78

Vol.1 issue4

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Vol.1 issue4
Page 2: Vol.1 issue4

DEMOCRATIZINGGLOBAL MEDIA

Generating a Discourse

C o v e r S t o r yPage 7

Ambreena Aziz

Page 51UR On...

Aslam AzharAn Interview for

EDucate!Mashhood Rizvi

SOCIETAL LEARNING

BOOKS FOR A BETTER WORLD 78The Mouse that RoaredDisney and the End of Innocence

WEBSITES FOR A BETTER WORLD 80Surfing Zmag

ROLE OF EDUCATORS IN ANINDOCTRINATED WORLD 58Henry Giroux

WHAT MAKES MAINSTREAMMEDIA MAINSTREAM? 62Noam Chomsky

AN EDUCATOR’S VIEWSON MEDIA 66An Interview with Peter McLarenPeter McLaren

MEDIA, EDUCATION ANDPUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS 74DR. TARIQ RAHMAN

A N N U A LI S S U E

Page 3: Vol.1 issue4

This pioneering magazine has been created to challenge ethically,morally and intellectually the inequalities in the existing

paradigms of education and development in order to liberatepeople’s thoughts and actions.

CHAIRPERSONProf. Anita Ghulam Ali

EDITOR–IN–CHIEFMashhood Rizvi

EDITORAmbreena Aziz

CONSULTING EDITORSTehseena Rafi, Shahbano Bilgrami

ASSISTANT EDITORSAziz Kabani, Naureen Butt

CONTRIBUTORSDavid Barsamian, Robert McChesney, Noam Chomsky,

Edward Herman, David C. Korten, Chavi Nana, Tariq Rahman,Michael Albert, Javed Jabbar, Shilpa Jain, Wasif Rizvi, Janet Weil

Peter McLaren, Henry Giroux, Howard Zinn.

EDITORIAL ASSISTANCEShakeel Ahmed, Naeem Nizamani,

DESIGNERZulfiqar Ali Zulfi

ILLUSTRATION/PHOTO CREDITNaeem Nizamani,Shakeel Ahmed,

www.robertmcchesney.com,www.identitytheory.com

CORRESPONDENCE MANAGERSomaiya Ayoob

CIRCULATION MANAGERShukri Rehman

We welcome your questions, suggestions, support and contributions.Letters to the editor should not exceed 500 words. Essays and articlesshould not exceed more than 3000 words. Previously published articlesand essays should be supported with references and permissions toreprint. The editor reserves the right to edit submissions prior topublication.

C O N T R I B U T I O N S

EDucate! is published quarterly by the Sindh Education Foundation.The opinions reflected in the various contributions and articles do notnecessarily reflect the views of the Sindh Education Foundation.

D I S C L A I M E R

Please address correspondence to the Correspondence Manager at theabove address or via e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected] relating to subscription, membership, previous issuesa n d c h a n g e o f a d d r e s s s h o u l d a l s o b e a d d r e s s e d t o t h eCorrespondence Manager.

C O R R E S P O N D E N C E

EDucate! Issue No. 4, Vol. No. 1April 2002 - June 2002

P R I C E

PakistanInternational

Special Price for Subscribers

Rs. 75.00US$ 7.25Rs. 45.00/US$ 4.25

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISINGWord Rate: Rs.15 ($0.5) per word*

Display Rate: Rs.1500 ($26) per inch*

Please indicate the desired heading for your ad copy (the first few wordsof your ad may appear in caps). The column width for display ads is2 inches. Type or clearly print your advertising copy as you wish it tobe printed. Indicate the heading you want it to appear under.

Payment must accompany order.Mail copy along with your name, address, phone number and fullpayment to:

EDucate! MagazineData Processing & Research Cell

Sindh Education FoundationPlot 9, Block 7, Clifton 5, Karachi-75600,

Pakistan

Phone: (92-21) 9251651, 9251657-58Fax: (92-21) 9251652

E-Mail: [email protected]

*Please note that these are introductory rates and are subject to change

M a i l i n g C h a r g e s

Pakistan Rs. 100 per yearInternational US$ 10.00 per year

S U B S C R I P T I O N

1 Year 2 Years 3 Years

Pakistan (Rs.) 170.00 315.00 450.00

International US$ 17.80 25.5 35.7

Please include mailing charges

Sindh Education Foundation. No written permission is necessary toreproduce an excerpt, or to make photocopies for academic orindividual use. Copies must include a full acknowledgment and accuratebibliographic citation. Electronic copy of the magazine can be viewedat www.sef.org.pk. Copies are available at the Sindh EducationFoundation, Plot 9, Block 7, Kehkashan, Clifton 5, Karachi–75600,Pakistan.

P E R M I S S I O N S

For advertising details contact Correspondence [email protected]

OPEN LETTERS 4

REGULAR FEATURES

EDITOR’S NOTE 6

VOICE OF THE VOICELESS 70What is the impact of televisionon children?Muhammad Khan Zada

INSPIRATIONS & REFLECTIONS 72

WAKEUP CALLS 73

To subscribe, please enclose a cross cheque/demand draft in the nameof ‘Educate Magazine, Sindh Education Foundation, Pakistan.’ Cashpayments can also be made directly to DPRC, Sindh EducationFoundation.

Claims for missing issues must be made within four months of the dateof publication.

Page 4: Vol.1 issue4

4

I got a taste of your educative magazine 'EDucate!' duringmy recent visit to Pakistan. I think that the contents arewell suited for the modern day process to the advancementof education and thought towards a progressive society freeof biased mind. It will go a long way to arouse the mindand soul of those who have been wandering in darknessbefore.

Dr. Isiaka A. Ogunwande,Department of Chemistry, University

of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

I really enjoyed your interview except that you did not drillProf. Chomsky's response to your last question. His responsereally eliminates/nullifies the role of leaders such as Linen,Gandhi and the likes (purposely not mentioning Khomaini,Hitler, and Reagan).

Reza Ziaee,UK

I was quite taken by some of the questions in Chomskyinterview as I have asked the very same myself. I am livingin New Zealand and have spent most of my life here eventhough I was born in Australia and I am an Australiancitizen.

I am at a loss for how to reach out to people and raisetheir awareness on important issues, but I believe it startswith finding common ground. Sadly, I find that a lot ofpeople over here are too busy with their own concerns to'find time' to listen to things that affect their own future.I guess my main question to you or Prof. Chomsky wouldbe how do you get people to listen? Any advice? Good luckin your endeavors.

Michael Ross,UK

Please accept my sincere congratulations for a job well done.The issue before me is Issue No. 3, Vol. No. 1. The wholeissue is a collector's item. Those of us who are interestedin the work and philosophy of Noam Chomsky wouldd e f i n i t e l y k e e p i t i n t h e i r p e r s o n a l c o l l e c t i o n .

Syed Ahmed Naqvi,Nawab Shah, Sindh, Pakistan

The Chomsky interview was GREAT! It was amazinglyintelligent and immediately went much deeper into manyissues. Good intelligent work!

Nabil,Pakistan

EDucate! for Pakistani youth is an eye opener. When I wasfirst introduced to EDucate! (fortunately the first issue), Iknew that it would bring about a great change in the wayI think, and it did. Since the first issue to the ChomskySpecial, I feel a major difference in the way I think andmy attitude towards the realities of life. The youth of todayare much hypnotized by the corporate world and theconsumerism fabricated by it. Education seems to havebecome the product of the society rather than being theproducer of it and the education system seems to serve theso-called elite class only. EDucate! is thus serving greatlyin educating people the way it should be.

Noman Nasrullah, Student,Pakistan

OPEN letters

Reflections from a ReaderI just wanted to tell you how moved I was by EDucate’sinterview with Professor Chomsky, especially the waythe questions really came from the heart. Like Mr. Rizvi,I have taught and met with people who are illiterate orhave low literacy: a few prisoners, also immigrants fromMexico and Central America, some of whom were childlaborers. Very quickly the flame of the spirit rises upwhen any human being, no matter how poor, isrecognized by another in a deep, sincere way.

To see this is both a sacred responsibility and a sourceof extreme discomfort for those of us who have privilegeand education. (The contrasts between my studentsand myself were not as large, I think, as what youexperience in Pakistan.) After a while (perhaps a year)o f f e e l i n g t h e d i s c o m f o r t a n duncertainty acutely, I began to feel that I was able togive my students, and even sometimes their childrenand friends, something of value to them.

Of course, one should never be complacent. You givewhat you can, and perhaps over time, you are able togive more, and also to receive more - true friendshipand solidarity.

Thank you for your beautiful honesty.Janet Weil,

USA

We welcome your comments, critique andsuggestions.

Fax: 92-21-9251652E-mail: [email protected]

Mail: Plot 9, Block 7, Kehkashan, Clifton 5, Karachi–75500, Pakistan

Include your full name, address, e-mail, and daytimephone number. We may edit letters for brevity and

clarity, and use them in all print and electronic media.

Page 5: Vol.1 issue4

In the present times, nothing affects our lives more than the overwhelming influxof information. Be it the print or electronic media or for that matter any otherevolving form of media (Internet, video games etc), we cannot help being exposedto a relentless litany of trashy ads, couch-potato sitcoms, violence-laden programs,all contributing to, in one way or the other, corporatization and consumerization ofour societies especially the youth. David Edwards, in his book Burning All Illusions,elucidates this notion, "The global media system plays a[n] explicit role in generatinga passive, depoliticized populace that prefers personal consumption to socialunderstanding and activity, a mass more likely to take orders than to make waves.Lacking any necessarily 'conspiratorial' intent, and merely following rational marketcalculations, the media system simply exists to provide light escapist entertainment."

This issue of EDucate! examines the issue of mainstream global media and how itdetermines the way we think, the way we consume, the way we make choices anddecisions and the way we pursue our everyday lives. Our cover story "DemocratizingGlobal Media: Generating a Discourse" brings together an in-depth analysis ofindividuals, intellectuals, media critics and social analysts regarding the role globalmedia in our society, its impact on our perceptions and societal realities and howour current educational processes, relationships and spaces can be used to addressthe challenges and opportunities of the media. Those who participated in this dialogue,possess a diverse portfolio of rich academic/intellectual experiences and knowledgepertaining to media, education and social activism. They include Robert McChesney,Edward Herman, Javed Jabbar, David Barsamian, Noam Chomsky, Stephen Fein,Michael Albert, Howard Zinn and many others. Hopefully our featured discourse willassist learners and educators in better understanding the issue of global media andtrigger further debates/dialogues on the subject.

Since the essence of this issue is global media and its impact on our societies, thereaders will find the content addressing various dimensions of the subject. We havealso included names and links of useful books and websites that will help indeveloping a better understanding of media dynamics especially for those interestedin further researching the field.

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank our subscribers and contributorsfor their valuable input and support. Without them we could not have accomplishedwhat we have in one year of publication. As EDucate! commences its second year,our aspiration and commitment to generate a medium for initiating social changer e m a i n u n d e t e r r e d . We s e e k y o u r h e l p i n f u r t h e r i n g o u r c a u s e .

6

Ambreena Aziz

Editor’sNote

Page 6: Vol.1 issue4

7

DEMOCRATIZINGGLOBAL MEDIAGenerating a Discourse

pparently we live in an age of action-packed technologies, swift scientific breakthroughs, burgeoningThird-World development and most importantly multifaceted media1 communications. In commonjargon, it is termed the Information Age, the Exciting New Era, the Globalized World, the

Digitalized Planet and so on. But sadly the other side of this kaleidoscope is totally monochrome; it’sa world full of poverty, oppression and injustice. It is a world dominated by larger-than-life mega-corporations that have taken control of not only our minds but also our common choices concerningtrivial matters of life.

Gumisai Mutume notes, “the world faces the spectrum of a global commercial media sector swampingthe traditional national press and promoting the commercial values of international capital, accordingto media analysts. They warn that the development of such a juggernaut hardly augurs well for anydiversity of opinion and freedom of expression, and threatens to muffle the voices of the world's poormajority in a continually globalizing world. Some nine super-corporations already virtually control theindustry and, together with 40 or so smaller players, produce the bulk of the world's newspapers, magazines,books, films, and television and radio programs”. Robert McChesney, one of the best analyst of mainstreamcontemporary media, explains the emergence of global media: “Before the media explosion of the late1980s, national media generally were characterized by locally or state-owned radio, television, andnewspapers, especially in developing countries. When a flurry of mergers, takeovers, and cross-ownershipsbegan, some sections believed that the advent of the Internet would eliminate the monopoly of thesemedia giants as a new democratic medium was being established. Subsequent developments, however,have seen the same corporations also colonizing the Internet”.

The Global Media Onslaught“One of the intentions of corporate–controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, ofimmobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, tofeel that there is no possibility for social change.”

David Barsamian

1Throughout this discussion the term ‘media’ should be understood to encompass printed materials, radio, television, and new communication and information technologies.

A

C o v e rS t o r y

BY: AMBREENA AZIZ

oday a corporate regime dominates the world.These corporations exercise major influence

over our day-to-day lives; they shape our attitudes,desires, priorities, relationships, values, sense ofidentity, modes of reflection, the ways in which webuild community, and our perceptions of time andchange. And one of their most powerful vehicle ofintervention is media. David Edwards in his book,Burning All Illusions, notes, the battle for freedomfrom the control of earlier church-based andautocratic regimes has been, at best, only partiallysuccessful; that many of the devices used tomaintain our conformity and passivity in the pasthave not been overcome at all but remain (oftenunconsciously) as servants of the powerful in new

guises. Today, the same Emperor can be seenstriding unashamedly across our TV screens,resplendent in the various guises of 'democracy','the free world', 'the free press', 'Third World aid','human rights concerns', 'normality',' just the wayworld is', appearing to be noble and moral as amatter of 'self-evident” common sense'. We havemerely come full circle to a new version of theold illusions that clothe the same naked ambitionand greed.

More than escalating consumerization, culturalhomogenization/degradation, violence, etc, media isused to manipulate the real interests of localpeople.

T

Page 7: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

8

Noam Chomsky discusses this implication:“A properly functioning system of indoctrinationhas a variety of tasks, some rather delicate. Oneof its targets is the ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’ masses.They must be kept that way, diverted withemotionally potent simplications, marginalized andisolated. Ideally, each person should be alone infront of the TV screen watching sports, soapoperas, or comedies, deprived of organizationalstructures that permit individuals lacking resourcesto discover what they think and believe ininteraction with others, to formulate their ownconcerns and programs, and to act to realize them.They can be permitted, even encouraged, to ratifythe decisions of their betters in periodic elections.The ‘rascal multitude’ are the proper targets ofthe mass media and a public education systemgeared to obedience and training in needed skills,including the skill of repeating patriotic slogans ontimely occasions.”

The global media system, in short, is oppressive, againstthe true essence of democracy (freedom of expression)and is vehemently biased. Due to the existence of suchmedia frameworks, where consumerism and commercialinterest reign supreme, the opportunities and spaces forcritical thought and action are being pushed somewherein the backdrop of general indifference, lack of supportmechanisms and little hope for a sustained social change.

