This page provides information Western Washington University (WWU) emeritus associate professor Pilgrim collects about mass communication and freedom of the press.
See two other links presenting alternative media sites, as well as ongoing documentation about the rich getting richer.
Mass media timeline
If all human history were contained in 1 calendar year and NOW were midnight on DEC. 31, mass media history would appear like this:
Jan. 1 to Dec. 26 — NOTHING
Dec. 27 — printing press (1450 A.D.)
Dec. 28 — news books (1610)
Dec. 31, 9 a.m. — radio & film (1890s)
Dec. 31, 3 p.m. — TV (1930s)
Dec. 31, 10:50 p.m. — CDs VCRs (1980s)
Dec. 31, 11:35 p.m. — Internet, WWW
Dec. 31, 11:59 p.m. — cell phones, iPods, DVDs, Blackberries, iPhones, Facebook, iPads, Kindles, Nooks, Twitter (later called X), Instagram, TikTok, etc.
(Time line concept: Don Pember, emeritus professor, University of Washington)
Eight functions of mass media
Mass media in the world can functions in at least eight ways:
1) inform — in a way, media function as a teacher (of course, the message taught might be a lie disguised as truth)
2) surveillance — media are performing a watcher function (like watching weather coming — or spying)
3) service the economic system — media function as providers of advertisements, news about the economy, etc.
4) hold society together — media function as sort of a cultural glue (people distant from each other can know which values are important and what binds them together)
5) entertain — media function as providers everything from music to drama to sports
6) act as a community forum — media, especially with the rise of the internet and digital technology, function as the equivalent of a town hall meeting or group discussion
7) set the agenda — media have the ability to function as messengers telling people what to think about, if not what to think (for example, if media focus on drugs in society, people think about it more because they are bombarded with messages centered on drugs in society)
8) service the political system — media function to bring news and messages, slanted or not slanted, important to self governance (see Alexander Meiklejohn on the main mass media page)
Of course, in recent years, the media also function to spread false information, lies, hatred and ridicule — which undercuts the democratic functions inherent in many of the eight functions listed.
Press models in the world & common factors — a few basics regarding media structure
3 models of press in the world
After a review of press systems operating in nations around the world, scholar Herbert Altschull concluded that three models of the press dominate how the press operates:
1. Market (or capitalist) model — ex. U.S. system, with advertising
2. Communitarian (or socialist) model — ex. Britain, with government support, plus ads
3. Advancing (or developing countries) model — ex. third world nation with government control
(see Herbert Altschull’s Agents of Power, 1984, 1995 2nd ed.)
Five common factors in all press models
In each of the three models, Altschull found:
1) news media are agents of the people who exercise economic and political power;
2) always have content that reflects the interests of those who finance the press;
3) all press systems are based on a belief in free expression — although it is defined in different ways;
4) all systems endorse social responsibility and say they serve the needs and interests of the people and promise people access to media;
5) and they all perceive the other models as deviant.
Altschull also founds that journalism schools in each system transmit ideologies and value systems of the society in which they exist and assist people in power in maintaining control of the media — and that press practices always differ from theory.
“To expect that the news media will make a dramatic U-turn and scoff at the wishes of the paymasters is to engage in the wildest kind of utopian fantasies.” (Altschull, 1984, p. 299)
Characteristics of news content in mass media
Regarding news, the more that media are COMMERCIALLY FUNDED, the more these characteristics emerge:
1) the more important deadlines become
2) the more institutional-oriented the sources of the news become
3 ) the more technology will be used
4) the more likely stories will be event-oriented
5) the more likely stories will be presented in an order of descending importance (in an inverted pyramid fashion)
(from Pamela Shoemaker’s study, “Building a Theory of News Content”)
The real First Amendment
In the beginning of the United States, the First Amendment was the THIRD amendment proposed.
The ORIGINAL First Amendment called for a fixed schedule that apportioned the seats in the House of Representatives;
The ORIGINAL Second Amendment prohibited senators and representatives from giving themselves a pay raise.
Neither of those amendments was approved.
The original amendment proposed by James Madison that then became first on the list:
The people shall not be deprived of or abridged of their right to speak, to write or to publish their sentiments, and freedom of the press as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
Madison’s proposed amendment centered on the people and their having an inviolable right to freedom of speech, writing and press — whereas the founders approved an amendment that does NOT mention the people at all. Instead, it centers on Congress making no law about speech or press. They also added religion, assembly, and petition as areas where Congress can make no laws imposing limits.
Thus, the hodgepodge First Amendment we have:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.
