There was a time when television was the grand horizon, the magical future, the focus of mystical wishes about community, education, enlightenment, and the global village.
That was before NBC, CBS, and ABC got a hold of it, of course. That was when television was just an exciting technology.
One of the greatest deceptions of modern times is the myth that television is a conduit for "free expression". Yes, no matter how different your opinions may be, they are represented somewhere on television.
Right.
Actually, one of the most remarkable things about television, especially in the past twenty years, has been the amazing uniformity of the programming on all the networks. Check out the news. Which television station presented the viewpoint that the Lewinsky scandal was no big deal and everyone should get over it? Right-- nobody. Tell me, which television station or network can be identified with a pro-union/labour point of view? There must be one, somewhere. And which television station espouses the view that life is more meaningful when we have turned our backs on acquisitiveness and materialism and learned to appreciate the finer things in life, like friendship, nature, and charitable works? Which television station gives extensive coverage to environmental causes? Which tv commentator consistently advocates for the poor and dispossessed?
Well, we're lucky up here in Canada: we have the CBC. But in the U.S., the so-called cradle of democracy, the uniformity of public opinion as expressed in the mainstream media is positively nauseating. And, sad to say, the religious channels are no better. In fact, in many ways they are worse. Their glib solutions to social problems and patriotic conservatism are merely the mainstream opinions of 50 years ago.
Well, why is that? The government doesn't control television. How come television never questions authority?
There are three reasons. Firstly, television is owned by large corporations. In the U.S., that is the government. Secondly, television is governed by commercial interests: these corporations don't want to offend the majority of viewers by presenting any minority opinions. Third: the "self-regulating" nature of the television industry serves the government's interest by treating consent in the same way obscenity is treated-- television licensees are empowered to preserve good order and decency by preventing us from seeing a naked breast, or opinions that it deems to be "radical".
Adbusters recently tried to buy time on commercial television to show "anti-ads", little one-minute fables about consumerism and waste. The networks were able to refuse these ads because they would offend their regular advertisers.
Think about that. I am deeply offended by ads which try to use sex to sell cars, but television station is going to pull Ford ads off the air. He who has the gold makes the rules.
Which brings me to the Internet. What is happening on the Internet right now is remarkable: dissent is being heard. Alternative view-points are being presented. The unusual, the exotic, the idiosyncratic, is available for your perusal. Because nobody, no networks, no CBS, no Microsoft, no FCC, controls it. Do a search for the word "Clinton" and you will be presented will all manner of opinion.
So what does the government, and the big corporations think about this? Well, they're not as dumb as they act sometimes. The music industry, for one, has suddenly realized that if the Internet really takes hold, and people begin to have access at speeds of 64K or better, nobody is going to need their slime-ball managerial skills anymore. Artists will have their own web sites through which you can download samples of their work and order the complete CD. The music industry, which presently controls artists by controlling the distribution of music, goes: "Hey! Where's our cut?" They took one look at MP3, which allows people to freely and easily distribute musical recordings through the Internet, and they screamed bloody murder. What galls me is the way they go around whining about the poor artists who are going to lose all their royalties. Well, artists don't get royalties from the music industry because the record companies manipulate the expenses of recording and promotion to make it look like they're hardly making any money at all.