Control Mechanisms & MediaManipulation

n t h e i r b o o k , T h e G l o b a l M e d i a : T h e N e wMissionaries of Corporate Capitalism, Edward Herman

and Robert McChesney note that the 1990s haswitnessed a dramatic restructuring of national mediaindustries and corporate mergers. The result of which isthe emergence of the global commercial media network,which is dominated by ten mostly U.S.-based transnationalmedia conglomerates (TMCs) such as Time Warner,Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, Sony, Dutch Philips, andNews Corporation (owner of Star). This global mediasystem is an indispensable agent of the globalizing,exploitative market economy as a whole. They furtherelaborate that the centralization of power is leading tothe disappearance of a central requirement of democraticsocieties – diversity of ownership and ideas in the publicsphere. The global media system runs on advertisingrevenue (from other large companies) and is responsibleprimarily to their shareholders. There is no accountabilityto the general public.

The built-in biases of the corporate mainstream mediafaithfully reflect the dominant ideology, seldom strayinginto territory that might cause discomfort to those whohold political and economic power, including those whoown the media or advertise in it. What follows is an

incomplete sketch of the methods by which those biasesare packaged and presented.

Manipulation often lurks in the things left unmentioned.The most common form of media misrepresentation isomission. Sometimes the omission includes not just vitaldetails of a story but the entire story itself, even onesof major import. Stories that might reflect poorly uponthe powers that be are the least likely to see the lightof day. Thus the Tylenol poisoning of several people bya deranged individual was treated as big news but manyother stories has remained suppressed for decades, despitethe best efforts of worker safety groups to bring the issuebefore the public. (Methods of Media Manipulation,Michael Parenti)

Media & Societal Issuesne of the ‘wonders’ of the present age is theinformation overload people are bombarded with

throughout the day. Television viewing has become moreof a necessity than a one-time leisure activity and as aresult TV has become the most powerful transmitter ofall sorts of media messages, apt or inapt, for all thosewilling to view. Today, electronic media (television) hasbecome synonymous with advertising glut, exaggeratedviolence, all driving audience towards consumerism, self-absorption, disregard for local culture and risingmaterialism. Richard J. Barnet and John Cavanagh arguethat the MTV entertainment network, which specializesin pop videos and serves as continuous commercial fora wide array of commercial products “may be the mostinfluential educator of young people in five continentstoday”.

Inapt media messages (those reinforcing negativestereotypes) undoubtedly, render a most damaginginfluence over children. Research has proven thatchildren are spending more time indoors in front of theTV, and less time interacting with each other outsidetheir immediate environments. Within the household, thespaces for thoughtful discussion and meaning-makingwithin the family are also breaking down.

Second, the kind of decontextualized programs that ourchildren are watching, such as film songs, sports, cartoons,quiz shows, and game shows, serve to entice childreninto what Langdon Winner has called a state of‘technological somnambulism’ (sleepwalking). When wetry to take this drug away from them, children oftenreact with great hostility.

Lastly, the global media often devalues and underminesinformal participatory folk media, which providealternative perspectives on peoples’ realities. The standardresponse thus far by government and citizen groups tothis crisis is censorship – which itself represents anotherform of thought control.

I

O

Page 8: Vol.1 issue4

9

What Can We Do?ndividually and collectively, people need to start dynamicsystematic processes of critical analysis and reflection about

mainstream media affecting themselves, their families, their societiesand their environments. This is not going to happen easily nor cansomebody suggest a predetermined timeline to achieve this level ofcritical consciousness whereby people begin to realize what they arefaced with (the onslaught of global media) and what can they doabout it. But yet, collective efforts and actions are needed todisentangle our minds from the contemporary media mechanismsof thought control and manipulation.

People-Centered Applications: One pathway is developing alternativemedia. Media can also be a very powerful tool for supportingdynamic and diverse forms of learning – every media experiencecan become an opportunity to learn or to enhance one’s learningabilities and processes. Yet, very few opportunities for creating atruly ‘liberating media’ exist. There is an urgent need to developconcrete community-based efforts to understand and address thechallenges that are emerging from a media-rich society. At the sametime, there is also an urgent need to develop innovative uses ofthe media to facilitate the learning and empowerment of people.

Moreover, teachers, parents and educators need to get involvedwith the process of creating critical media awareness (the abilityto access, analyze, evaluate and produce communications in avariety of forms) amongst children via creative alternatives oflearning and reflection.

Generating A Media Discourse“Think for yourselves, do not uncritically accept what you are told, anddo what you can to make the world a better place, particularly forthose who suffer and are oppressed.”

Noam Chomsky

n this issue of EDucate! we have initiated a debate on perhapsthe most pressing issue of the present age: the global media

and how they shape up our attitudes and lives. From media’s rolein a democratic society to the possible usage of Internet as avehicle for social change, we have tried to cover issues that seekcritical examination and understanding on part of those at thereceiving end. We have also explored how education, positivelyintertwined with media, can and cannot facilitate social change. Itshould be stressed that those concerned with education break outof the box of factory-schooling and join teachers, cultural activists,and concerned parents around the world in trying to engage theglobal media and to construct a lifelong learning system for the21st century that supports the development of the full humanpotential.

Hopefully this debate will provide a platform for an ongoingdiscourse that will allow people to explore and understand the issueof global media more profoundly and inspire them to take initiativesin their own capacities towards integrating media positively in theframeworks of education and learning, cultural awareness andcommunity building.

I

I

Media Literacy Starts at Home

There are a lot of simple things that you cando in your own home to promote media literacywith your children (adapted from the Just ThinkFoundation):

g Turn off the television during dinner: This willcreate an opportunity for family discussionduring which you can take time to talk withyour children about what's important to youa n d w h y y o u v a l u e c e r t a i n i d e a l s .

g Keep a viewing diary: Evaluate your family'stelevision viewing time and see where youcan balance and/or cut back on viewing.Aim to keep a balanced diet. What is theratio of entertainment programs to educationalprograms?

g Don't channel surf: This leads to unnecessaryviewing. If you are having trouble findingsomething to watch, instead of watching,engage in alternative activities with yourchildren.

g Avoid putting a television and computer inyour child's room: A child with his or herown television gets the message that it's okayto view excessively and indiscriminately.

g Encourage your children to think about theirfavorite shows: Why do they like them? Dothey relate to the characters? Does theprogram represent real-life situations? Askthem to come up with alternate solutions tothe conflicts presented in the program.

g Point out how media are constructed: Doyour children pay attention to commercials?Do they often remember them more than theprograms? What children usually do notrealize is that media exist to attract audiencesfor advertisers and programming is designedto attract specific markets. The easiest wayfor children to begin understanding this is tohave them pay attention to the types ofcommercials played during different programs.Why aren't there toy commercials during theevening news? Why are there so many adsf o r a l c o h o l d u r i n g s p o r t i n g e v e n t s ?

g Recognize media stereotypes: Are they true?Are they false? Why? Have your childrencompare the people you see in the mediawith real-life people. Can they think ofexcept ions to the character izat ions orportrayals they see?

g Remember that you, not the television, arethe master: The standard retort broadcastersuse for programming with questionablecontent is that “If you don't like what's on,then just don't watch it.”

You can begin these exercises as soon as yourchild becomes a media consumer (as early asage 2). The strategies suggested are great forguidance, but it's important to recognize yourchi ldren 's independence in making mediadecisions, as they grow older. Remember, it's notabout your controlling their choices, it's aboutteaching them to make more informed choices.

Page 9: Vol.1 issue4

Michael AlbertBegan his political activities in 1967and has been involved in activism andorganization ever since. He was a co-founder of South End Press where heworked for about ten years and laterof Z Magazine, ZMI, and variousonline projects including ZNet. Hecurrent ly works as par t of the ZMagazine collective and maintains ZNetand the new ZNet Sustainer Program.He also writes a column for Z, speakspublicly often, and has written over adozen books over the years, often withhis frequent co-author Robin Hahnel.His main activist focus has long beenthe c rea t i on and nu r t u rance o falternative media institutions, recentlymostly on the Internet.

Edward HermanEdward S. Herman is a ProfessorEmeritus of Finance at the WhartonSchool, University of Pennsylvania wherehe was teaching micro- and macro-economics and financial regulation for30 years. He has written extensively oneconomics, political economy, foreignpolicy and media analysis. He has aregular “Fog Watch” column in themonthly Z Magazine and has publishednumerous articles in many professionaland popular journals. He has published22 books, some of them are: “ThePolitical Economy of Human Rights(with Noam Chomsky)”, “CorporateC o n t r o l , C o r p o r a t e P o w e r ” ,“Manufacturing Consent: The PoliticalEconomy of the Mass Media (withNoam Chomsky)”, “The Myth of theLiberal Media: An Edward HermanReader” etc.

Javed JabbarHas extensive association with the massmedia for over 30 years as a writer,filmmaker, radio and TV broadcaster,advertising practitioner, parliamentarian(1985-91) and Federal Minister forInformation & Broadcasting and Science& Technology in the Government ofPakistan, 1988-90. He is FoundingChairman of the South Asian MediaAssociation.

Shilpa JainShilpa Jain is a learning activist forShikshantar in Udaipur, India. Throughher work at Shikshantar and previouse x p e r i e n c e s w i t h i n t e r n a t i o n a ld e v e l o p m e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n

Washington, DC, such as CreativeAssoc ia tes and the Academy forEducational Development, she hasconducted research on several areaso f educa t ion and deve lopmen t :democratic living, conflict transformation,creativity, Gram Sabhas and PanchayatiRaj Institutions, the role of NGOs incivic participation, systemic reform,community participation, and equityeducation. She has a B.A. magna cumlaude in Political Science and Women'sS tudies f rom Harvard Univers i t y.

Chavi NanaChavi Keeney Nana is one of 40Americans who were awarded theMarshall Scholarship to study at auniversity in Britain (Oxford University).

A double major in In te rnat ionalRelations and German, Chavi hasworked wi th Bosnian refugees inGermany and with the InternationalRescue Committee ( IRC) in Romeduring the Kosovo crisis. She plans tocontinue her efforts to influence refugeepolicies and forced migration. Her aimis to become actively involved inhuman r ights and refugee pol icydevelopment.

Wasif RizviBefore co-founding Shikshantar, Wasifworked in Pakistan as a social-policydevelopment consultant in the areas ofplanning, policy and organizationala n a l y s i s , r e s e a r c h , p r o g r a mdesign/development, and programevaluation with USAID, DFID, CIDA,NORAD, Asian Development Bank, theAsia Foundation, PEN TV, and PhilipsAcademy. He has two postgraduated e g r e e s : a M a s t e r ' s d e g r e e i nEducation from Harvard University anda M.A. in English Literature fromPunjab University, Lahore.

Janet WeilJanet Weil is a writer and activist livingin Northern California, USA. She hastaught English to immigrants and in1998 participated in “Equipped for theFuture,” a nat ional p i lo t projectes tab l i sh ing s tandards fo r adu l teducation. She welcomes feedback,especially from Pakistani readers, [email protected].

D E M O C R AT I Z I N G G LO B A L M E D I A - G E N E R AT I N G A D I S C O U R S E . . .C O V E R S T O R Y

A B O U T T H E P A R T I C I P A N T S

CHAVI NANA

MICHAEL ALBERT

ED

WARD HERMAN

JANET WEIL

WASIF RIZVI

JAVED JABBAR

OP-EDs

David BarsamianFounder and director of AlternativeRadio. Regarded as an “aceinterviewer” and “an ingeniousimpresario of radical broadcasting”.Awarded as “Top Ten Media Heroesof 1994”

Noam ChomskyLeading intellectual, linguist andpolitical dissident. Chomsky hasbeen regarded as ‘the mostimportant intellectual alive’.

Prof. Anita Ghulam AliOne of the most respected andrenowned educationists of thecountry - Prof. Anita is currently theMinister for Education, Sindh,Pakistan. She is also the ManagingDirector of the Sindh EducationFoundation and Patron/Chairpersonof EDucate!

David KortenCofounder and Board Chair, PositiveFutures Network, and President ofThe People-Centered DevelopmentForum. Korten’s analysis of thecorporate power has been regardedas one of the best works availableon the subject.

Robert McChesneyLeading media analyst and authorof The Global Media: The NewMissionaries of Corporate Capitalismand many more compelling booksand articles on institutional mediaanalysis.

Noorud- Din MerchantNoorud - Din has been associatedwith the field of computers for almosta decade. He has also worked withthe SEF on parental participation ineducation. Currently he is workingat the Aga Khan Education Services,Pakistan.

Matthew RothschildEditor of The Progressive Magazine.Matthew is highly critical of the rolethat media played in recent politicalupheavals across the globe.

Bina ShahWriter and journalist from Karachi.Author of Animal Medicine andWhere They Dream in Blue.

Naushad VadsariyaNaushad also works for the AgaKhan Education Services, Pakistan.He has recently arrived in Pakistanfrom Canada. His aim is to traveland study various languages andcultures.

Howard ZinnProfessor, activist, and author of thewidely acclaimed A People's Historyof the United States.

SHILPA JAIN

Page 10: Vol.1 issue4

democratizing

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

w h a t i s t h e r o l e o f ( m a i n s t r e a m c o n t e m p o r a r y )m e d i a i n a ‘ r e a l ’ f r e e & d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y ?

media&

democracy

Page 11: Vol.1 issue4

12

Edward HermanIt should entertain, amuse and enlighten – and as regardsenlightenment, it should fill what is called the ‘publicsphere’ in which the issues important in a democraticsociety are debated and discussed and information isprovided relevant to those debates and issues. This makesfor informed citizenship, essential to a genuine democracy.

Michael AlbertSupposing in a good society ... media would entertain,inspire, educate, inform, provide a vehicle for developingand sharing ideas and agendas – foreveryone. In other words, itwould do pretty much whatpeople say media is supposed todo now.

Good future media would dothese things compatibly with theopera t ions o f o ther cent ra ls t ructures o f a good fu turesociety. As a result, good media,like other good undertakings ina g o o d s o c i e t y , w o u l d b es t r u c t u r e d i n a c c o r d w i t hsolidarity among actors, equitabled i s t r i bu t ion o f income andcircumstances, diversity of optionsa n d u n d e r t a k i n g s , a n dparticipatory self management for both those producingand those consuming the med ia ' s in fo rmat ion .

Good media would have, as additional media-specificvalues, honesty, relevance, quality, the presentation ofdiverse views and provision of diverse channels andmodes of communication available to all, especiallydissenters – all of which highlight the problem that weendure now, of course. Because now the key definingstructures of societies are antithetical to entertaining,inspiring, educating, informing, and providing means fordeveloping shared ideas and agendas for everyone – otherthan in the l imited sense of doing these thingsconsistently with reproducing elite class, political, gender,and racial advantages. With current media, the worthyaims that we advocate are swamped by unworthy aimsthat maintain our subordination. Thus, mainstream medianowadays deliver honesty, relevance, diversity, access, andaesthetic quality only within the constraint of first servingelite, corporate, political, and other interests. In thefuture it would provide honest information and uplifting

entertainment instead as a first priority, against andundermining any elite interests that might exist.