Alexander Meiklejohn’s interpretation:
Regarding that First Amendment approved as part of the Bill of Rights, Scholar Alexander Meiklejohn argued that two types of speech are protected, but protected differently:
1. speech which deserves absolute protection
2. speech incidental to self-governing, which does not deserve absolute protection
Meiklejohn argued that the primary purpose of the First Amendment: Citizens must become fully informed for the ULTIMATE ACT — which is VOTING.
Meiklejohn’s assertion is that the First Amendment protects “freedom of speech” — it does not protect “speech” alone, which would result in unregulated talkativeness. What is protected is the FREEDOM to put forth ideas, however unpopular they may be, as long as they are related in some way to self-governance.
Meiklejohn’s First Amendment philosophy
The Rulers and the Ruled (from Political Freedom)
Meiklejohn asserted that Americans think of themselves as politically free and believe in self-government.
“Governments, we insist, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, ” he wrote, adding that if such consent were absent, governments have no power that is just.
He said that the Constitution is based on a two-tiered political agreement. First, all authority, whether to exercise control or determine common action, belongs to the people.
“We, and we alone, are the rulers,” he wrote.
Secondly, however, it is also ordained that each of us is subject to control. Each may be told what she or he is allowed to do or not do and what she or he is required to do. This does not, however, suddenly make the people who rule into slaves.
As citizens, people do not become “puppets of the state” after having created the state by common consent, they “pledged allegiance to and keep their pledge.”
Control by a self-governing nation, Meiklejohn says, is different from control by a king or a tyrant. To confuse the two is “to lose all understanding of what political freedom is.”
Under normal conditions, no freedom exists for people except by authority of government.
Free people are not non-governed. “They are governed — by themselves,” Meiklejohn argued.
The U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech (and press)….”
In such words, Congress is not barred from all action on freedom of speech, Meiklejohn argued. Legislation abridging freedom of speech is forbidden, but not legislation to enrich it.
Freedom of mind for citizens in a self-governing society is not fixed. It can be increased by learning, by teaching and by exposure to a free flow of accurate information — and by bringing people together in communication “and mutual understanding.”
Thus, Congress is not forbidden to CULTIVATE the “general intelligence which is important to successful self-government.”
Meiklejohn argued that no person reading carefully the First Amendment would miss its absolute nature. “Congress shall make no law…” admits no exceptions and means “no” abridging freedom of speech shall be enacted — in war or in peace or in times of peril. The people who adopted the First Amendment were not ignorant about the reality of war or dangers to national security.
Meiklejohn argued further that it would be closer to the truth to say that those dangers were exactly what they had in mind as they crafted the amendment. They knew “how terror and hatred, how war and strife, can drive men (and women) into unreasoning suppression.”
Meiklejohn asserted that it is clear for modern Americans that the words of the First Amendment mean what they say — that “under no circumstance shall the freedom of speech be abridged.”
However, he argued, no one can doubt that in a well governed society the Congress has the right and the duty to prohibit certain kinds of speech – such as libel, slander, and words that incite people to commit criminal acts.
He emphasized that the First Amendment “does not forbid the abridging of speech” but does “forbid the abridging of the FREEDOM of speech.”
The First Amendment allows abridging of speech but does not allow abridging of freedom of speech. Also, the ultimate purpose of the First Amendment is voting.
Meiklejohn cited Socrates and Plato in building his distinction that when a government attempts to limit the freedom of a person’s opinion, the person has “both the right and duty of disobedience.” On one hand, if the government legally requires a person’s property – or life – the citizen must submit, but the government may not limit a person’s freedom to have and express opinions.
The paradox of freedom as it is applied to speech is best seen in the model of the town hall meeting, which is the simplest and clearest form of self-government.
In town hall meetings, citizens assemble to discuss matters of public interest — say, schools, defense, roads, health care — and act upon them. Each citizen is freed to come and to “meet as political equals.” Each has the “right and duty” to think her or his own thoughts, express those thoughts and listen to others’ arguments.
Meiklejohn argued that the basic principle is that freedom of speech is not abridged even though a moderator is necessary to open the meeting and arrange the conduct of business under certain rules, which the moderator will enforce. The speakers may speak without interruption if they speak on the issue being discussed and within the time allotted.
As Meiklejohn asserted, in self-governing, freedom of speech does not mean that “every individual has an unalienable right to speak whenever, wherever, however” the person chooses.
The town hall meeting model shows that the discussion is about issues important to the public and shows that in political self-government, the main point is not in the “words of the speakers, but the minds of the hearers.”
Meiklejohn emphasized: “The final aim of the meeting is the voting of wise decisions,” so voters must be made as wise as possible by making sure they understand the issues and so must have all the “facts and interests” – in other words, that all sides are presented fully and fairly.
