(beautiful image from www.webshots.com, artist aftab62, title: ethnic diversity)
to: the federal communications commission
chairman michael powell & commissioners kathleen abernathy, michael copps, kevin martin, jonathon adelstein
dear fcc:
it has come to my attention that there will be a very important vote regarding media ownership restrictions. i have thoughts on this that i hope you will consider when making your choice on june 2, 2003.
unfortunately, many americans don't question the news we read and hear. moreover, we are not participating in the democratic process. as i'm sure you're aware, this leaves us with a powerful one sided lobbying effort.
as far as my personal lobbying effort goes with regard to media, you should know that i belong to no group. i am not a member of any political party. i'm not affiliated with any organization. i do not have ties with any university. i work for no corporation. nor do i belong to any particular religion.
i am just an american citizen,...i am just one voice. but i am sure that my voice is echoed by many that you can't hear, like lonely trees falling in the forest. i can assure you, they're making a sound. it's just not being reported anywhere.
why should you vote against removing the media ownership restrictions? first, it's important to note that this upcoming vote has not been widely publicized. i would have to go out of my way to tap into alternative media sources to find out that this is taking place. it's not being widely reported, not because it isn't an important issue that no one cares about, but because the very people who are planning to take advantage of the removal of media ownership restrictions are also the ones who bring us our mainstream news (this, in and of itself, should provide compelling evidence for what the responsible choice would be in the matter).
second, it is clear that lifting the restrictions can lead to a media monopoly. why is a media monolopy a bad idea?
let's say i can't afford alternative media, like the internet, or cable television. let's say i only have the radio, a newspaper, and a few network television stations to get all my news, music, and movies (or maybe i do have access to alternatives, but i just don't know better to seek them out). let's say all those radio stations, newspapers, and television stations are owned by the same company.
this leaves me with a very narrow window with which to view the world.
through this narrow window comes what?.... what kind of world will i see? what kind of thoughts will impregnate my unconscious mind? what impressions will be left? and what kind of choices will i have?
this all depends on who is in charge of the programming.
sure, we all have a mind of our own. we can critically analyze what we take in with our five senses. but do we? and how can the thoughts, images, and sounds that we're saturated with in the media affect our collective unconscious?
while we all can ultimately choose our own mental programming (much work in psychology is aimed toward empowering people to do this), please don't underestimate the power of media to "program" the human mind, without an invitation, and perhaps without the mind even realizing it. after studying academic and applied psychology for 18 years, i can assure you that the sights and sounds we are bombarded with are very powerful. if you don't believe me, see the film, "wag the dog" ... study how hitler used the media.... look at any social psychology text.... or ask anyone in advertising.... (if they're honest, they'll tell you).
i have to admit that within five minutes of turning on the fox network the other night, (the o'reilly "he's an idiot, she's an idiot, they're all idiots" factor) my mind was consciously fighting fear. the ticker tape at the bottom of the screen updated me on all the latest threats and violence. the red ribbon on the left corner reading "terror alert high," was interpreted by my mind as "be very very afraid. highly terrified, in fact."
when i turned on the fox network, i felt scared for the first time all day.
when people are afraid, we will make bargians. we will support wars. we will allow our government to keep secrets. we will allow our civil liberties to be violated. we will allow our freedoms to be usurped.
will the media program us with fear? isn't it already? (see michael moore's film "bowling for columbine" for a beautifully crafted subjective case on the this).
should you choose to lift these restrictions, will the monstrous monopoly that emerges be one that seeks truth and justice? will it be invested in war? or will it promote love, peace, and unity? whom will it's bedfellows be? will it have a mindset like fox, or more like hbo? what kind of sights and sounds will saturate our psyches?
will those of us who can't afford luxury media be left with no choices?
free media would have been an option worth considering should we end up losing our choices in the commercial arena (as a free radio producer, (www.likehumansdo.com) i have attempted to give people such a choice) but unfortunately, for some reason (maybe you can tell me why), lawmakers and governing bodies (such as the FCC) have chosen to sell off most of the people's bandwidth to big corporations. they (you) are also making it increasingly difficult (if not impossible) for communities and colleges to provide independent webcasting. and sadly, we are allowing it.
further, (unrelated to lawmakers and the like), people truly gifted in the arts are turning toward the big money, not free media. they don't want to "give it away." (it seems many of them want to be rich and famous).
so we're in a quandry. fewer choices. more control.
this doesn't sound like the america i know.
please consider making the responsible choice.
please do not allow for a media monopoly to be built.
please do the right thing for america.
respectfully yours,
amy jennifer kelly, ms
artist, activist, educator, counselor, american citizen
orlando, florida