Stephen FeinIn a free society, the media should offer the broadestpossible spectrum of information and opinion and allowindividuals to choose what they wish to see, hear andread. In a democratic society the media should help itscitizens become better informed. In a free and democraticsociety the media should do both.

Chavi NanaThe primary role of the media ina democratic society should be toprovide a channel through whichviews, both of the majority andthe minority, can be expressed.Especially given the fact that themajority of democracies are tool a r g e t o f a c i l i t a t e d i r e c tdemocracy, the media shouldp r e s e n t a f o r u m i n w h i c hmultiple opinions are courted,r e p r e s e n t e d , a n d i n w h i c hdiscussion is encouraged.

Janet Weil“Everyone has the right tof r eedom o f op in ion and

expression; this right includes freedom to holdopinions without interference and to seek, receiveand impart information and ideas through anymedia and regardless of frontiers.”

Article 19, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

As I sit down to write my responses to the questions on“Democratizing Global Media” at my computer inCalifornia, I am uncomfortably aware of the severe lackof equality and reciprocity in the media (and political)relations between the U.S. and Pakistan. My country isnot flooded with Pakistani media messages that seek tochange, abruptly and permanently, cultural practices suchas care of the elderly, relations between adult childrenand their parents, and courteous behavior of youth –messages that I might well agree with! My nightlynational newscast does not start with statements byPakistani leaders or careful analysis of decisions taken bythe government of Pakistan; but the reverse may well betrue of news of the United States in Pakistan. What isthe picture of Pakistan to the average television viewerin the United States – and to me?

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

M E D I A A N D D E M O C R A C Y

With current media, the worthy aims that weadvocate are swamped by unworthy aims thatmaintain our subordination. Thus, mainstreammedia nowadays delivers honesty, relevance,diversity, access, and aesthetic quality onlywithin the constraint of first serving elite

corporate, political, and other interests. In thefuture it would provide honest information and

uplifting entertainment instead as a firstpriority, against and undermining any elite

interests that might exist.

Page 12: Vol.1 issue4

13

So … here we are, brainwashed or at least confused anddistracted by the global media “thwarting any meaningfulreflection on blatant injustices … and selling seductivefantasies …” Media grow out of, reflect and perpetuatethe already existing, highly inequitable structures. Whatto do, where to begin in the face of systems of mostlycorporate-controlled, highly undemocratic, world-alteringmedia?

I have grave doubts that global media can ever be‘democratized’ – that is, produced in some form ofeconomic democracy and expressing the views of, andmeeting genuine needs of, all its ‘consumers’. That idealcan be approximated in locally or regionally controlledmedia, perhaps. However, I do not feel at all hopeless;to engage in this discourse is already to begin to, inChomsky’s words, “discover what [I and others] thinka n d b e l i e v e i n , t o e n g a g e i n i n t e r a c t i o n … ”

Javed JabbarThe very nature of media is to be selective, to besuppressive and to be subjective and that focusesattention on the five paradoxes of media, on which Ihave written extensively. Firstly, the function of mediabeing to delineate reality has unfortunately moved fromdelineation to distortion because distortion is in-built intothe very nature of media. Therefore, media, in anyongoing situation in a society, should strive to minimizethat inherent tendency to distort by being unable torepresent the totality of a given situation. We assumethat media portray reality, say independent, balanced, fairmedia doing a fair job of representing reality, whichactually they don’t because it is not possible for mediato be comprehensively accurate. But obviously we cannotdo without media; we need media so that somebodysitting in Timbuktu gets to know what’s happening inthe Sindh Education Foundation. So, what should mediado? I think, first and foremost, reduce this naturaltendency towards distortion and suppression or selection.

Wasif RizviAll these terms are misinterpreted and misrepresentedvery frequently. Free democratic society is a very loadedterm; it has been described within a particular framework,which in itself is highly questionable. Very simply a freedemocratic society should mean that people are allowedto participate in decision-making. They are a part ofdecision-making, in small socio economic decisions aboutt h e i r l i v e s a t a g r a s s r o o t s c o m m u n i t y l e v e l .

Unfortunately none of these frameworks in so-calledformal situations exists. Numerous anthropological studieshave shown that these frameworks did exist, do exist butin small isolated and what is normally labeled asbackward or primitive societies. The studies have shownu s t h a t i n p r e - m o d e r n t i m e a n d e v e n d u r i n gcontemporary times there have been fairly significant andsizeable societies in which such frameworks existed wherecommon people were allowed very significant roles indecision making which influence the entire community.

In the modern frameworks, however, such possibilities donot exist. Therefore, the so-called free democratic societiesbasically consist of small high interest setups in whichthe power - almost the entire power of decision-makingis concentrated. In so-called free enterprise societies wherewe see a lot of private control which can also be calledas money control or interest.

So if the question does not have a connotation of whatwe normally imply by the free democratic society onlythen we can move into the ideal role of media. I thinkit's important to understand that the moment we attachterms like free government or democracy, they come witha very heavy burden of predetermined frameworks, whichhave nothing to do with freedom or democracy. As amatter of fact, some writers have coined the termcorporate oligopoly in which private business controls thevast sectors of decision making, those sectors include,what we call, the media agencies and then obviouslytheir role is then limited to promoting, cementing,advancing the powers of their owners and majority shareholders.

Ideally though, if you have a framework of peopleparticipating in their own decision-making then mediahas an important role of examining, reflecting and raisingawareness regarding those decisions. Media should thenhave frameworks in which people are allowed to comeand participate freely and have their points of views, withtheir real interest highlighted.

The other important role that it has is giving exposureand expre s s ion to a l o t o f cu l tu ra l and soc i a lphenomenon i.e. engaging arts and cultural expressionsand literature for all these societies in which it isfunctioning democratically.

Good media therefore has a multi-pronged function but

I have grave doubts that global media can ever be ‘democratized’ – that is, producedin some form of economic democracy and expressing the views of, and meeting genuine

needs of, all its ‘consumers’.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

Page 13: Vol.1 issue4

essentially staying within theframework of grassroots decisionmaking and democracies andparticipating in it as a tool fori n f o r m a t i o n e x c h a n g e o fawareness, providing reflectiveplatforms for people to come andexpress and engage in variousforms of cultural expressions.

Shilpa JainI am highly critical of any role acentralized, mass media wouldplay in a democratic society. First, we would need tounderstand what a democratic society is and what itmeans to be ‘free’? Unfortunately, the primary examplesof a ‘functioning, well-run democracy’ leave much to bedesired. Given corporations’ and international agencies’near-total control over policymaking decisions, extremelyskewed legislative representation (where one needs to bea millionaire or lakhpati to contest elections), and lowvoter turnout (barely 40%), we must seriously considerwhether ‘democracy’ exists in these countries – oranywhere in the world.

We can try and envision a free and democratic society:a network of small, interconnected and interdependentsocieties, where power and decision-making would bedynamic and mobile, never concentrated in a few hands,never in a central place. Where individuals andcollectives would continuously work to determine howthey want to live, their relationships with each other andwith nature. In such a context, media – of any and allforms – would be there to nurture critical thinking andcreativity, to ensure a diversity of ideas and values, tooffer spaces for dialogue and dissent.But media (television, film, newspapers, textbooks, etc.),

as it currently exists, cannot playthis role. Built into its functioningis a near-total reliance on elitepower interests – for management,financial backing, technologicalknow-how, and therefore, forconceptual control. In otherwords, what we ‘know’ about theworld is largely a function ofw h a t w e a r e t o l d : t h esensationalistic and superficiala n a l y s i s w e g e t f r o m t h i smonopolized media. It succeeds in

diverting public attention away from key issues, rootcauses, systemic factors, our roles and responsibilities –indeed, everything that is critical for nurturing ademocratic society. Instead, the world over, the middleclass is kept busy with soap operas, music videos,superficial news, talk shows and sports. The media – inits awesome technological grandeur – remains at a greatdistance from our everyday lives and experiences. Theisolation, passivity, narrow thinking, etc. bred by mediaguarantees that people rarely reflect on why their families,communities, societies, are facing deep crises and whatthey can do about it?

Thus, despite all the rhetoric of being the ‘watchdog ofsociety’, the mainstream media mainly exists to reinforcethe dominant wil l of the el ite. How could it beotherwise, when the media is largely owned and operatedby a handful of conglomerates, who have their owninterests in profit-making via consumerism and controlover resources? For these reasons (and more), today’smedia cannot play the role needed in ‘ free’ and‘democratic’ societies: for encouraging and facilitatingcreative expression, lively and dynamic dialogue, andpersonal and social responsibility.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

The media — in its awesome technologicalgrandeur — remains at a great distance

from our everyday lives and experiences.The isolation, passivity, narrow thinking, etc.

bred by media guarantees that peoplerarely reflect on why their families,

communities, societies, are facing deep crisesand what they can do about it.

SH IKSHANTAR The People’s Institute for Rethinking Education andDevelopment

VIMUKTSHIKSHA

Vimukt Shiksha, a bulletin of Shikshantar was created toliberate the vision and understanding of learning–sharing–doingfrom the walls of factory–schooling; and to develop opportunities

that liberate the full potential of human beings.

Shikshantar is a non–profit movement, foundedto challenge the monopoly of factory schooling.

We are committed to creating spaces whereindividuals and organizations can together engage

in meaningful dialogues to transform existingmodels of education and development.

To learn more or to find out how to join our efforts, pleasecontact:

SHIKSHANTAR ANDOLAN21 Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313004 India

Tel: (91) 294451303;Fax: (91) 294451941

Email: [email protected]

SHIKSHANTARThe People’s Institute for Rethinking Education and Development

w w w. s w a r a j . o r g / s h i k s h a n t a r

Page 14: Vol.1 issue4

democratizing

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

w h a t i s w r o n g w i t h m e d i a t o d a y ?

assessingmainstream

media

E V E R Y O N E S E E M S T O H A V E S O M E S E N S E R E G A R D I N G T H E F A C T T H A T T H E R E I S S O M E T H I N G F U N D A M E N T A L L Y W R O N GW I T H T H E W A Y M E D I A I S F U N C T I O N I N G T O D A Y. I F Y O U W E R E T O I N D I C A T E S O M E O F T H E M A J O R C O N C E R N S W I T H

C O N T E M P O R A R Y M A I N S T R E A M M E D I A , W H A T W O U L D T H O S E B E ?

Page 15: Vol.1 issue4

16

Michael AlbertTo me this is very much like asking what is wrong with thepharmaceutical industry. That is, some people tend to thinkthat media is quite exceptional, really very special in waysnothing else is special. I think, instead, that once we answerwhat is wrong with industries per se, then refining the answerto address the special aspects of media, or of pharmaceuticals,or of whatever else we might want to address – each havingits own special features, of course –isn't really all that difficult. Perceivingand correcting the common flaws ofall is the key issue, then moving onto special features.

S o , t h e f i r s t t h i n g i s t h a tmainstream media is capitalist –t h a t i s , i t i s c o r p o r a t e a n doperates in a competitive market.Mainstream media remuneratesproperty. It replicates all society'sd e f i n i n g i n e q u a l i t i e s a n dhierarchies in its own organization,and thus also in its products.Mainstream media employs wageslaves. It enriches owners. Itsubordinates the many, internally,to the will of the few, and it isthe few, enjoying their elite advantages, whose ideas andvalues define the practices and products of media.

More, mainstream media's product is most often audience,w h i c h i s s o l d t o a d v e r t i s e r s . I n f o r m a t i o n a n dentertainment is in these cases only a means to the endof profit via the sale of people with disposable incometo corporations who are also trying to profit. Truth,aesthetics, news, wisdom – these are all secondarymatters, at most – and this is so even when informationis the actual product that is sold, as well. That is,contemporary mainstream media exists in a system ofadvantage and domination and is as a result oriented byits owners and rulers to preserve that system from whichthose owners and rulers benefit and whose systemic logicand values are inscribed in their minds and manners.

Mainstream media are trying to profit and to maintainthe conditions that ensure that productive surpluses willbe conveyed to them as profits rather then going insteadto workers in the form of higher wages or betterconditions or better social services.There is the matter of the class of people who I callcoordinators, who don't own capital, but who instead

monopolize skills and knowledge and daily decision-making levers of power – lawyers, doctors, engineers,managers – people who largely control their owncircumstances and, whether collectively or individually,also those of others, below. These coordinators too haveclass interests, sometimes in line with those of capital,sometimes more in pursuit of their own direct gain. But,all the time, with few exceptions, the coordinator class

is committed to making sure thatthose be low, those who a reisolated from skills, knowledge,and decision-making power, staybelow. This too impacts thenature of mainstream media andits priorities, curbing it fromproviding a democratic outlet andf rom empower ing the weak .

Stephen FeinThe major media are powerfulinstitutions that see themselves assharing power with the rulingelite. Those who own and runthe major media, think it is theirrole to be responsible participantswithin that elite. They are upper-middle-class or wealthy individuals

who come to believe that what is in the best interestof the people in power, is in their best interest as well.The institutions, they run, ultimately become biasedtowards those in power and towards their ideas.

The biggest problems in the media today are: 1) theconcentration of global media in very few hands, allWestern-based corporations, 2) the paucity of non-profita n d p u b l i c - i n t e r e s t m e d i a / p r o g r a m s , a n d t h ecommercialization of the public media that still does exist,3) the interference of policymakers with the developmentof community-based alternative media (eg. microradiobroadcasting), 4) the ability of major media corporationsto inf luence (dictate) government media policy.

Chavi NanaGiven that one of my visions for the proper role ofmedia is that it should provide a forum for a multiplicityof diverse views, one of the major problems with themedia is that it is controlled by large conglomerates,obviously in their own interests. Microsoft, various searchengines, CNN, etc., although they rarely admit it, allhave their own agendas (both explicit and implicit) thatcolor the information they regard as relevant and

The biggest problems in the media today are:1) the concentration of global media in very

few hands, all Western-based corporations,2) the paucity of non-profit and public-interestmedia/programs, and the commercialization of

the public media that still does exist,3) the interference of policymakers with thedevelopment of community-based alternative

media (eg. microradio broadcasting),4) the ability of major media corporations toinfluence (dictate) government media policy.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

A S S E S S I N G M A I N S T R E A M M E D I A

Page 16: Vol.1 issue4

17

permissive – thus, our ‘ freedom of access’ to allinformation is ordered by the preferences of these largecompanies. The fact that these large companies are nowaggregating under the umbrella of large conglomerates iseven more detrimental, as it further limits 1) the scopeof the information we receive, 2) our ability to contestthis at levels lower than the conglomerate. Finally, thefact that most of these businesses are located in theWest means that for the Western readership/web surfer,their information is limited to particular views present intheir societies – for those in other parts of the world,however, it means that their access to the world andwhat is exported as advantageous is colored through thedominant Western liberal paradigm.

