainstream media can legitimately be considered a threat to public participation and engagement that the people need to respond to directly. As Lydia Sargent said, “…we picket their offices, occupy them if necessary, and shut them down.” There is a massive array of possibilities for creative actions, ranging from disruptive to just attention grabbing. Educational events alongside these actions would be beneficial.

2) Alternative and autonomous media sources (not mass corporate – mainstream – media) need to more greatly showcased so their audiences widen, while the mainstream sources are challenged and brought to a trickle. Supporting the alternative and autonomous sources alone is simply not good enough because the mainstream will always be able to drown them out while it’s still flowing. Simultaneous damming, diversion and reduction of flow (the mainstream is wasteful, which is largely how they kill their competition) is needed. While the actions to challenge the mainstream are happening, it would be a great opportunity to highlight the alternative and autonomous sources. Guerilla radio is also an interesting thought.

3) Journalists, former journalists and other concerned people who are already fighting back against media concentration and the corporate media infrastructure itself need to be found and their stories shared through public events and profiles in alternative and autonomous media sources.

4) The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP) represents many media workers across the country. They are also active in critical research on the problems with the mainstream media (http://cep.ca/index_e.html). The union has openly opposed Atlantica and was one of the organizations involved in putting together a major public forum critical of the SPP, which was set to take place on August 19th, just 6 km away from the site of the Montebello SPP summit. The forum was effectively cancelled by the police and State authorities. Considering the brutally sparse critical coverage by any major Canadian news media of Atlantica (including ignoring the August 8 – 9th anti-Atlantica labour rally in Moncton New Brunswick) and terribly poor coverage of the SPP; and, considering the repressive actions of the police and State authorities in derailing a forum critically challenging the SPP; the CEP members have serious reasons to take major media owners to task. Members of this union should be given encouragement and support for taking action to confront the corporate media The journalists in the CEP are in a great position to speak out about media injustice and be major proponents in actions to challenge the corporate media’s misbehaviour. The CEP – and other unions – could help provide a lot of resources and people to put on public forums addressing the problems with the corporate media.

5) The circus side show CRTC “public” hearings on media consolidation happening on September 17 in Gatineau, Quebec is a great opportunity to draw out the criminal negligence of the CRTC. Their offices would make a great site for creative protest around that day.

6) What about the CBC? One of my musician friends, Dale Boudreau, who was briefly a small-town journalist in Nova Scotia wrote a song lamenting the dropping quality of the CBC (Bring Back the CBC). Technically, the CBC still has some responsibility to the public interest, but as the other media empires amass, the quality of CBC programming – with respect to content reflecting oppressed/marginalized voices – has eroded. The 2005 lockout of CBC workers by management highlighted some of the problems that explain the eroding quality. Management is becoming more corporate in their structure and functioning and investigative journalism is becoming a rarer feature. CBC management should be taken to task through more significant public pressure and action. If there really is a public interest function, let it be shown. One way or another, there should be community access radio and television through CBC’s infrastructure.

There is really no reason to wait. Actions can and should begin whenever people are ready to organize them. Time is of the essence. The SPP, Atlantica, Plan Puebla Panama… role on while most are unaware. The fantastic coverage of such issues (and so many others) done by journalists who are not being restricted from doing their jobs needs to be brought out of the darkness while corporate media empires are cast into the shadows.

Here are a few examples of non-mainstream sources of information on social justice issues (please add your own online, print and radio programs/stations and pass along):

- Autonomy and Solidarity: http://auto_sol.tao.ca/: contact them or try your local alternative bookstore to find a copy of their very insightful “Upping the Anti” journal.

- Peoples Global Action Block - Montreal’s counter-SPP site (French and English): http://www.psp-spp.com

- Dominion Paper, news from the grassroots (online and print): http://www.dominionpaper.ca/. Contact them to subscribe. Check out your alternative bookstore for a copy of the monthly issue. Insist that newsstands bring in copies.

- Canadian Peace Alliance: http://acp-cpa.ca/en/index.html.