Media for the Masses ... Overseas?



“As Public Broadcasting and Community Media Face Potentially Massive Cuts at Home, Hilary Clinton Calls For Increased Funding for U.S. Propaganda Overseas” headlined Democracy Now’s morning broadcast this past Monday with a supplemental video stream and transcript posted on their website. Moderated by Amy Goodwin, she reported on the bill passed last month in the House of Representatives that will eliminate financing towards the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The budget cuts are projected to be implemented in the year 2013 backed by the bill’s author, Colorado Republican Doug Lamborn, who claims that “we no longer need to subsidize broadcasting” attesting to the prevalence of media in daily life. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton illustrates support for this measure through her claim that “the U.S. is losing the global "information war” which was presented to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Wednesday. She wishes to expand our nation’s sphere of influence through channeling the funding for state media into propaganda overseas. Analyzing America’s current international footprint, Clinton compares our standards of news delivery to those of Al Jazeera, an Arabic network gaining prominence in the U.S., due to a major component inclusive to their media: “it offers "real news" and is far more effective” than “a million commercials” and “arguments between talking heads”. Clinton also criticizes the perception of the U.S. through our unsatisfactory media outlets overseas and the progression of China and Russia sectors that have already delved into English and multilingual broadcasts and networks. Amy Goodwin spoke with Robert McChensey, an author and co-founder of Free Press, who provided a voice of opposition and a different “prescription” for the ills created by the appropriation of funds toward international presence. Instead of additional spending overseas which already amounts to roughly $750 million dating last year’s total, McChensey suggests that we take the majority of that money and feed it back into the U.S. to “and create a really dynamic, strong, competitive public and community broadcasting system.”

SOURCE: Right Across the Atlantic

The bill passed by the House sparks a three-pronged question or debate of policy: public service vs. commercial media, “hard” news vs. propaganda, and domestic vs. foreign relations. The Communications Act of 1935 specifically allocated a small spectrum of airwaves devoted to public interests as an outlet free of commercial interests. The cuts toward public service funding would ultimately undermine the legislation already in place and curtail the efforts of control geared toward the privatization of media. Could the basic characteristic of free press and free media, both rooted in the original ideas of a democratic government soon disappear? The Smith-Mundt Act passed in 1948 after World War II specifically addressed the idea of propaganda and world engagement and the illegality of it being viewed in America. This directly effects and creates a difference between the type of information presented to the world by American and the type of information presented within our own borders by our own government: a query of validity and honesty because propaganda is usually used to assert a certain ideal and promote a certain cause. The types of information could not match up and therefore be manipulated from both perspectives, thereby infiltrating the standards of hard news journalism. Hilary Clinton’s push to expand abroad into the international sector could also be an aim to improve foreign relations and policy which would make America more competitive. Is this really the route to take rather than taking care of our own domestic squabbles? The bill has yet to be passed through the Senate and President Obama, but the attack on domestic media funding seems to have an underlying agenda, privatization and monetary gain, that deviates from the façade of improving the U.S. media presence abroad and winning the “information war”.

Go to Democracry Now!'s webiste and view the full text article!

Self Assessment: How Am I Doing?

Reflecting upon my blog entries thus far, I would say that I have a good mix of content that relates to new media and poverty. I focused on issues such as the Egyptian revolution, ACLU, journalism, and budget cuts that all pertain to the new direction and importance media has taken and/or underlying causes of poverty. My blog is helping to further the study of new media and find a solution to poverty as a social problem by analyzing the legislation and governmental structures in the United States and abroad. I think this is one of the most important strengths I have illustrated throughout my posts because I am not only commenting on the widespread usage and prominence of new media, but more so how it agrees or disagrees with societal norms. This is critical because we can talk about the numerous innovations and implementations of new media, but I have yet to see some one comment on how it effects policy making and officials. One of my weakness may lie in the fact that my posts may seem loosely connected, but that correlates with both new media and poverty subject matter because there is no direct way of approaching this type of content. Both topics are vast in their developments and exploration thus far, and my blog embodies that. I may need to connect more emotionally with my readers, but I hope that I am inspiring critical thinking by not imposing my views harshly. As an aspiring journalist, my entries reflect an emphasis on legislation, global affairs, and the actual usage of new media which is essentially career oriented. I do think that new media is a great outlet for my research and perspective becuase of its accessibility to others and easy usage for the creator. I can improve my blog by utilizing more color and images.

Money Woes: Wisconsin's "Budget Battle"

SOURCE: Scott Olsen/Getty Images (NPR)

    Today’s Morning Edition broadcasted by the National Public Radio featured coverage on Wisconsin’s “budget battle” in addition to the full story published on their website by David Schaper. Republican Governor Scott Walker is set to deliver a budget address this Tuesday in front of state legislature regarding the projected shortfall for this fiscal year said to be $140 million dollars. Walker plans to cut state funding for schools by $900 million dollars and limit the amount of money schools can potentially raise through property taxes. Reports reflect the status of current teachers as uncertain and they are being put on notice about the discontinuation of their current contracts in the next year. Walker firmly denies any compromise in his assertion to eliminate collective bargaining rights for most public employees. Wisconsin’s local and state governments are decentralized and Walker suggests that the local governments should be free of any employee agreements because of the potential detriment it could cause in the future budgeting process. Public opinion polls display citizens’ as pro collective bargaining and, to ensure this demand, the largest public union in Wisconsin has filed a complaint accusing Walker of unfair labor practices. The Senate has fourteen empty chairs due to the Democrats absence and opposition to vote for Walker’s proposed  budget bill.
    The main purpose of collective bargaining is to establish employees’’ right to negotiate with employers, voicing their concerns as a form of management in terms of workers’ conditions. Established by the National Labor Relations Act passed by Congress in 1935, it emphasized protection from the privatized sector of business in hopes of decreasing monopolization and its effect on the U.S. economy. This was critical given the previous era of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and J.P. Morgans which was followed by the Stock Market Crash of 1929. A right that has been protected for 76 years is now in jeopardy?  The significance lies within the efforts of Wisconsin citizens and especially the Senate Democrats and their stance against the governor’s policies. This determination attests to the political culture of America as being a representative democracy. Coined by political scientist Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, the Wisconsin ordeal, and ideally America, can be classified under the general political guise of a “participant” culture where the citizens are attentive and involved in politics. Imperative to a democracy is the relationship between the governed and the government inclusive to characteristics such as public opinion under the idea of majority rules, as witnessed in this “budget battle”. The strength of interests groups such as the public union is also reflected as the Wisconsin citizens exert their right to peaceful assembly. The beauty in democracy rests in the citizens’ ability to organize and mobilize, as opposed to totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and dictatorships which ultimately minimize the input of the masses or popular views.


Check out the article for yourself on NPR's website!