In addition, while some major cultures, views, etc. areignored, in another sense there is too much informationpresented and too few tools to sort out the good fromthe bad or detrimental. On the one hand, I am againstcompanies filtering information (as they already do) forthe consumer; on the other hand, consumers must bemore critically educated in their use of the resources likethe web and newspapers – taught that even the ‘worldwide web’ only presents certain views, that certainnewspapers have a conservative or liberal bias, and helpedto develop the tools to sort through information and seekother sources, within their own culture and experience,or outside of it.

Janet WeilThis question begs another question: what is wrong withhuman beings? Answer: quite a lot. Media too oftenoperates out of the following dynamic: some few peopleproduce, distribute and profit from media products (TVshows, to take one example) that ‘hook’ perhaps millionsof other people into an uncritical dependency. A casecan be made for television, including broadcast, cableand videos, having the most negative effects of all globalmedia, as it is:1) one-way communication, inducing a state of passive,

somewhat addictive visual arousal (see ScientificAmerican, February 2002, “Television Addiction,” byRobert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi for recentresearch results on this effect);

2) watched individually or in small groups rather thancommunally like movies;

3) expensive to produce, compared to print or evenwebsites, so that rich countries and corporations haveh u g e a d v a n t a g e s i n b e i n g t h e p r o d u c e r s ;

4) disruptive of family cultural values and behaviors,such as home prayers, reading to children, bedtimes,eating dinner together, etc.

5) often considered trivial in a way other media arenot, so that critical attention is not placed on it,even by people who analyze films, books, and othermedia;

Television watching displaces communal activities such associal or political meetings, team sports for adults, groupsinging, conversation and many others. The way televisionoperates as a cultural/political force throughout the worldis not in the public interest, though individual showsmay be, or try to be. In short, global media, in myexample television, are phenomena with unprecedented,enormous social effects, produced by some people formoney or power or influence, consumed by other peoplef o r i n f o r m a t i o n , d i v e r s i o n o r e v e n a d d i c t i o n .

Javed JabbarIt is also important to make the distinction that mediaare not homogenous when we say there’s somethinginherently wrong with mainstream media. In manysegments, I have found media being assumed to beelectronic media. Even in very educated circles ofPakistan, South Asia, it is assumed that the word pressmeans newspapers and when you say media, you aretalking about radio and TV. But I want to make adistinction between newspapers, radio and television andthen further distinctions will have to be made aboutwhether we are talking about media originating from theWest or now originating from Asia, pretending to beAsian and, yet being actually controlled by the West.

One good example is the Star TV Network owned byan Australian, now an American citizen, who has goneto India bringing out Star Television and is willing tosink 600 million dollars over 10 years into it. They lose60 million dollars per year and are willing to lose morebecause in the next twenty years, they hope to recoverinvestment, they are already beginning to recover it.That’s another kind of media and it cannot be comparedto, let us say, a courageous individual newspaper, whichis making its own contribution to international discoursebut is owned by a family or a person with many morelimited means but because of its editorial boldness or itsethical integrity, it has a voice and a respect. So whileit’s a part of mainstream media, it is not prone to thecorrupted distortions that others are very easily prone to.

There is no such thing as mainstream media, which arehomogenous and can be described with one stroke.Wi th in them the re a r e qua l i f i c a t i on s and subqualifications. For example, lets take BBC World TV. Ibelieve that in their news treatment, even though it’sincreasingly superficial, the average duration of the newsheadline has been shrinking over the past 20 years. Ifthe average headline used to take a minute and a half,today in thirty seconds they want to cover it and moveon to the next one, which is one example of thesuperficiality and the lack of depth even in the BBCWorld TV, which is probably the world’s best televisionnetwork, if you had to choose.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

Page 17: Vol.1 issue4

18

Now, the news tries to balance it by always representingtwo points of view: the Palestinian and the Israeli pointof view. Within one channel you have two facets; youhave balance on one hand in news content, for whateverit is worth, they do give Yasser Arafat’s spokesmen achance to have their say and they give the same toIsraelis.

When it comes to programming, take the case of SouthAsia it is grossly imbalanced. In South Asia they do not,for example, at the moment originate a single programfrom Pakistan. They have Question Time India, theyhave India Business Today, they have Face to Face India,everything is Indian because they are market driven.

I just want to make that distinction that within a singlemedium, there are facets that are positive and there arefacets that are highly negative. Mainstream media todayare clearly protagonists with a very direct vested interestin what is happening in the corporate commercial senseor the state and governmental sense.

T h e s t a t e a n d g o v e r n m e n tcontrolled media, too, have a verydirect vested interest. I am sayingthis just to make the point thatmedia are assumed to be thecustodians of public interest, thatthey have adversarial relationshipwith the government and, theyhelp people monitor what thestate and government are doingwrong and they are the truerepresentatives of the publ icinterest. But actually, often, the media are not thecustodians of the public interest and ironically what hasnow happened is that there is a space being created fora new type of institution, which is independent of themedia, independent of the state and government, whichacts purely in the public interest without a commercialmotive and, without a motive of power which states andgovernments want.

I’m first of all referring to a need for an independentmonitoring mechanism, which then uses media todisseminate its findings about media. At the momentthere is barely any institution of this nature, there aresome watchdog groups in the United States for example,but in South Asia and in Pakistan there was virtuallynone. We set up something called the Citizens MediaCommission in December 1997, in order to observe, firstof all, electronic media freedom. The purpose was toserve as a publ ic interest body, independent ofgovernment and independent of the media so as to keeptrack of both. Now there is a need to develop and

nurture such institutions because the power of the media,to set the tone and terms of public debate, is so greatthat you become enslaved by the media-driven terms ofdebate. So the media themselves become the kind ofindoctrinating, controlling process, which they are notsupposed to be. They are supposed to be the custodiansof public interest but they, ironically, end up doingcons ide rab le d i s se rv i ce to the pub l i c in te re s t .

Wasif RizviI think ever since the technology itself exposed variousforms of media to a lot public opinion one positive thingthat has come out by accident is that people have afirst-hand opportunity to look at the media frameworksof very powerful systems and societies and examine itsomewhat freely. This sense has existed for a very longtime but what is wrong with media is that it is a veryimportant tool for a very small and very concentratedwealth and interest groups to consolidate and protecttheir powers. We are talking about few hundred thousandpeople controlling the access to almost all the resources

of the world. And, in order fori t t o b e c o m e p o s s i b l e i t i sessential that people whose livesare being controlled are givensome sort of a justification, andmore critically their reflection andanalysis is blocked somehow. Aframework of analyzing scenariosin the i r l i ve s and l ives andactions of people who governthem is l imited, isolated andrestricted and it should not gobeyond a specified set of reference

points; all of these sophisticated functions are performedby media, one example of which you may have seen theother day on that show India Times on BBC world.

Few weeks ago a panel of supposed Indian experts wasdiscussing the possibilities of war with Pakistan. Theywere given a specified framework that whether Pakistanis attacked now or should any form of discussion beallowed with Pakistan so it could give up its allegedhostility. Now none of the six actually questioned thatIndia infact is a hostile state, which is beyond any doubt.India has almost half a million troops present in Kashmir.Between 50,000 to 100,000 Kashmiris have been brutallymurdered by the Indian army. Now, these are hardindisputable facts, which are usually rendered unnecessaryby the media intellectuals. Ironically though, they werediscussing Kashmir, the Kashmir dispute and itsrepercussions on the relationship with Pakistan but theywere not allowed to deviate from the framework, whichwas given by the power managers in India. Again the

We are talking about few hundred thousandpeople controlling the access to almost all theresources of the world. And, in order, for it to

become possible it is essential that people,whose lives are being controlled, are givensome sort of justification and more critically

their reflection and analysis is blockedsomehow.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

Page 18: Vol.1 issue4

framework was that you discuss that either we talk withPakistan or should we beat them up. We are notdiscussing our role in Kashmir that is not allowed in thatframework.

This pathology, the moral pathology exists at the coreof media intellectuals. They automatically absorb the linethat they have to take to please the power managers.So ranging from a callous, meaningless, senseless, waythat the media in a very non-sophisticated mannerfollowing the state line or in a somewhat glitzy and alittle flashy manner in which you have your BBCs andCNNs; the purpose of it stays absolutely within theframework that has been allowed by the power managerswhich usually include the actual owners of media as well.

Under such circumstances, it is simply not possible foranyone to anchor a serious problem on any big mediaoutfit if they have not already absorbed and subscribedto limiting themselves; limiting their discourses withinthe outlines that have been given. No one is going toask the obvious questions, no oneis going to reflect on the pervasivereality. It is all about confusingterms; it is all about deflecting andrefraining from discussing anyserious issue.

Another much touted form ofmedia these days is the Internet. Usually many peopleopen up the Internet everyday, they go on yahoo andyahoo usually has a headline on the tragic situation inthe Middle East. Now you go in and lots being saidparticularly about Palestinian militant killed, Israel killsPalestinian militant and if there is an Israeli dead, Israelidied because of the terror attack. Palestinian terroristsattack and Israeli killed. When you read it, it is actuallya suicide mission at a military post and Israeli occupationarmy within the Palestinian territory and within theframework of international law any occupation armyshould be attacked and resisted. But such resistance is"terror" and they are the terrorists and they are attackingIsrael and when Israelis invade Palestinian villages withtanks and F-16 bombers, they are actually killingPalestinian terrorists and that 's on supposedly ademocratized form of media the Internet where anyonecan make a web page. So these are some disturbingexamples of what is tragically wrong with the media.

Shilpa Jaina. The mass media is highly skewed towards reinforcing

and expanding the status quo: The media largelyprojects and elevates (in brilliant color) the cultureof competition, profit, material success above all else,

which is dominating in the world today. It tries toconvince us that this is the ONLY possibility for thepresent and the future; this path is inevitable andunavoidable; and so we should all play the game towin it. Winning, according to its terms, of course,means greater consumption of market services andproducts, often to the detriment of our fellow humanbeings and the natural world. This attitude is largelya function of advertising – by far, the dominantfeature and function of media. In this way, the massmedia assists in the project of Modernity: to produceself-serving, de-humanized units, disconnected fromone another and dependent on modern institutionsfor their thoughts, values and actions.

b. The mass media heightens a culture of expertism andelitism: By constantly and deliberately blurring theline between ‘fact’ and ‘interpretation’, it tries to passoff its subjective (biased) analyses as the objective‘Truth’. It props up celebrities and experts to showthat we, the viewers, are incapable of understanding

the world, our localities, even ourfamilies, without their professionalg u i d a n c e . O u r o w n l i v e dexperiences are nothing, whencompared to the images we areshown and the commentaries weare given about ‘reality’. (In thisway, the mass media complements

the indoctrination we received in schooling, to deferto ‘authority’ and ‘experts’ in all situations.) Themass media’s near-total rel iance on advancetechnologies exacerbates this culture of expertism andelitism, as it is impossible for the majority of theworld’s people to access either the technology itselfand/or the technical knowledge needed to operatethe technology. This alienation and dependency ontechnology aggravates the other feelings of inadequacythat media produces: our losses of self-esteem,confidence, creativity, responsibility, diversity, etc.

c. The mass media enhances a culture of si lentobedience: By locking us in the passive role ofviewer, the media almost guarantees our quietacceptance of its (read: elite) power. We are mutedzombies, ever watching, never acting. We rarely feelprompted to raise serious questions about the rootsof the crises being faced today (extreme inequalities,ecological extermination, widespread violence), andinstead find ourselves intensely occupied withsuperficial and trivial matters – of sports, soap operas,game shows. Such silent obedience is furthermagnified by the media’s projection of our individualand collective impotence – our powerlessness to doanything in the face of such a massive machine.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

...the moral pathology exists at the core ofmedia intellectuals. They automatically absorbthe line that they have to take to please the

power managers.

19

Page 19: Vol.1 issue4

he current cr i s i s and war prov idetextbook examples of media propaganda

and manipulation and the induced, whatOrwell called groupthink. The official story is avirtual, non-stop monchromatice, one-note samba:They, the ‘evildoers’, hate us. They hate ourvalues and who we are. From CNN and Foxto Time and NPR, there is little discussion ofpolitics and the underlying causes of terrorism.The uniformity of opinion is striking. It shouldgive anyone pause. Rather than being obedientand passive absorbers of news and informationwe should be proactive.

Be skeptical. Ask questions, probe. Think outsidethe box. Look for alternative, independent sourceslike, commondreams.org, znet.org, indymedia.org,alternativeradio.org, fair.org. Read the internationalpress l ike The Guardian, Le Monde, TheIndependent and magaz ines l i ke Z , TheProgressive, International Socialist Review, ThirdWorld Resurgence and Extra! Study books byNoam Chomsky, Edward Said, Howard Zinn,Arundhati Roy, Angela Davis. Support progressivepublishers like South End Press, Seven StoriesPress and Common Courage. Take off your

i deo log i ca l b l i nde r s . E xam ine you rassumptions. Once you strip away theveneer of the constructed version of events,

it becomes rather easy.

It's not neuro-surgery and requires no specialtraining or talent. Young people, in particular,need to de-link themselves from the propagandagrid. Thinking outside the box is fun, challengingand exciting. Build networks and alliances withkindred spirits. Create your own media. JelloBiafra advises, Stop whining. “Become themedia.” In fighting back and building positivealternatives, we fulfill ourselves as citizens andhuman beings. Rumi, the Sufi poet, was bornin Afghanistan. He is the greatest poet in Persianand one of the greatest in any language. Hisfame and reputat ion are such that threecountries claim him; his birthplace Afghanistan,Iran, for he wrote in Farsi; and Turkey, wherehe is buried. But he belongs to all of us. Andhis words inspire many today. Almost a thousandyears ago he wrote:“The meaning of a mystery does not arrivethrough the mind, but to do some service andit becomes clear.”

hat EDucate! proposes as a subjectfor sustained debate, discussion and

deliberation for scholars and activists acrossthe planet, is one of the central issues of ourt i m e s : h o w t o b e s t d e p l o y m e d i a a n dcommunication systems to serve democraticvalues in this, so-called Information Age. Onone hand, this is a fair ly s traightforwardd i s c u s s i o n a b o u t m e d i a o w n e r s h i p ,commercialism, government censorship and thelike. On the other hand, it is a maddeninglycomplex discussion of how various factorsinfluence media, and how difficult it is to devisesuperior media systems. The bottom line, as thecurrent commissars of global media like to putit, is that if we treasure the thought of living ina peaceful and just world, we have no choicebut to pursue dramatic, even radical, mediareform. It is a mandatory aspect of a broader,democratic reformation of the global politicaleconomy.