The self-governing community uses the voting to gain “wisdom in action” that it can find it only in the minds of the individual citizens. “If they fail, it fails.”
“The First Amendment, then, is not the guardian of unregulated talkativeness.” It does no mean that on every occasion every citizen shall speak in the pubic debate, but it does mean that “everything worth saying shall be said.”
Each of the known conflicting views shall have a share of the available time and that no view shall be denied a hearing because it is on one side of the issue rather than another.” It also means that citizens may not be stopped from speaking “because their views are thought to be false or dangerous.”
When people govern themselves, “it is they – and no one else – who must pass judgment upon unwisdom and unfairness and danger.”
“And that means that unwise ideas must have a hearing as well as wise ones, unfair as well as fair, dangerous as well as safe, un-American as well as American.
“Conflicting views may be expressed, must be expressed, not because they are valid, but because they are relevant. If they are responsibly entertained by anyone, we, the voters, need to hear them. When a question of policy is ‘before the house,’ free men (and women) choose to meet it not with their eyes shut but with their eyes open. To be afraid of ideas, any idea, is to be unfit for self government. Any such suppression of ideas about the common good, the First Amendment condemns with its absolute disapproval. The freedom of ideas shall not be abridged.”
A summary of Meiklejohn’s assertions:
1. Government gets power from the consent of the governed — PEOPLE are the rulers and the ruled
2. People are politically free and govern themselves; only ONE group has the power: the self-governing people.
3. There should be no manipulation of the people — that is the destruction of self-government.
4. Political freedom does not mean freedom from control; it means self-control.
5. All matters of public policy shall be decided by the people and be equally binding on all citizens whether they agree or not.
6. The First Amendment does not ban Congress from all actions upon speech. It is FREEDOM OF SPEECH, not all speech, that is protected.
7. Protection of freedom of speech related to public policy is protected absolutely — Congress shall make no law abridging it in peace or in war.
8. The town meeting model shows how FREEDOM OF SPEECH works: Every person is free to come to the meeting; all people are political equals; each has the right and duty to think her/his own thoughts, to express them and to listen to the arguments of others; the moderator keeps order and makes certain every idea gets to be expressed; all the important ideas get put forth; the ULTIMATE PURPOSE is VOTING, thus making self-governing a reality. After the community members have voted and made a decision, all people are bound by the decision.
9. Regarding self-governance, two types of speech exist:
1. speech related to self-governing, which must have ABSOLUTE First Amendment protection;
2. Incidental speech (speech such as gossip, sports, weather, pornography, etc. — not related to self-government), which may be regulated in some mannner.
For a full discussion, see Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, by Alexander Meiklejohn (Harper & Bros., 1948)
Noam Chomsky’s assertions about manufacturing consent in America
Noam Chomsky, widely respected and possibly the most quoted person in recent history, has writtabout mass media in America and their relation to culture, society and the existing power structure.
A bit of background from Pilgrim: Hegemony refers to predominance or the preponderant influence of one state over another. A ruling or elite class dominates at the level of ideas, thus undermining any consciousness of change. According to Antonio Gramsci, hegemony ccounts for why people are willing to find a niche in existing society rather than rebel in the manner predicted by Karl Marx.
In America, these constraints are inherited from social structure, and in governmental organization. Together they discourage alternative strategies of action. In effect, people participate in their own domination. Media are the means of providing the information, truthful or not. \
[Information on this page is summarized from the National Film Board of Canada’s video, Manufacturing Consent, which focused on Chomsky, his travels, speeches and interviews.]
Chomsky’s guiding belief
Chomsky believes that a decent society should maximize human need for creative work — not treat people as cogs in a machine so that the power elite can maintain control, continue private ownership of public resources and increase profits — all the while managing media content (while preserving the myth of a free press). This deprives a community of what Walter Lippmann called “the means to detect lies.”
When people are marginalized, the community members are deprived of what communications scholar Walter Lippmann called “the means to detect lies.”
Real democracy is one in which people participate in the political decision-making and in related economic decisions.
Chomsky asserts that America has a system of indoctrination (including a system of propaganda imposed largely by media).
He believes that hope for democracy lies with ordinary people and in the understanding that all changes in history have come because people build a foundation for change at the grassroots level.
Ordinary people are very capable of understanding the world yet must work together to get beyond the imposed information and strive to act in accordance with their own decent interests and develop independent minds, Chomsky asserts.
Regarding thought control in a Democratic Society, Chomsky makes these points:
1) Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.
2) Ordinary people have remarkable creativity.
3) People have a fundamental need for creative work, which is not being met in systems where people are like cogs in a machine.
4) What would make more sense as a way to govern is a form of rationalist-libertarian socialism — not one that increasingly functions without public input. Chomsky advocates a system where a community and its members run things in a democratic fashion and whose people do not function as some sort of wage slaves.