D A V I D B A R S A M I A N

Developing An AlternativePropaganda and/or commercial indoctrination

can be very ef fect ive, but i t i s neveromnipotent. It always must butt up against thereality of people's lives. Hence, to the extentthere is social conflict and tension in peoples'lives, it will tend to have the potential toundermine the propagandistic nature of messagesfrom the media system.

We must develop our critique of mainstreammedia, our understanding of the policies thatput the system into place, and then organize forstructural media reform. We must try to developalternative and independent media at the sametime. The call for people to abandon existingmedia without a viable alternative is a waste oftime; merely establishing independent media isinsufficient. We need policies to assure thatnoncommercial and nonprofit media can prosper.

R O B E R T M c C H E S N E Y

Page 20: Vol.1 issue4

democratizing

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

h a s m e d i a h i s t o r i c a l l y f u n c t i o n e d a s a nindo c t r i na t i ng & so c i a l c on t r o l t oo l o r d i d i t happen

a f t e r t h e a d v e n t o f t e l e v i s i o n a n d i n t e r n e t ?

informationor

manipulation?

T H I S Q U E S T I O N A I M S T O H I G H L I G H T T H E E V O L U T I O N O F M E D I A A N D E N L I G H T E N R E A D E R S A B O U T I T S C O N T R O LM E C H A N I S M S .

Page 21: Vol.1 issue4

22

Michael AlbertI don't see that the purposes havechanged in any dramatic way withtechnology. What affects the extentto which media in a society is beingused to mainta in the soc iety ' shierarchies of power and wealth, oris being used to subvert those, andto instead elevate the power andstature of oppressed constituencies isprimarily the balance of power thatexists in various on-going strugglesin society, not technologies. Howtechnologies are manifested reflectsthese struggles far more than viceversa.

So, the emergence of new tools forcommunication – say the Internet –can facilitate control, or can facilitateresistance and liberation. It may bethat certain technological attributestend more towards one or the other,f o r e x a m p l e a l l o w i n g w i d e rinvolvement, or cheaper access, orthe reverse. But what ultimatelyoccurs in society, though influencedby the t echn ica l f ea tu re s andpossibilities, of course, nonethelessultimately has much more to dowith power relations, efforts atstruggle, etc.

For example, there is no such thingas ‘technological unemployment’.Technologies don't unemploy people.Social decisions do that. Whether alabor saving technology puts someout of work while keeping othersworking 50 hours a week, withoutput growing but accruing to thosest i l l working, and owners – orwhether the same technology insteadreduces the length of the work weekto th i r t y hour s , s ay, w i th fu l l

employment, and with the benefitsaccruing overwhelmingly to al lworkers – is not determined by theb l u e p r i n t s o f t h e t o o l s . I t i sdetermined, ins tead, by powerre la t ions , by s t rugg le , in tu rndependent on informat ion andorganizat ion and commitment .

Similarly, the Internet can be a toolof enhanced control and surveillanceand commodification, we can seethat possibility all around us. Or itcan be a too l o f democrat i zedcommunication that subverts centralcorporate control, the potential wecan also easily see in narrower butexceptionally important efforts nowunderway. Which occurs in whatvolume has much less to do withthe nature o f s i l i con ch ips o rtechnical bandwidth possibilities, andmuch more to do with decisionsmade in light of balances of powerand thus social relations and struggle,as to what will be done with thechips, and what bandwidths will beput in place, at whose expense, tocarry what content.

A n d t h i s g e n e r a l f a c t o f t h ere l evance o f s t rugg l e to wha thappens with technical insights hasbeen so historically, and it is so now.

Stephen FeinThe media have always had aninfluential role in society. Whenprint media predominated, theimpact was limited to those whoc o u l d r e a d a n d c o u l d a f f o r dnewspapers. Radio allowed the mediato reach many more people. But, itwas television that gave the mediathe ability to influence people all

over the world, and to control theiri d e a s . O n e h a s o n l y t o v i s i timmiserated communities on everycontinent – antennas sprout fromgalvanized-metal roofs in ruralvillages, TVs sit on floors in mostlyunfurnished rooms of urban slums –to recognize the enormous impactte lev i s ion i s having on peopleeverywhere.

The question is not how great is theimpact of television; it is enormous.The real question is how will thosewho control this force (as well asradio and print media) use it? Withthe degree of global concentrationthat has occurred within the past 20years, unimaginable authority residesin the hands of a handful of mediaCEOs and their underlings. Neitherdemocracy nor justice is likely toresult from this concentrated andunaccountable power.

Benito Mussollini, the dictator offascist Italy once said, “Fascismshould more appropriately be calledCorporatism because it is a mergerof State and corporate power.” Witht h e a d v e n t o f g l o b a l m e d i ac o n c e n t r a t i o n , a n d w i t h t h eincestuous collaboration that occursbetween media owners and rulingpolitical elites, the private media andthe state have essentially merged;their interests and ideologies havebecome one. The result could beconsidered the ‘fascist-ization’ ofglobal media.

Chavi NanaYes – this did not begin with theintroduction of the Internet. BenedictAnderson’s Imagined Communities is

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

I N F O R M A T I O N O R M A N I P U L A T I O N ?

The question is not how great is the impact of television; it is enormous. The real question is how will those whocontrol this force (as well as radio and print media) use it? With the degree of global concentration that has

occurred within the past 20 years, unimaginable authority resides in the hands of a handful of media CEOs andtheir underlings. Neither democracy nor justice is likely to result from this concentrated and unaccountable power.

Page 22: Vol.1 issue4

23

based on the central premise thatone contributing factor to the rise ofnationalism was the invention of theprinting press, which enabled wide-spread proliferation of information –because this information is composedby ind iv idua l s w i th the i r ownagendas, it was always skewed, andthus has always been used as amode of social control and/or a toolto bu i ld consensus and soc i a lcohesion. In many ways, the use ofinformation as social control startedbefore this – in the oral tradition,stories are passed down, as a modeof t ransmit t ing cul ture and o fpreserving cultural norms. Obviouslythe mass media and the Internethave had different effects becausethey operate on a wider basis ando f t e n c o n t r i b u t e t o t h eovershadowing of other cultures, butinformation has always been a toolof social control.

Wasif RizviI don't know, I'm not an expert inthe history of media. But one thingI do know is that forums for publicexpressions and forums where peoplewere hoping to generate some formof discourse have traditionally poseda threat to the power managers andit is important to either silence themor to take cont ro l over them.

It is true if we fast-forward throughh i s t o r y a n d I t h i n k i t i s t r u ethroughout. The most popular mediaform during Renaissance in Europewas theatre, which was marvelingover the empire and the kings, andthe great heroes like various princesand queens and emperors of Europenone of it actually acted as someform of social conscience, it wasbasically aimed at marveling at theconquests of the European nations.And then we have the massive warsof Europe in which there was always

a de s i r ed goa l to have a ve rypowerful propaganda in history. Hitlerhas been heard lamenting over thefact that they lost the propagandawar during the First World War andhe wanted to make sure that theyshouldn't lose that war again whenthere is going to be another massiveconflict in Europe and he planned itand he had a very powerful guy asin charge of propaganda ministry.

With that there was a huge industrycoming up which was taking shapeacross Atlantic and North America.Their initial tools were radio andprint media because those were thetechnologies available at that timeand they were hugely inundated witht h e s t a t e l i n e a n d w i t h t h epromotions of contemporary powerstructures. And, then eventually inthe 50s and the 60s, the TV camealong.

One of the more interesting thingsis all these media when they wereduring the times of their infancywere perceived as tools for publicinterest. Only one country in theworld from made it from the veryonset a part of the private interest,which was the United States. Thatmodel became so powerful thatalmost all over the world media isnot serving any public interest andit is almost completely a tool ofprivate control.

Noam Chomsky once mentioned inone of his interviews that there wasa newspaper in the 40s and the 50sin England that had twice thecirculation as the three largestnewspapers right now in England butit could not survive because itwouldn ' t ge t any money to bepr inted or publ i shed. I t was apeople's interest based newspaper. Soregarding how media has been a tool

of social control, any framework thath a s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p u b l i cexpression and reflection is a sourceof threat and needs to be controlledif the power managers are smart anddevious enough to use that they canmanipulate it to their advantage.

Shilpa JainI think this answer will depend onwhat media you are describing.Dance, music, painting, sculpture,poetry, stories, are also media, whichd i f f e r f rom te lev i s ion and theInternet in several ways, mainly int e r m s o f w h o g e t s t ocreate/conceptualize them, who getsto use or view them, (i.e., theirlevel of technology and therefore,elitism), and who gets to interpretthem. In the past, media constituteda much broader category – let’s sayof message-making, idea-sharing,feeling-communicating. In this sense,it would be in the hands of probablya l l t h e m e m b e r s o f a s o c i e t y.

And equally important, the task ofinterpreting the messages/the mediawould also belong to everyone.Today, television and the Internethave co-opted both peoples’ powerof creat ion and their power ofinterpretation. Centralized control –with accessibility determined only bylarge sums of money, technicalknowledge, or privilege – succeeds inobstructing diverse and creativec o n c e p t u a l p o t e n t i a l . W h i l e ,s imultaneously, strong doses ofschooling ensure that people losefaith in their own abilities to: a)interpret, question and challenge themainstream media and b) evolvecontext-sensitive understandings ofwhat media can mean and do. Thisis, in part, why and how media hasbecome a tool of social control andindoctrination.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

Today, television and the Internet have co-opted both peoples’ power of creation and their powerof interpretation. Centralized control – with accessibility determined only by large sums of money,technical knowledge, or privilege – succeeds in obstructing diverse and creative conceptual potential.

Page 23: Vol.1 issue4

Dear Readers of EDucate!,

Afraid I am so hopelessly busy – particularly becauseof what is happening in Israel-Palestine right now – thatI simply cannot try to answer all queries. That aside, Ido not have anything profound to say about the mediaquestion, even surprising. To the most important questionsin life there are only simple answers. That’s quite generallytrue, I think.

A few indications of why I think so.

Noam

If the global media is a social control deviceand education an indoctrination tool, how arepeople and masses, who receive a heavydosage of both everyday are expected tob reak f r ee and l i be ra t e t hemse l ve s?

Exactly the way they have done all through history:slave revolts, women's rights, freedom struggles...Therehave never been any secrets or magic keys. Theanswers are those we all know: hard, dedicated,honest struggle. It is a waste of time to seek anyother way. There isn't any.

What are the possible ways of generatingpublic action towards challenging the existinginjustices sustained with the help of mediaand education?

There are thousands of ways. For example, in Brazila few years ago, I had the opportunity to watchpublic TV in a huge slum right outside of Rio. AnNGO provided basic equipment. The programs werewritten, directed, and acted by local people. The

audience was in a big public square, duringprime time hours, and participated directly asthe actors, from the community, circulated

through the crowd asking for reactions andcomments that were shown live on the screen. Icou ldn ' t fo l low a l l o f i t , because i t was inPortuguese. But enough to see that it was veryserious. That's one example. People are easily ableto create many more. If they expect advice aboutthis from outside, they'll be disappointed. If theydevote themselves to such projects, they cansucceed.

Shall we stop watching television and listeningto the radio and stop reading the intoxicatingnewspapers? Shall we stop going to theschools? What shall we do? Most of us, atbest, can think of a rally or some sort of aprotest procession, or a dialogue. Can it gobeyond that? How?

I think that would be a huge mistake. There is agreat deal to be learned in existing institutions:schools, universities, journals, books... And they canbe grea t l y improved. Fur thermore, popu larindependent alternatives can be developed. There isno reason for any counsel of despair, or forrenunciation. Rather, the same answer as always:dedicated work.

I can only repeat what I said in Pakistan. Peopleare making a terrible mistake if they wait for advicefrom outsiders, instead of doing what they knowbest, because of their intimate knowledge of theirown society and circumstances. Outsiders can learn.They can rarely teach. At least not in areas likethese.

edia should act as an agent that transfersknowledge, but the reality is in fact contrary

to this. We are, but empty basins that can be filledto the brim by means of caressing our emotionswith pseudo-attractiveness. Content lacks the elementof ‘holism’ and rather seems to transfer itself infragments, thereby presenting a world of starkdualism and fragmentation. Yet on the other hand,we quite freely and openly speak of diversity,pluralism and cooperation. It is simply another formof expression and a magnificent propaganda agent.The advent and rapid escalation of informationtechnology reaches out to larger groups of people,thus making it easier for one to infuse theiropinions, perspectives, biases and ideas. Turning thetelevision off. Is this actually practical and “real”when the market, the pseudo-culture, when our livesare overwhelmed by CK images and Coca-Coladisplays.

N A U S H A D V A D S A R I Y A

N O A M C H O M S K Y

Educators play an enormous and significant role indiscussing such pertinent issues. As rightly noted,recent events have created spaces for dialogueregarding issues that were/are often ignored. Buthow often have past events, history, demonstratedto us that “all too soon all will be forgotten.” Thus,now appears an opportune moment to bring suchissues to the forum for that important exchange, acritical dialogue. Raise level of awareness, criticallyreflect, and discriminate with confidence. There isno other agent better than oneself. One mustdevelop the capacity to discriminate of what theywish to accept and/or reject. Potentials must betapped into and exercised, for actualization leads torealization. Realization that we have been assignedan ignorant status and served with an opiate. Thus,it is pertinent that individuals develop the capacityto dissect, reflect, analyze, criticize, accept, negate,etc. simply to discriminate between the real andunreal.

Page 24: Vol.1 issue4

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

i s t h e c o r p o r a t e ( p r i v a t e s e c t o r / e n t e r p r i s e ) c o n t r o lo v e r m e d i a , t h e o n l y i s s u e ?

i s i t a s b a d a s t h e s t a t e o w n i n g i t o r i s t h e r e as i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o ?

who ownsmedia?

democratizing

W H O S H O U L D O W N A N D C O N T R O L T H E M E D I A ? W H O S H O U L D T H E M E D I A B E A C C O U N T A B L E T O ? T H E S T A T E -( E S P E C I A L L Y I N P O O R C O U N T R I E S I S L I K E L Y T O B E H E L D H O S T A G E B Y T H E R I C H A N D R E L E N T L E S S C O R P O R A T I O N S )O W N E D I N S T I T U T I O N S L I K E E D U C A T I O N , H E A L T H A N D M E D I A , N O M A T T E R H O W P R O - P U B L I C T H E Y A R E , L A C K T H E

B A S I C R E S O U R C E S . W H E R E D O W E G E T T H E R E S O U R C E S F R O M ?

Page 25: Vol.1 issue4

26

Edward HermanIt is not just a question of giantism,but also of institutional purpose.From this viewpoint, commercialismi s a s b a d a s g i a n t i s m , a scommercialization shifts the endsfrom providing specified services(including the filling of the publicsphere) to making money, whichentails servicing advertisers. U.S.e x p e r i e n c e s h o w s t h a tcommercialization damages publicsphere performance more severelyt h a n t a k i n g m o n e y f r o m t h egovernment as a public serviceinstitution.

Michael AlbertIf huge centers of power controlinformation, they will orient it totheir advantage. Of course, capitalistfirms controlling information willbend it to preserve and expandcapitalist profits and power. Ofcourse, bureaucratic and authoritarianstates controlling information willbend it to preserve and expandpolitical advantages and domination.

In contrast, if information, and thisis true for everything else in societyas well , i s truly democratical lycontrolled, which is to say decidedupon by those affected in proportionas they are affected – according tot h e n o r m s a n d m e t h o d s o fparticipatory self management …then we will have the oppositesituation. Populations will use theirinfluence to benefit themselves bytheir choices, as best as they areable to, that is to benefit everyone.

Small is not necessarily beautiful, andgiant is not necessarily ugly. It is am i s t a ke t o t h i n k t h a t a h u g ecorporation is worse – in some caseseven worse at all – than a smallone. And the same holds for a hugestate and a small one. It is true that

a bigger institution will have moreassets to undertake larger endeavors,so if the institutions are horrible,their endeavors can then be horriblybrutal. But the comparison regardings i z e i n s u c h a c a s e i s n o t t ocompare one huge operation to onesmall one, but one huge operationto many smal l ones , the lattersumming to comparable scale. Whichis worse or better? It is a case-by-case question.

The real issue that provides anoverarching logic and evaluativeframework i s not s i ze , but thestructure of the institutions, theirlogic and values, and thus what theyintrinsically pursue. In these respects,a corporation is pretty much acorporation, regardless of size. Notthat there are no differences, thereare, of course. But there is nogolden age of media predating thelarge monopolies, or the Internet, orTV – other than various momentswhen movements have had largershares of power with which toinfluence media and more of theirown media, in particular.

Chavi NanaNo, it is not. The control of themedia by an increasingly smallnumber of large corporations isobviously worrying because of thecontrol of these few groups over ouraccess to in format ion and theinformat ion to which we haveaccess. However, the same can applyto the state-owned media organs –i n s o m e c a s e s , e v e n m o r e s o ,because they are often under lesspressure to pretend to present a fairrepresentation of views and can beu s e d d i r e c t l y t o s p r e a d s t a t epropaganda. On the other hand, oneof the major problems with theprivate ownership of media is that itgives the impression of being free

and fair, accessible to all – ands o m e t h i n g t o w h i c h a l l c a ncontribute and have their viewsexpressed – while some state fundedmedia is at least explicit in its bias(not always). So the public must bee n c o u r a g e d t o q u e s t i o n t h e i rsupposedly free and fair access toinformation and to question theextent to which privately ownedmedia re sources a re unb iased .

However, in general, I believe thatin the best case, media should comefrom both public and private sources– public funded by the state andsupportive of smaller enterprises thatmay not have access to privatem e d i a t i m e b e c a u s e i t i s t o oexpensive. The private sector shouldalso take seriously its corporateresponsibility and open low costs p a c e s f o r p u b l i c s e r v i c e sa n n o u n c e m e n t s a n d t h e l i ke .

Wasif RizviOwned by the state should in theorymean owned by the people becausestate itself is supposedly accountableto people. So in theory this i ssupposedly public interest. In realityit is barely that. For instance, mediai n E n g l a n d o r i n Fr a n c e i t i ssupposedly public interest; it isresponsible to tax payers. In a statecontrolled media there is a mediaminister who is elected by peopleand they are the ones who regulatewhat ' s on i t and what k ind ofpossibility is it providing to people.

Unfortunately though most states arehostage to the money interest. Thereis usually enormous pressure on themto sell all possible means of interestin profit making through the privatecompanies or not let any of thestate-run institutions become a threatto the established centers of powers.So even if it is supposedly public

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

W H O O W N S M E D I A ?

Page 26: Vol.1 issue4

27

interest and accountable to people ithas no way of fulfilling that rolebecause the control of state and thecontrol of the state machinery isessentially in the hands of peoplewho own the country, who own thesociety, who are usually very richand invariably very power hungrypeople. So to me it is the flipside ofthe same coin but in theory thereare some theoretical possibilities ofsome accountability towards peoplewhen it is state owned.

Shilpa JainT h e r e r e a l l y i s n o s i g n i f i c a n tdifference between state or privateo w n e r s h i p o f t h e m e d i a . T h eproblem is that, in a mass andcentralized form, the mainstreamm e d i a c a n o n l y b e a t o o l o fmanipulation and indoctrination. Thelogic goes something like this: Mediahas to be ‘Big’ to be meaningful orimportant. If it is to be big, then itwill necessarily be expensive andcentralized. Large amounts of moneya n d a n e q u a l l y i m p r e s s i v emanagement will be needed to run

it. Whoever has this money, or isselected for this management, willo w n a n d o p e r a t e t h e m e d i a .Therefore, ordinary people shouldjust make the decision: Should thismoney and management come fromthe state or from the corporations?Whatever we decide, we should justmake them accountable to us. (Bythe way, this line is not so distinctas it is made out to be — giventhe historical and contemporarypartnership between corporations andgovernments, from the East IndiaCompany to today’s most powerfulMNCs.)

The problem with this is not justthat accountability is improbable oreven impossible. (If it is not clearw h y, j u s t t h i n k o f h o w l i t t l eaccountability exists for us vis-à-visthe state today.) It is, that we aretrapping ourselves in a lose-loses i tuat ion. Why don’t we thinkbeyond these two ‘options’, by takingt h e m o u t o f t h e e q u a t i o n a l ltogether? If we stop making mediascarce – by insisting it be Big, andtherefore, expensive and centralized

– then we open the door to manymore, localized, small-scale mediapossibilities. We will not need toc h o o s e b e t w e e n t h e s t a t e o rcorporations; we will be creating,uncovering, rediscovering, media inits multitude of forms and processes.

Incidentally, we need to do the samething for learning. When will westop accepting the perverse logic thatlearning is scarce and can onlyhappen in schools, which therefore,wil l be owned and managed byeither the state or by corporations?If we see that learning (like media)is in each of our hands, we cannotonly challenge current levels ofindoctrination and manipulation, butwe can also free our creative ande x p r e s s i v e p o t e n t i a l s . O u rconversations will change from thedroning despair of ‘where can we getmoney?’ to the bubbling energy of‘ h o w c a n w e e n g a g e w i t h t h ediversity of learning spaces (media)generated, to live closer to ourconvictions of hope, justice, balanceand meaning?’

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

he media should be used to educate people, butit is equally important for people to be educated

about the media. What is most alarming about themedia today is the blind acceptance with which peoplewelcome it into their homes. They also allow themedia to act as a substitute for their opinions insteadof using it as one of many tools that helps themshape their own opinions. We must teach students howto be more analytical of the media, how to be moreintelligent consumers of media, because after all, intoday ’s world, media is a product, paid for byadvertising, interest groups, lobbies, and so on.

In any media studies course, you have to pinpointwhat kind of media you’re looking at. Are you talkingabout news media? Entertainment or sports media?Cultural media? What are the messages that each typeof media tries to send to its audience? What are itsmotivations? Who are the people behind the media?Once you start examining these questions, you go alot deeper than the fifteen second soundbite that mostmedia outlets present to us today. It’s important tostudy the media in context to the traditional disciplinessuch as history, politics, philosophy, etc., in order tokeep what you are hearing rapidly on radio or readingin the newspapers in perspective.

B I N A S H A H

Next, you have to make the distinction in the mediabetween fact and opinion. It’s completely factual tosay that “twelve Palestinian were killed today inJerusalem”. But it becomes opinion when you startsaying things like “twelve Palestinian civilians weremartyred by Israeli soldiers” or “twelve Palestinianmilitants were killed by Israeli soldiers in a strikeagainst terrorism”. Language is such a key issue whenit comes to the media. I think any program on mediastudies must take into account the use of languageand its effect on its audience.

Finally, any study of media must include a close lookat the elements of group psychology, because themedia is one of the key tools used to control groupsthroughout history. Cases of the media being used tosway public opinion in times of war, studies ofpropaganda, even the effect of patriotic music onpeople’s emotions, must all be studied. The media canbe a t oo l o f i n fo rma t i on o r d i s i n fo rma t i on ,enlightenment or manipulation. But in the end, it’s upto the consumers of media, not the media industry, tomake those distinctions and make the demands of themedia to be as fair and objective as possible.

Page 27: Vol.1 issue4

Role of Media:Fi rs t and foremost – i t should re f lec t theaspirations and concerns of the people. At leastthis is how it should be in a ‘ free society ’.

What is Wrong with Media?What has really broken down is the professionalism inmembers of the media. Just l ike in education,particularly in teaching, many have just walked intothe profession without carrying with them the desiredmoral and ethical prerequisites.

Media and Indoctrination:Surely the media is a very powerful instrument inindoctrinating and controlling the thought processes justlike education – education too is a very powerful toolfor indoctrination. The debatable point is – do youthink indoctrination is moral? I do not think it is. Ithink, instead of indoctrinating, the role of mediashould be to present facts to the people and to allowthem to make their own decisions. But, of course,these are probably only ideals, in reality the statemedia obviously follows the official line. Although again,in an ideal situation, that should not be, but that ishow it is. Multinational and ‘other’ organizations andagencies that feed local papers (and newspaperagencies) influence the media and their views find theirway into the presentation of local problems. Ideas andnon-issues, not relevant to the present situation arefound to envelope the media. Sometimes it is insidious– sometimes it is blatant. A lot of times, I believe,our local media would not even know that they arebeing brainwashed into holding various opinions. I stillfind that there are people in the local media as alsoin the global media, who have the intelligence andanalytical skills to discover the mainstream traps ofindoctrination. Such individuals represent the best injournalism, because when they speak up, they sticktheir neck out.

The Internet:The Internet also reflects the alliances of the peoplewho are on the Internet. Certainly, there is a whole

range of diverse opinions, therefore, it does giveInternet users many options. Nevertheless, judgmentis to be made taking into account what is beingput out on the Internet and by whom; who is the

godfather and who are the allies.

Power of Information:Information is a very powerful force. Whether you areliterate or illiterate, whether you are educated or justliterate, the point is that if you hear or see anything,it automatically starts a thought process, and I thinkthat is very important. The thought process results insome action, sometime, somewhere. The action couldbe a reaction to collective thought processes. If factualinformation is provided to people there exists a greaterpossibility of the action being productive, meaningfuland manageable.

Education, Media & Social Change:I think education is the most powerful vehicle for socialchange. With education, one can learn to channelinformation, one can identify the deceits and fraudsand learn to respond to such acts. In short, witheducation, one can learn to unlearn attemptedindoctrination and resist that is attempted by the media.I am very hopeful because there are people in themedia as well as in education, who take the pain ofanalyzing and collecting all the scattered information,and expose all the attempts to indoctrinate. Thesepeople have educated themselves to sift the truth outof the glut of lies and they are the people who willtake the truth forward. You cannot expect every person,no matter how educated they are, to challenge theevils that are inherent in an entrenched system.

Role of Educators:The educators should make ceaseless attempts to makethe student think and act critically. They should makethe utmost effort to properly convey to students thatit is most important that one has critical thinkingabilities. It means just everything in life and in theprocess of living.

e s , j u s t a h a n d f u l o fmul t ina t iona l corpora t ions

dominate the media. Yes, theirprimary, overriding concern is profit,not journalism. Yes, this has ledthem to sensationalize the news,cretinize the culture and marginalizedissent. Within the mainstreamm e d i a , t h e r e a r e n o n e wopportunities for empowerment. Butthere are small windows that areoccasionally open, and we in thedemocratic movement should try tocrawl through them. The ‘op-ed’ orcommentary pages of newspapers,the letters to the editor page, and

even some of the talking-headshows need content, and we shouldnot shy away from offering it tothem in the style they are used tobut with subversive substance. Plus,public television and radio offermore space for dissenting views.

It's a big mistake to conclude thatthe media are so corporate and sobiased that it's not even worthyplaying the game. It is worth it! Ifwe withdraw from the field, thecorporatist will have a field day.That said, we do need to imposedemocratic control over the media

wherever possible. We should insistthat antitrust laws are enforced. Weshould insist that the oligopolies bebroken up. We should insist ont ru l y independen t pub l i c andcommunity broadcasting.

And we should make our ownmedia: in print, on radio, on theInternet, on TV. In short, mediaw o r k i s a c r u c i a l p a r t o fdemocratic activism, and we needto engage in it wherever possible,without illusions, but with creativeenergy.

M A T T H E W RO T H S C H I L D

P R O F. A N I TA G H U L A M A L I

Page 28: Vol.1 issue4

democratizing

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

t h e a r gumen t o f c o r po ra t e s and adve r t i s e r s i s two -p r onged :1 ) w e a r e p r o v i d i n g m u l t i p l e c h o i c e s t o p e o p l e – i n t h ee n d t h e y a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r d e c i s i o n s , 2 ) i f t h e y d o

n o t a p p r o v e o f w h a t w e a r e s h o w i n g / s e l l i n g , t h e y c a na l w a y s c h o o s e n o t t o s e e / b u y .

take it orleave it

T H E Y C I G A R E T T E M A N U F A C T U R E R S A N D S E L L E R S C L A I M T H E Y A R E N O T F O R C I N G P E O P L E T O S M O K E ; P E O P L E A L W A Y S H A V E A C H O I C EA N D I F T H E Y C H O O S E T O S M O K E , I T I S N O T T H E C O M P A N Y ’ S / A D V E R T I S E R ’ S F A U L T . A L S O , W H Y W O U L D S O M E B O D Y W I L L I N G L Y

S U R R E N D E R A C C E S S T O T V , V C R A N D O T H E R E N T E R T A I N I N G M E D I A , E S P E C I A L L Y I F O N E C O M E S B A C K H O M E A F T E R A L O N G , G R U E L I N GD A Y ? PE O P L E , S T R I V I N G T O M A K E E N D S M E E T , D O N ’ T W A N T T O B E I N V O L V E D I N I N T E L L E C T U A L P R O C E S S E S – T H E Y S I M P L Y W A N T

T O U N W I N D . W H Y W O U L D T H E Y G I V E U P T H E I R O N L Y S O U R C E O F R E L A X A T I O N ? W H A T W O U L D M A K E T H E M T H I N K C R I T I C A L L Y ?

Page 29: Vol.1 issue4

30

Edward HermanThe choices offered are constrained by the importanceof drawing advertisers, so that the readers/listeners don'tnecessarily get what they would want if they made thedecisions as to what to produce. They won't get choicesbeyond those that pass through the advertiser/owner filter,so studies of environmental issues that might criticizeadvertisers may never be on offer. And if they shut offone station and move to the next, or buy a newspaper,they still can't escape the advertiser-owner filter. Thisrequires a democratic media, not a corporate owned andservicing media.