5) People need to be able to detect forms of authority and coercion and challenge those that are not legitimate.
6) The major form of authority that needs challenging is the system of private control over public resources.
7) The First Amendment means that democracy requires free access to ideas and opinions.
8) Democracy in America is not functioning in an ideal sense but more in the sense that Lippmann noted in Public Opinion (where a specialized class — about 20 percent of the people who are also a target of progaganda — manages democratic functioning). They are in a hegemonic manner under control of a power elite, who more or less own the institutions. The masses (about 80 percent of the people) are marginalized, diverted and controlled by what he calls “necessary illusions.”
9) “Manufacturing consent” is related to the understanding that indoctrination is the essence of propaganda. In a “democratic society,” indoctrination occurs when the techniques of control of propaganda are imposed in the form of illusions necessary to keep the 80 percent dirverted and marginalized.
Concision is Noam Chomsky’s concept describing how mainstream media content is structured so that it forces those with dissenting voices to limit scope of answers to brief thoughts and soundbites that fit easily between two TV ads.
Chomsky’s Propaganda Model says American media have “filters” — ownership, advertising, news makers, news shapers — which together emphasize institutional memory, limited debate and media content emphasizing the interests of those in control.
Chomsky used a case study of how American media covered two foreign atrocities, Cambodia and East Timor, to illustrate the propaganda model at work — mainstream media (New York Times was the example used) showed bias in favor of the status quo and power elites and did not covered both atrocities in the same manner, by paying extensive attention to the one (Cambodia 1975-79) and ignoring the other (East Timor 1975-79). If media were not an instrument of propaganda, they would have covered each equally.
When media news coverage of issues is bias in favor the status quo, these are the results:
1. ownership of media is held by major corporations with interests and goals similar to power elite elements of society.
2. people with different views, “dissenting voices,” are not heard much.
3. the breadth of debate is limited.
4. the official stance and institutional memory prevail and become history.
5. people’s interest and attention are often diverted away from issues about which they could become concerned.
These attributes severely limit a society in part because mainstream mass media play their part by imposing the necessary illusions, where the 20% participate (in a hegemonic manner) as cultural managers and where the 80% are marginalized and diverted from political awareness and participation in true self-governing [where citizens are fully and truthfully informed, not stirred to action with lies].
This “system” is not a conspiracy but is a HEGEMONIC system of sorts, working with propaganda, wherein people do not get all the truthful, important information that may arouse their intellectual curiosity and prompt them to create changes.
[David Hume asserted hundreds of years ago that the power always rests with the people but that they don’t act because they are oppressed or manipulated.]
* Chomsky notes also that there is no correlation between the internal freedoms in a society and violent external behavior — and that all governments are ruthless to the extent that they are powerful.
Major media (New York Times, Washington Post, TV networks, AP, and Fox news with its conservative bias) shape perception of the world by serving as agenda setters (telling people what to think about — and maybe what to think as well).
Media allow some dissenting voices but marginalize them via constraints such as concision.
Chomsky argues that citizens must take 2 actions:
1. They must seek out truthful information from media, which are often media outside the mainstream and usually having a particular point of view (based in fact). (Misinformation, lies, and disinformation prevalent online makes the search difficult.)
2. They must move toward change by becoming engaged in community action — because people can use their ordinary intelligence to make changes in their lives and communities. Grassroots movements begin there.
People can organize to begin grass roots momentum to bring about wider change — but Chomsky says people must realize soon that the world is not an infinite resource and an infinite garbage can. In these ways, people can fight society’s tendency to isolate them from collective action and activism.
Chomsky says it is “profoundly contemptuous of democracy” when the American political system has stage-managed elections and uses lies and manipulation (such as testing phrases to determine their likely effect on audiences).
Chomsky argues that people need to work to develop independent minds — maybe in part by forming COMMUNITY action groups with others with parallel interests and values, not in isolation, which is where the present system tends to keep people. [People getting information only from online sources that reinforce their current beliefs are not developing independent minds, but are, instead, assuring they remain misinformed, much like cult followers.]
Chomsky says the present conventional MYTH is that individual material gain is praiseworthy. Instead, people must concern themselves with COMMUNITY INTERESTS [which now suggests the global community] — and that may mean a spiritual transformation to help people to conceive of themselves differently.
Two possible outcomes exist regarding America’s future and the future for a global community held hostage:
1. The general population will take control of its own destiny …
or …
2. There will be no destiny to control.
In Chomsky’s words:
“The question, in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided [as they have been until now]. …”
“The driving force of modern industrialized civilization has been individual material gain. It has long been understood that a society based on this principle will destroy itself in time. …”
“At this stage of history, one of two things is possible: Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others or, alternately there will be no destiny to control.