Michael AlbertNotice that even your presentation of their claim putsthe lie to it. That is, it isn't that we can chooseanything. It is that we can choose among the things theyoffer, or we can choose nothing. This is very different.We are not offered the option of choosing to be a wageslave, or to have a job that is fulfilling and self-managing,but are only offered the option to be a wage slave orto suffer the pangs of starvation. We make the obviouschoice, but this doesn't indicate that we think wageslavery is ideal. If that is too obscure, think of the realslave in the old southern plantation. They too couldmake a choice. They could stop working and be lynchedor otherwise hounded to death, or they could slave away.They overwhelming choose to slave away – until suchtime as the option to abolish slavery became real. Doesthis tell us that slaving away was their ideal preference?

Suppose you went into a prison and visited the prisoners'commissary and took a look around. Probably everythingthere would seem horribly vapid and uninteresting. Youwouldn't want any of it. Suppose now you were arrestedand incarcerated in the same prison. Six months lateryou visit the same commissary, your only access to itemsfor consumption. Now things are different. You see arange of offerings and you prefer some to others andcarefully pick and choose. What has happened? You havealtered your tastes, intelligently, in fact, so that you canbenefit from the available options and not be whiningabout the lack of those that you would, were thingsdifferent, prefer.

This is very much our situation. We are all in a kindof prison – capital ism. It offers us commissaries(information, but also food, medicine, jobs, everything onmarkets) that are highly constrained. Some of us urgethat we break down the walls. That requires hope thatit is possible to succeed. Others don't share that hope.So they try to make the best of the situation. Theymold their preferences to try to enjoy the differentiationsamong what is offered, without wailing about what ismissing. In fact, of course, we all do some of both …but the point is, markets don't deliver what we want somuch as we come to make ourselves want items amongthose that markets deliver. Markets, guided by theprecepts of profit and power, largely produce us, we don'trule markets. This is true for all of them, informationand entertainment included.

Thus, choosing among what is offered in newspapers oron TV tells us that among the options we are offeredSally likes the one she chooses, and Sam likes the onehe chooses. But it doesn't tell us that Sally or Samprefers what they are getting to things they aren't evenoffered. And what determines what is offered? Not Sallyor Sam, but the owners, the managers, etc. With theconstraints mentioned earlier.

This is a question that, like the others you have posed,one could pursue at book length, which would obviouslybe inappropriate here. But consider for example, that themainstream media can offer us the OJ Simpson story, orthe Clinton escapades, and so on, building these intomega stories, and can generate a context in which theaverage person either pays attention, being able tofunction socially as a result, or ignores the silliness,thereby becoming an outsider unable to converse, as aresult. Okay, given these options most choose to payattention.

But notice that even within our system, even seeking togarner great ratings, the media could instead run longexposes of the cigarette industry, for example, detailinghow they sell addictive drugs to make profits in amanner that dwarfs the crimes of the Colombia drug

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

T A K E I T O R L E A V E I T

Markets, guided by the precepts of profit and power, largely produce us, we don't rulemarkets. This is true for all of them, information and entertainment included.

Page 30: Vol.1 issue4

31

cartels. They could delve into the lives of the executives– no doubt there is plenty there to expose. This toocould be elevated into a story that would sell a lot ofpapers, garner a lot of ratings. But it isn't done. Or,before asking why, consider also that if all the TVnetworks and newspapers and so on, in the period afterSeptember 11, had trumpeted that reality that the U.S.was considering, and then embarked on a terrorist attackon a defenseless population with the probability of killinghundreds of thousands and even millions of innocentpeople … and had fully explored that reality, in depth,in human detail, and so on, that too would have perkedup the ratings.

Then, instead of it being the case that one could payattention to the propagandistic trash that was published,and thereby be a patriot and able to converse, and soon, or could ignore it and drift outside the socialdiscourse to become a loner, at best – it would havebeen the case that one could pursue the actual truereality, or not. Newspapers telling the truth would havesold. TV stations telling the truth would have been busy.In fact, I think the cigarette story and the U.S. terrorismstory and countless others that one could imagine would,if pursued with the kind of vigor mainstream media canmuster for the Super Bowl, say, or the OJ case, attractmore readers, more viewers, than anything else everoffered.

But the key to why this doesn't happen is that thecriteria for what goes on TV and in the newspapers, orwhat is offered on any other market, isn't simplymaximizing audience, or maximizing ad revenues, ormaximizing other revenues while keeping costs down. Itis doing those things consistently, however, with alsorep roduc ing the cond i t i ons o f dominance andsubordination throughout society. And that is what limitswhat options are offered.

Chavi NanaThis is a difficult question to answer because, while Icannot support the idea that they are not at allresponsible, I am also against censorship. Not only wouldI rather even distasteful views aired and available fordiscussion than swept underground and out of the realmof public discourse, but I would be uncomfortablerecommending who should judge what is permissible andwhat is not. However, the ‘its not our fault’ claim mustbe contested – if the media moguls are allowing all of

this information to be spread on the airwaves and onthe Internet, then they should also take responsibility forencouraging alternate views and promoting them at thesame level. In addition, they (and we) should beencouraging viewers and listeners to search for andconsider alternative views.

Javed JabbarChoice has been twisted into virtual anarchy, it’s becomea kind of moral anarchy because choice too has to havelimitations. There is no such thing as unlimited choice;choice has to be rooted in the values, the beliefs, thecustoms, the practices that any society cherishes andthose must take precedence to work for this principle ofchoice.

I mean if you take choice to its extreme you are goingto disrupt. I do not agree that choice is the ultimatedefinition of human liberty because it can go to a certainextreme and you can say everything is right as long asI have a choice. Its as simple as having to wear clothes,it’s a custom and it’s a physiological, cultural need thatwe have come to respect and, therefore, with some newmotivations of the corporate sector for profit or viabilityyou cannot discard it in the name of freedom and freemarket. What we are currently witnessing is intellectualconfusion at the state and policymaking level and evenin civil society.

With great respect, sometimes democracy also hasinherent limitations that is why sometimes, the supremecourt in the United States and the supreme court inIndia has said that even an elected legislature cannotchange the fundamentals of the constitutions because justa major i ty does not mean you discard, say, theparliamentary system of the government or discard thevery nature of the state. Equivalently in the media andinformation domain, however great this temptation toincrease choice, there must be limitations based on thiswhole principle.

Wasif RizviSame response. You have a choice between discussing tobeat up Pakistan or to negotiate for a week or so. Sothe premise of that choice is so predetermined there ishardly an alternate choice. If there is choice people turnto that immediately. There was one choice available thatbecame so popular during this latest American invasion

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

If the media moguls are allowing all of this information to be spread on the airwaves andon the Internet, then they should also take responsibility for encouraging alternate views

and promoting them at the same level.

Page 31: Vol.1 issue4

32

of a poor country, which was this Al-Jazeera channel.People who did not even know Arabic were tuning intoit because the only thing that it had offered was a slightdeviation from the prescribed lines of discourse.

If you go on the street you'll hear it all the time thatmedia don't trust media, they don't believe in it, theythink it lies. If there was a semblance of a choice, whichis truthful, which appears to be rational, which has someform of balance and objectivity, there is a massivedemand for that.

Shilpa JainThe argument of advertisers should be rejected as a self-serving evasion of responsibility. First, because advertisersknow very well that they deliberately employ a numberof psychological techniques and manipulative ploys to getpeople to buy their products. They are not ‘innocently’telling consumers about their product, leaving them a‘free choice’ to purchase it or not. Rather, they areactively seeking to make people feel that their work,their families, their lives, their futures, would not behappy/successful/complete without that product. This ispart of advertisers’ credo: how could they stay in businessif they were not successful in doing this? Second, inarguing that it is simply ‘our choice’, advertiserssuccessfully evade responsibility for the consumeristictendencies they promote: the exploitation of human

beings and of public/natural resources, the greed andinequalities, the violence and crime, that all ensue asconsumerism grows in a society.

They are, however, right to say that we could shut offthe TV. (Not that it is their only source of advertisingto us; they also skillfully employ magazines, newspapers,billboards, flyers, etc., to constantly keep their messagesin our face.) So, it is equally important to try andunderstand why we don’t. Part of it is again due toadvertisers’ manipulation: the tricks they pull to makeTV interesting, to call it ‘entertainment’. The other partof it – the one we can do more individually andcollectively to alter – is the breakdown of family andcommunities, the extermination of other kinds of learningspaces, the disconnection and alienation of an industrialeconomy, etc. Why do people want to ‘unwind’ at theend of their days? Why is a desire to be a ‘vegetable’,to not think, to be entertained, to be droned at, acommon symptom of the modern industrial society? Howdoes our schooling prepare us for this? How is thisreinforced by certain frameworks about progress andsuccess? How has the loss of other thinking-feeling-playingspaces ensured that TV has become our one and onlysource of entertainment/information? Shutting off the TVand engaging in these questions (and more) might helpu s t o b r e a k o u t o f t h e a d v e r t i s e r s ’ i l l u s i o n s .

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

urrent ly, we have two viv idillustrations of the different kinds

of roles that can be played by themedia. First, the events of September11th, and second, the currentviolence in Israel and the occupiedPales t in ian te r r i to r ies . In bothinstances, the major media (moreand more under the control ofmega- corpora t ions , as Rober tMcChesney, Ben Bagdikian andothers have pointed out) have keptthe public ignorant, misinformed, witha dis tor ted view of the real i ty.

For Afghanistan, the media haveburied or minimized the news ofcivilian casualties in Afghanistan andhave failed to give any kind ofhistorical background or criticalanalys is to ‘war on terror ism’.

For I s rae l a n dPa le s t i ne , the mediah a v e concentratedon the terrorism of the Palestiniansuicide bombers as opposed to theterrorism of the Israeli government.Also they have gone along with theI s rae l i and U.S. gove rnmen t ' sconcentrat ion on Arafat as thesource of the problem and not onthe occupation as the fundamentalproblem that needs to be ended.

In both situations, our only honestsources of information have beenthe alternative media, the radiostations like Pacific and others, thework of David Barsamian and hisAlternative Radio broadcasts, and,more and more the Internet. Today,for instance, after reading a column

in the New York Times in which thewar-lover William Safire gives Sharona million-reader platform to defendthe Israeli position, I could only getcounter information from a halfdozen different e-mails I received, allof which were in opposit ion toIsraeli policy. One of these e-mailswas f rom an I s rae l i professor,another from one of the Israelireservists refusing to serve in theoccupied territories, another from ajournalist in Ramallah who witnessedthe execution of Palestinians byIsraeli soldiers. We are in a crucialbattle of information.

Though, the resources of peace andjustice are smaller, we do have truthon our side, and eventually thatcomes through.

H O W A R D Z I N N

Page 32: Vol.1 issue4

democratizing

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

i s t h e i n t e r n e t c a pa b l e o f m a k i n g t h e m e d i a m o r ed e m o c r a t i c ?

internet -real help orreal hype?

Page 33: Vol.1 issue4

34

Edward HermanThe Internet is a valuable addition to the media,somewhat democratizing it. Its problem is that it is anelite instrument that doesn't reach 80 percent of thepopulation, and it isn't a mass medium in any case – itis a tool of communication between individuals andamong small groups, except for institutions that have themeans of alerting large numbers to the existence of theirsites. That takes money and prior outreach, so that inreaching masses it replicates the existing structure ofaccess and power. Furthermore, the Internet is graduallybeing taken over by commercial interests, which willfurther constrain its democratic potential. But thatpotential is still real and should be encouraged andprotected.

Michael AlbertThe key advantage of the Internet is lower costs of productionand distribution, and easier decentralization of each. That'sbasically it. That's what has facilitated people of good will,making easier good use of the Internet as compared to othermedia. Social struggle can reduce operating costs and meansof local control even further, which would be excellent. Butelite policy can raise them, which would be bad, of course.With low costs, how well we organize and structure our effortswill impact their value, of course. And so on. The point is,the Internet won't itself, by its own inner dynamics, do anythingfor justice or equity or self-management or even diversity. Itcan be made as draconian, unequal, authoritarian, andhomogenizing as any other medium, or, via our choices andactivism, it can be made much better. These are overwhelminglysocial matters, matters of struggle and commitment, notmatters of technology.

If social and development activists use the Interneteffectively to disperse valuable information, to developshared agendas, to empower diverse constituencies, thenthe Internet will be more democratic and honest, andthe example and intelligence created thereby will alsopressure mainstream media. If not, then it won't be thecase. There are millions of web sites – but a merehandful, I think actually less than ten, attract theoverwhelming bulk of Internet traffic, way over half, Ithink. That is quite similar to the centralization of othermainstream media.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

I N T E R N E T - R E A L H E L P O R R E A L H Y P E ?

If social and development activists use the Internet effectively to disperse valuable information, to developshared agendas, to empower diverse constituencies, then the Internet will be more democratic and honest,

and the example and intelligence created thereby will also pressure mainstream media.

Still, it is also the case that a small operation can createa site that communicates across a country, even aroundthe world, providing information, analysis, and vision,that not only edifies the immediate audience, but thenpercolates into all kinds of additional local media. Thishappens now, and can happen more. It is somethingrelatively new, and it is very promising. Likewise, it ispossible for local people with few resources to create theirown news, and to then communicate it, including widely,via the Internet. This too is relatively new, and is againvery promising.

Stephen FeinThe media concentration that has occurred worldwideand the amount of power that has been aggregated intothe hands of very few individuals, will prevent the globalmass media, as we know it, from being a force fordemocracy, or from advocating for peace and justice. Thehope is that independent alternative media will grow-uparound rapidly developing new technologies. The Internetand email are the main examples. Because of rapidcommercialization, government will be hesitant to crack-down on this new electronic media. Business interestsare already bitterly reacting to rumors about restricting,taxing or otherwise stifling this medium and its potentialas a commercial cornucopia. Governments will monitoror try to influence Internet and email use, but they maynever have the technological expertise to totally controlit. And businesses will fight to keep it as open andaccessible as possible.

Chavi NanaYes, in the sense that web-users can often gain accessto views that are frowned upon by society, or evenbanned by their governments through the Internet. Inthat manner, the Internet can expose people to newviews and encourage new public discourse. On the otherhand, it is still subject to some of the same biases andrestrictions as other media sources – it is still largelycontrolled by large conglomerates, who filter informationaccording to their preferences. But because there aregenerally avenues through which alternative views canbe presented on the Internet, the key to making it morerepresentative of global views is to encourage individualsand groups to contribute to the Internet and air theirviews.

Page 34: Vol.1 issue4

35

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

Javed JabbarIt seems the Internet has vast potential even though theelite may want to control it and there will alwaysinevitably be a profit motive. I think the positive meritsof the Internet and the potential it offers far outweighsthe dangers that elitism can pose to this network. It’sso new and so pervasive and it is so full of potentialthat we are still on the threshold of discovering whatwe can do with it. Already, ofcourse, the dangers areequally apparent; the aspects of pornography anddiversions and pettiness and so on. But you can guardagainst that.