“As long as some specialized class is in position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interest it serves. But, the conditions of survival and justice require rational, special planning in the interest of the community of the whole (and by now that means the global community).
“The question is whether privileged elites should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely to impose necessary illusions to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena [or misguide them with false information].
“The question, in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may be essential to survival.”
Chomsky, thus, argues
that all states (including America) are violent to the extent they are powerful and that there is little correlation between internal “freedoms” in a society and violent external behavior. The modern American industrial civilization and the media system (via their functioning as propaganda) work because people don’t have the time to work and carry out the research to get the truthful information necessary to create change. That information is present — but people must work hard to find it.
He says he does not have the answers to America’s predicament, but people should consider moving toward some sort of libertarian-socialist democracy in which our economic institutions would be run by the people. In this way, we would end private control over public resources — which are finite.
To achieve change, Chomsky says people need to rely in part on activism and alternative media. They must develop a means of intellectual self-defense. They must develop independent minds. They need to review a wide range of press (or do so in conjunction with others), including alternative media — and work at the community level in organizations that may have different focuses but that have similar values.
People must become human participants in their social and political system and work to make a difference. Given full, truthful information, ordinary people acting on their best impulse can govern themselves.
Chomsky’s ideas for solutions, thus, include alternative media sources, collective action, media literacy, and people using their intellect (which includes the obligation to inform themselves so that they have an intellectual self-defense against lies, propaganda and manipulation).
The Myth of the Liberal Media — a summary
Main points made in this Media Education Foundation video explaining (with examples from several years ago) Noam Chomsky’s and Edward Herman’s Propaganda Model of the Media — and asserting that the mainstream media in America are not really liberal but are bias toward the interests of the elite, which are conservative on issues that affect profit.
Professors Justin Lewis, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky argued the following:
In America, there is no wide range of political opinion because the spectrum really goes from center to right. The corporate interests that own and control media make an effort to make the media appear to be liberal — it is effective to assert that the media are too liberal.
To do this, they attempt to make a connection between journalists working for media and the media content. In particular, they argue that because journalists vote in a liberal fashion, the media must be liberal.
This proves nothing, Chomsky says. The issue is whether the media are free to cover all issues equally. They are not.
[The difference between Republicans and Democrats is quite small — both are merely two factions of the same party — The Business Party. [Democrats tend to be liberal only on issues that are not oriented to businesses and their profits; Republicans, conservatives, ultra-conservatives also differ mostly on issues such as abortion, immigration, capital punishment, gun rights, etc. ]
The studies of those asserting media are liberal in effect say journalists control media content. An institutional analysis of the media shows a propaganda-like system at work and careful study of media identifies 5 filters: Ownership, Advertising, Sourcing, News Shapers, and Flak (Pressure Groups).
1) Ownership Filter The main corporations that control most media, the agenda-setting media, are huge corporations run by wealthy people with opinions. They do not interfere in a gross way — but there will be times that journalists who work for them are reminded who is in charge (“Remember, you work for GE.”).
The video profiles Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation, Conrad Black and John Malone of TCI (later owned by AT&T) and the power held and used.
2) Advertising Filter Magazines get 50% of their income from advertisers; Newspapers, 80%; TV, 100%. It is a system where advertisers want an audience and media provide that.
Advertisers want a proper environment and apply pressure to media to ensure it.
3) Sourcing Filter (News Making) Media rely on powerful sources who can give regular news. Journalists are not supposed to express opinions but actually do so by the experts they choose and the questions they ask.
4) News Shapers Filter Conservatives have created think tanks that journalists rely on. Studies show that the more conservative groups (Heritage Foundation, etc.) get used much more than any “liberal” groups:
Conservative – 51% of the time
Centrist — 40%
Progressive (left) — 7.5%
With the advent of the internet and resulting ability to spread lies and propaganda from any computer anywhere on earth, the likelihood receiving any accurate and truthful information has been greatly impaired to the point where democracy is at risk.
5) Flak Filter (Pressure Groups) Flak is negative feedback — it is effective pressure when it comes from powerful sources. Examples of David Evans and pressures the Chicago Tribune got when he was too harsh on the Pentagon.
The tools used are libel suits (Phillip Morris goes after ABC) and organizations that monitor media (AIM, etc.).
The pressure tends to come from government itself, corporations, and right-wing-funded pressure groups.
The complaints that get aired tend to come from the right — not the left.
Case Studies
The video uses case studies in domestic and foreign affairs to support the assertion that the media are very conservative, not liberal:
1) Domestic Issues
Welfare — a liberal media would attack military and argue that we don’t support poor people. The reality is exactly the opposite, with a huge attack on AFDC (stories of black welfare mothers in Cadillacs) and social programs — even though social programs are 1.4% of the nation’s budget and the military is 44%.
Social Security
A social program that has worked for decades. Now the media focuses on a concocted crisis meant to induce panic among people — to cause fear that it won’t be there for them.
The reason — to privatize it so that people in the investment industry can use it to make money for themselves.
Healthcare
2 out of 3 people want a national healthcare plan like all other industrial countries in the world. The option of a single-payer plan (supported by the people) is not discussed.
The debate in the media is over which of the two plans offered by the Democrats and Republicans — both of which keep healthcare in the private realm of HMOs and insurance companies — is better.
Labor and Business
If media were liberal, we would see lots of coverage from a labor perspective. There is little labor news in mainstream media — no labor If media were liberal, we would see lots of coverage from a labor perspective. There is little labor news in mainstream media — no labor section of the paper but a business section instead, with coverage of labor focusing on strikes and unrest.
Media treat wage increases as a negative — that they might fuel inflation — never as a positive in that they might bring people out of poverty. And, most people in America are wage earners
The three scholars say that this evidence shows that media focus and content are anything but liberal — yet the myth of a liberal media persists.
Frances Moore Lappe reflections on democracy
Frances Moore Lappe, author of “Diet for a Small Planet, published in 1971, was interviewed by The Sun, which printed an article called, “The Broken Promise of Democracy.” Still relevant over 20 years later, below is some of what Lappe said: [bolded parts by Pilgrim]
“To me, a democracy is alive to the degree that its members actively participate in making decisions about their future. Under that definition, I’m afraid you won’t see many living democracies today.
A primary obstacle is our belief system. We’ve inherited the notion that democracy has to do only with the structure of government. But to create a society that serves the lives of all citizens, democracy must become a way of life, affecting every aspect of a culture.
Historically, for example, it’s been assumed that economic life lies largely outside democracy — a big mistake, because economics so determines our well-being. At the time of the nation’s founding, for the majority of people, economic life consisted mainly of managing one’s family farm or shop.
In that environment, it made sense that people thought of economics as private and politics as public. But what made sense then, is now standing in our way, preventing us from embracing economic life as part of democratic public life. Now “private” corporations have more public impact than governments.
The result is that, while economics exerts a powerful influence on political decisions about jobs, the environment, and so forth, we have almost no voice in the process. We have some minimal voice in politics, but virtually none in the economic system.
This voicelessness is not caused by some conspiracy among corporate CEOs and their pet politicians. Instead, it has to do with how we view the world.
Although we experience economics as having a real effect on our lives and communities, we continue to act as though it is part of the private realm, where the decisions are someone else’s and one of our business. And because of the influence — some would say control — our economic life exerts over our political life, we experience the public, democratic government as not really answerable to us. It’s all because we’ve bought this myth that corporations are private.
We are now experiencing what I think of as a second round of feudalism, where the corporation has replaced the manor. Until we see this new economic structure for what it is — a world-governing system that exists alongside governments but outside democratic accountability — we cannot create life-serving societies. …
… For the current system to continue, people must continue to believe that they have no power.
My hope is that, if people can make changes in their own communities and begin to perceive of themselves as effective actors in the public world, they will see through the myth of the private corporation. Until they experience their own effectiveness, people will continue to mystify the structure of governance and give away their power.”
A potpourri of media criticism — videos, infographics, etc.
(some links bwlow may have ceased to be supported)
A list of the 110 biggest U.S. advertising spenders:
Ten biggest advertising spenders in the U.S.
Spending on digital advertising in 2017 finally surpassed spending on TV:
2017 was the year digital ad spending exceeded spending on TV ads
A video showing what the Earth looks like when all ice on the planet melts:
A NOAA interactive map showing effects on a specific place as the water level increases (up to 10 feet):
Celebrate freedom to read by exploring a banned book site:
From Youtube.com, a four-night-a-week, 10-minute, wacky “news” show that sometimes attracts more viewers (over million subscribers are young men 13 to 34) than Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart:
From The Guardian in the UK, data about $400 billion sales of weapons and military services: who the world’s top 100 arms producers are — yes, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are big circles on a word cloud:
The world’s top 100 arms producers — from the guardian
In the spirit of “No Logo,” some stories about Apple and Foxconn, where Apple products are made — Foxconn also builds products for Microsoft, HP, IBM, Barnes & Noble, Dell, Intel, Sony, Panasonic and others:
Apple Foxconn — Apple plant workers complain of militant culture & long hours
‘Ethical iPhone’ campaign targets Apple stores
A spoof that ties to “Killing Us Softly 4” assertions about women having to be obsessed with keeping slim:
Fotoshop your way to slimness—-
Evolution of a Meme (a practice or idea that spreads from mind to mind throughout a culture) — Lt. John Pike’s pepper spray at UC Davis & the aftermath:
The original video of Pike (now listed as inappropriate & tracking those who try to view it)
Still images of Pike and the meming — shows content of restricted videos above
Look back to follow a social movement:
OccupyWallStreet — the revolution—-
A video about the U.S. military budget:
A $3 Trillion story — and increasing
Showing the harm of Citizens United v. FEC from storyofstuff.org:
An animated story of corporations and democracy
Social media opinion from a decade ago :
9 surprising facts from a decade ago about social media in America
From the NPR 2011 website, a story about costs in the music industry:
How Much Does IT Cost to Make a Hit Song?
The top 25 censored news stories of the previous year are posted at Project Censored:
Project Censored: Media Democracy in Action
An article (from Shine) about Vanity Fair and lack of diversity:
“Vanity Fair’s ‘New Hollywood’ issue completely lacks diversity”
A clip from Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” taking Fox News to task about “fair and balanced”:
Jon Stewart on Fox & “fair and balanced”
Tolerance and hate — a site ranking the tolerance of U.S. states:
Most tolerant states in the U.S.
A Western Washington University journalism major doing an internship at Ms Magazine makes a national impact:
A 2011 Ms. Magazine infographic by WWU student Sarah Richardson
Video summary of “Tough Guise”
Below is a summary of the archetypal 1999 video, “Tough Guise,” featuring Jackson Katz, who examined the relationship between images in popular culture and the social construction of male identities in the United States — of which media messages play a large role.
Notes:
“Tough Guise 2: Violence, Manhood & American Culture,” produced by Media Education Foundation (MEF) in 2013. This version updates the version summarized below. There have been other updates since 2013.
MEF said about the 2013 version:
“Katz argues that the ongoing epidemic of men’s violence in America is rooted in our inability as a society to move beyond outmoded ideals of manhood….
Katz examined mass shootings, day-to-day gun violence, violence against women, bullying, gay-bashing, and American militarism…
… (and) provides a stunning look at the violent, sexist, and homophobic messages boys and young men routinely receive from virtually every corner of the culture, from television, movies, video games, and advertising to pornography, the sports culture, and US political culture.”
Katz’ 2006 book, “The Macho Paradox,” also supplements aging examples seen in “Tough Guise.”
Another video about violence — explaining how America easily gets into war, and then stays in it — is “War Made Easy,” a video that features Norman Solomon and focuses on the war-propaganda cycle. The video, “Beyond Good and Evil,” is insightful as well.
The original “Tough Guise” had a strong connection to CULTIVATION THEORY — AND Katz’s assertions about any answer to the problem of violent masculinity including intervention in the CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT.
The video identifies several cultural developments in the last decades that are in part responsible for the current levels of date rape, domestic violence and school shootings.
Introduction:
“The Wizard of Oz” is cited as a metaphor of how men wear a mask that is a disguise of being tough — a tough guise.
Katz asked young men what it meant to be male and got replies like, strong, physical, independent, in control, powerful, athletic, tough, tough, tough, stud.
And, when men don’t conform, they are called, pussy, whimp, emotional, bitch, queer, fag.
Lots of pressure to conform to the role — including, and especially men of color.
Media are crucial to constraining men to seeing violent masculinity as the cultural norm — there is a growing connection in society between being a man and being violent (lots of statistics about men being the violent ones — 85% of murders are by men; 95% domestic violence is by men; 99% of rapes in prison are by men, etc.)
Abused boys tend to grow up to take on that role.
Part I — Understanding Violent Masculinity
Men perpetrate 90% of the violence in society, and society (in media especially) tends to focus on the subordinated groups, not the dominant ones.
The invisibility of masculinity is played out — media say it is “kids killing kids” — not that it is boys killing boys and girls, not girls doing the killing — and so must be tied to masculinity.
Examples of New York Times, etc. support this.
Katz said that if you don’t say it, you leave out the important element in the subsequent discussion — and notes that when women are violent, it is almost always an important part of the story (examples from the longer version are Lorena Bobbit, who cut off her husband’s penis; and movie, “Thelma and Louise”).
Katz said we need to make it visible — the first step to seeing how it operates in the culture.
Katz said the images of men and masculinity has changed over the last 50 years to have men be more physical and aggressive (ex. Superman, Batman, Star Wars figurines, GI Joe — with biceps increasing from 12 inches in the 70s to 26 inches in the 2000s — also lots of changes from on-screen tough guys like Sean Connery to Clint Eastwood to Sylvester Stallone to Arnold Schwarzenegger — with more aggressive acts and bigger guns.
Women are the exact opposite — for the most part to a more thin look [a good supplemental video is Jean Kilbourne’s “Slim Hopes: Advertising and the Obsession with Thinness”]
Images are not an accident — heterosexual white males for the most part are in charge of the content that is produced.
In the longer version of the video, Katz said the development has historical context that is embodied in the backlash to the threat by movements such as the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Movement and the Gay/Lesbian movement the cultural, social, economic power held mostly by white males.
In that version, he cites Susan Faludi book on the subject — “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women” and gives examples of how the tough male role is pushed by people like overt feminist-bashing Andrew Dice Clay, Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh.
He also cited increased celebration of violence in pro sports, action games and slasher films.
He connected this to a male backlash against women’s economic and social gains and gay liberation.
Violence harms the victims, of course, but it sends a message that men better not try any new type of masculinity as well.
The anti-war sentiment in the Vietnam War gave rise to the claim that we had lost our masculine pride and represents the macho attitude that the whimpy anti-war movement was the problem (ex. Rambo)
Katz used examples from “Rocky,” Ronald Reagan (in the longer version of the video) and John Wayne to develop the rise of the tough guy role.
He cited Richard Myers’ “Cool Pose” as support for how the tough guise men adopts comes about because of social and cultural pressure — coming to us through mass media.
He asserted that social and economic structures have systematically changed reality, leaving only the pose.
Citing media examples, Katz said it should be no puzzle that young white boys are acting black, since it too is an act and they also can take on a black, urban pose.
Thus, masculinity is a pose, a perfomance, learned in our society and culture [and taught in large part by media — the teacher function].
We must ask ourselves why and how this happens — and the consequences — and what can be done, he argued.
Part II — Violent Masculinity
This section explores the construction of violent masculinity and the connection to violence and suggests some answers
Katz linked violence to an American society, he asserts, that constructs masculinity around domination and violence.
This segment features the social consequences of the pose — school shootings, constructing violent masculinity, sexualized violence, invulnerability — but also provides hope.
Near the conclusion in a section called “Better Man,” Katz asserted America has made some progress and features some older examples from sensitive, more human men like Avery Brooks (“Deep Space Nine”), John Singleton, Ed Almos (“Stand and Deliver”), John Lennon, Stevie Wonder, Garth Brooks, etc. and media content such as Singleton’s “Boyz in the Hood,” “Saving Private Ryan” and “Good Will Hunting,” and leaders such as King, Mandella and Mahatma Gandhi.
The 20th Century was the bloodiest in history, with lots of posturing and gay bashing.
Katz said it will take a different kind of courage to break out of the role of tough guy posturing men are pressured into so that society can keep making progress. And, courage must be seen as the act of resisting taking on the tough-guy pose — and change will be difficult because violent masculinity is a cultural norm in America and tied to social, political and institutional institutions
Some possible solutions:
1) Katz argued we must change the “cultural environment” (ala George Gerbner in “Killing Screens”) — to begin, men must have the “courage” to work with women and speak out. They need to see a more honest portrayal of male vulnerability. Then, they can also join with others — such as in gay/straight alliances — but change must happen on a personal and institutional level (media are institutions, along with the typical ones like schools, etc.).
2) Girls and women must show they value men who reject the tough guise pose.
3) People must work to break the media controlled by rich, white men who control the existing stories — and include MORE STORIES about men as humans not trapped by the guise.
Note: The Michael Moore movie, “Bowling for Columbine,” may be a useful resource for those who are interested in this subject.
MEF states about Jackson Katz:
“Jackson Katz, Ph.D., is internationally recognized for his groundbreaking work in the fields of critical media literacy and gender violence prevention education. He has lectured on hundreds of college and high school campuses, and has conducted hundreds of professional trainings, seminars, and workshops in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, and Japan. He is the co-founder of the Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) program at Northeastern University’s Center for the Study of Sport in Society, and was one of the key architects of MVP’s innovative and influential bystander approach.”
[note: Pilgrim writes poetry about this cultural malady of violent masculinity — see, for example, among his poems over the last 23 years — “Pristine vaccine”(2024), “Swagger goes, tears flow” (2022), “Violent male rut” (2020), “Let us dream” (2020) “Fitting end” (2018), “Final say” (2016), “Reliving Vietnam at the Dillon, Montana, class reunion” (2014), “Breathing lesson” (2012), “Left for dead,” (2012), “Two dogs, one stick,” (2012), “All quiet on the Iraqi front,” (2010), “This being America, there were patriots present,” (2010 and “Hear no evil” (2001).]
Revised 2024