To intellectually channel the information available on theInternet is the great challenge of the 21st century. Imean if the 20th century can be described as thecentury of media and communication at a levelunprecedented in human history, the 21st century isgoing to be about coping with the consequences ofcommunication. What has happened is while ourinstitutional capacity has remained stagnant, our capacityto generate information and create new media, hasrocketed to the roof. For example the capacity of KMCor KDA or Water Board to meet the needs of Clifton,remains at the same level, while the capacity of Cliftonto run the Internet and to produce whiz kids has goneup to where the fan is.

To develop the individual and institutional capacity tohandle this information and make appropriate use of it,the development of a media literate class that is able toanalyze the media issues from a public interest perspectiveis very vital. For example, today we do not have a singleindependent media based research center in the entirecountry. You have them in departments of masscommunication or journalism and they are just producinggraduates with degrees. What we need critically is tocreate a center with the objective of conducting researchor focusing public attention on issues, pertinent to thepublic interest monitoring media.

Wasif RizviThe power managers very tightly control the Internet.The Internet in theory does provide some possibilitiesbut it is so inundated there is more than a billion webpages less than one hundred thousand of them are ofany significance or stimulating use. Most of it is in alanguage, which many repressed people don't understand,

less than 4-5% of people actually have access to it thatis much less than radio, television or print media.

I think it is rather ironic that one of the most elitisttechnologies is labeled as a democratizing technology. Theonly possibility that it may have that it may influencesome powerful people who otherwise are very deprivedof any form of alternative means. There is a technicalpossibility of posting the alternative opinion on Internetand there is the entire question of who can access it inthe midst of all this clutter that one has to find a wayin, then it is the language and then it is the discoursethat exists among people. You may read one or two eyeopening articles but it so depends on the individual toreact to it or not react to it or to dismiss it or to feelhelpless. It's very sketchy, it's very hard to predict if itbrings any significant or meaningful framework that itcan generate for societal ref lect ion and act ion.

Apart from that, I don't think that people are sufferingbecause of lack of knowledge or awareness. People arerepressed because there are enormously tyrannical powersaround. I think the possibility of using the Internet isnot greater than the possibility of using the TV, radioor anything else. May be i f we have widespreadobjectives, reflections and publications in differentlanguages available on the Internet, then we have tofigure out the people who can read those; first how canyou get to the people and even if one creates significantnumber of websites with this kind of discourse. So allthese ques t ions o f how to handle the loads o finformation and that too again are very limiting. At thispoint it's a form of print media only difference is thatanyone can print it. You don't need to own a printingpress to have your word out.

But the problem is right now, although there are abillion websites, it tragically lacks the context andrelevance for a great number of people whom arereferred to as the repressed people, the deprived people,the oppressed people or the controlled people. Thereference points that are available on the Internet arenot relevant to them at all. Instead of becoming starryeyed and too optimistic about possibilities, one needs todo a very careful and realistic analysis of the dimensionsand possibilities that are present or can be attached tothe Internet.

It is increasingly becoming apparent that the Internet has been hijacked by corporationsand by governments/agencies, who use it for spreading their messages, keeping an ‘eye’

on their populations, and selling their products.

Page 35: Vol.1 issue4

Shilpa JainThe Internet really can’t make media more democratic,because it is extremely elite. Maybe 10% of the world’spopulation will be able to access the Internet; probablyless than 10% of them will ever contribute to creatingthe content on the Internet. If we put a lot of energy(and resources) into increasing the numbers of computerusers, then we are basically augmenting the sales ofcomputer manufacturers and service providers. Moreover,it is increasingly becoming apparent that the Internet hasb e e n h i j a c k e d b y c o r p o r a t i o n s a n d b ygovernments/agencies, who use it for spreading theirmessages, keeping an ‘eye’ on their populations, andselling their products. The ‘bridging the digital divide’argument is simply providing a ‘moral’ justification forfurther centralizing control over peoples’ resources andideas. This is not to say that we cannot use the Internetfor some purpose. For example, many activists have found

it useful as a quick messaging or networking system. Butwe should understand that, at the end of the day, onecannot have real, meaningful dialogue over the Internet.The medium just doesn’t facilitate it. Mainly because ofits total reliance on text (the written word). Moreover,we have to be prepared that it will be used for fargreater negative activity (pornography, propaganda, looting,etc.) than for positive contributions. Therefore, I wouldsuggest that we not put too much time and energy intoexpanding a technology that is daily becoming more andmore a tool of surveillance and profit-making and haslimited scope for real dialogue. We might instead beginto consider other existing ways of communicating globally(or create new ways). While working to improve those(hopefully less elite/centralized) processes, we might alsobegin to pay more attention to local communication andexpression: strengthening our local communities asopposed to building more virtual ones.

www.zmag.org

ZNETThe best resource for watchers

of world events andcampaigners of social change...

RD WORLD TRAVELER puts up magazinearticles and book excerpts that offer analternative view to the corporate media

about the state of democracy in America, andabout the impact of the policies of the UnitedStates' government, transnational corporations,international trade and financial institutions, andthe corporate press, on democracy, human rightsand social and economic justice, in the ThirdWorld.

U P P O R T T H I R D W O R L D T R A V E L E R . C O MVisitors are encouraged to buy the booksand subscribe to the magazines that appear

on this website, to ask their libraries to put themon their shelves and their bookstores to stockthem, and to tell others about the wealth ofinformation that they provide.

ithout public awareness of and supportfor independent progressive authors,publications and publishers, this much-

needed information may not continue to beavailable.

For more information please mail to:[email protected]

THIRD WORLDTRAVELER

www.thirdworldtraveler.com

THIRD WORLDTRAVELER

www.thirdworldtraveler.com

S

3

W

A COMMUNITYCOMMITTED TO SOCIAL

CHANGE

Address:18 Millfield St

Woods Hole, MA 02543USA

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

Page 36: Vol.1 issue4

democratizing

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

w h a t w o u l d y o u r m e d i a m o d e l l o o k l i k e ? d o e s t h eso lu t i on l i e i n c r ea t i ng a l t e r na t i v e med ia o r mak ing

t h e e x i s t i n g m o d e l m o r e d e m o c r a t i c ?

creatingalternate

media

THERE HAVE BEEN FEAS IBLE RECOMMENDAT IONS TO SHORE UP NON-PROF I T , NON-COMMERC IA L MED IA , S TRENGTHENP U B L I C B R O A D C A S T I N G E T C . A R E T H E S E R E A L I S T I C O P T I O N S ?

Page 37: Vol.1 issue4

38

Edward HermanA democrat ic media would benoncommercial, locally controlled andoperated, and with ready access andencouragement to many people toparticipate in its operations. It wouldbe broadly based within its area andwould encourage an address to localand national issues. This is hard tod o i n a m a s s s o c i e t y t h a t i scapitalistic, but that is the directionone should pursue. There are manyintermediate structures that wouldimprove on the present one in theUni ted Sta te s and most o thercountr ie s : l e s s g rea t s i ze , l e s scommercial ization, more publicb r o a d c a s t i n g w i t h m a x i m u mindependence to the managementand encouragement of local nonprofitmedia.

Michael AlbertThis is not an either or choice. Totry to argue rationally with its rulersthat mainstream media should tellthe truth, serve the people, and soon, is simply a waste of time. Totell the mainstream media's ownersand decision-makers they are lyingor manipulating is not to levy acriticism at them, in their eyes, butto convey the message that they aredoing their job and doing it well.You don't convince the owners ofGeneral Motors to clean up theirshops or to reduce their pollution bycalmly conversing with them aboutthe human travail these impose.They are trying to profit and tom a i n t a i n t h e c o n d i t i o n s o fprofitability, not to serve people oreven facilitate conveyance. You want

less pollution, better conditions, youhave to fight for it. The same holdsfor mainstream media. You don'thave a conve r sa t i on w i th thepublisher of the New York Timesabout what is and what isn't fit toprint. They know, and they do itwell – given their vile aims andvalues.

So, when someone says that weshould spend much of our timetrying to improve mainstream mediaand they mean that we should puton a suit and go have lunch withfolks in the media and discuss withthem how they could do better, Ithink such people are rolling rocksup hills that will roll right backdown, sometimes crushing them orothers in the process.

On the other hand, when someonesays that we should force mainstreammedia by our activities to do abetter job, I very much agree. Ithink we should treat media like wetarget IMF meetings, WTO meetings,and so on. Indeed it will be mucheasier, since media institutions aresitting there day in and day out, allover the world. We should organizeand demonstrate and pressure media,at their sites, forcefully, aggressively.

There is another approach, as well,besides dissent and demonstrationsand rais ing social costs by oura c t i v i s m , f o r g e t t i n g b e t t e rmainstream media. That is, we candevelop better alternative media. Themore communication we can do, themore information we can get out,

the more analysis and vision weconvey, the less able mainstreammedia is to ignore truths. Theirnarrowness becomes steadily lesssustainable, the more the populationknows by its own experience or byother channels of communicationw h a t i s g o i n g o n a n d i s t h u so f f ended and out raged by thenarrowness of the mainstream. Inother words, one of the reasons tobuild alternative media is preciselyfor the impact that doing so canhave on mainstream media's optionsand choices.

But this is not the only reason tobuild alternative media. It is valuablein its own right, as well. It servesour constituencies, it motivates andorganizes, it provides a model of ourkind of organization and process. Tobe honest, I have to say that Ithink these issues really are veryobvious. Anyone on the left whothinks i t i s good to chat wi thmainstream media moguls trying toconvince them to behave differently,anyone who doesn't think pressuringthem would be adv i sab le , andanyone who doubts the value ofalternative media, is, well, so out oft o u c h w i t h t h e r e a l i t i e s o fcommunication and activism that iti s hard to know what i s sue toaddress first in trying to clear theirconfusions. I suspect these confusionsdon't hold for your readers, I hopethey don't, at any rate.

Stephen FeinFo r t h o s e w h o d e s i r e a m o r ep e a c e f u l , j u s t w o r l d , n o t t h e

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

C R E A T I N G A L T E R N A T E M E D I A

We should organize and demonstrate and pressure media, at their sites, forcefully, aggressively. Thereis another approach, as well. The more communication we can do, the more information we can getout, the more analysis and vision we convey, the less able mainstream media is to ignore truths.

Page 38: Vol.1 issue4

39

wasteland of mind-numbing televisionnor the self-censored commercialp r i n t m e d i a , t h e m o d e r ncommunicat ions technology o fInternet and email, morphed intoreceivers as small and cheap astransistor radios, may be the future.

Radio may play a role as well. But,it will probably not be ‘enlightened’programs from major radio broadcastoutlets that we should look to, butmicroradio broadcasts from one-roomapartments, that may help informand educate poorer communitieseverywhere.

Chavi NanaI think that the ideal media modelwould incorporate both public andprivate sources of, and access tomedia channels. Therefore, I woulde n c o r e s u p p o r t f o r p u b l i cbroadcasting, funded by governments,individuals and by the private sectoras a part of a corporate responsibilityprogram. However, I would alsoencourage education programs inschools and community centers tostrengthen the level of participationof the public in the media – so thatstudents and individuals have thetools to contribute, and also tochallenge the way in which themedia project is currently conducted.

Janet Weil“How can you remain oblivious tothe pain and suffering of your fellowhumans?” – Mashhood Rizvi, “TheHope of Possibility,” EDucate!, p. 58,Issue 3, Vol. 1

“…some activities will be seen andother activities will not be seen.” –D o n a l d Ru m s f e l d , t r a n s c r i p t ,D e p a r t m e n t o f D e f e n s e p r e s sconference, March 4, 2002

… l a t e r i n t h e s a m e p r e s sconference…

“Q: But what do you say to theargument that the American publichas been denied an objective orunfiltered account of the war onterrorism because of Pentagon policiesthat tend to restrict reporter accessto U.S. soldiers and their battles, asthey're ongoing?

“Rumsfeld: Well, I don't hear thatfrom the American people, I hear itfrom very small numbers of peoplein the press.”

I n a w a y, t h e a n s w e r t o t h i squestion is simple: the exact oppositeof the media model we have now.Media that speak to the concernabout obliviousness to the sufferingof our brothers and s i s ters , bypresenting that suffering as seriousmatters that we, especially thosemore privileged, can and should dosomething about, not as mere ‘news’ or ‘grisly entertainment’ – or, moreoften, as analyzed by Edward Said,in his brilliant Covering Islam, as“…[c]lichés, caricatures, ignorance,unquali f ied ethnocentrism, andinaccuracy” (p. 130, Revised Edition,Random House: NY).

Media that are owned, operated andaccountable to the people of acommunity or a nation. Media thatoperate out of universalistic valuessuch as those in the 19th article ofthe Universal Declaration of HumanRight s , w i th some ( inev i t ab l ycontes ted) loca l , reg iona l andnational variations. Media in whichboth workers and consumers aretreated fairly and with respect.

Media that support human rights

and would include neither the rapeo f c h i l d r e n a n d y o u t h b e i n gpresented as ‘sex entertainment’ northe vain, callous pronouncements ofa man like US Secretary of Defenseas ‘news’. Global media that give allpeople free, universally availableaccess to communication, informationa n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t i n m a n ylanguages. Media that operate withinlimits that members of communitiesd e t e r m i n e d e m o c r a t i c a l l y f o rthemselves, which might include suchr e s t r i c t i o n s a s n o V C R s i nc lass rooms, or no Internet forchildren under 11, or no televisionone day a week, or…? Media thathelp us realize our higher selves,instead of indulging in and profitingfrom our lower selves.

To move towards this (or any other)ideal, the struggle is about creatingand sustaining alternative mediaAND strengthening public/state-sponsored media in its public servicefunctions AND seeking to reformcommercial media, including publiceducation campaigns (such as nonsmoking advertisements), boycotts,demonstrations, l imits on theiravailability, and many other projects.

Reform/criticism/study/production ofm e d i a m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d a ninherent, ongoing part of any sociala n d p o l i t i c a l s t r u g g l e , n o t a ssomething tacked on, such as “sendo u t p r e s s r e l e a s e s a b o u t o u rdemonstration.”

Javed JabbarMy media model envisages theexistence of three distinct types ofmedia whether they be newspapersor TV or radio or cinema. Threecategories: one state owned andgovernment controlled primarily

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

Media that are owned, operated and accountable to the people of a community or a nation.Media that help us realize our higher selves, instead of indulging in and profiting from

our lower selves.

Page 39: Vol.1 issue4

devoted to the public interest andyou have to swallow the unfortunatepolitical partisanship if it comes …If that takes over that is where youcan correct it by having roles ofindependent citizens as the board ofdirectors. The state owns it, not apassing ruling party. And citizens siton the board and shape policy.

T h e s e c o n d i s t h e c o r p o r a t e ,commercial, profit driven media. Thethird element is the independentcitizen led, community based mediawhich is financially, the most difficultto manage because it doesn’t have astate subsidy and does not dependupon the commercial welfare. It willbe commercially and operationallythe most difficult but it is the mostimportant. And there we have agreat vacuum.

However, we are on the threshold ofthat change. With the approval ofelectronic media independence law,c o m b i n e d w i t h a l l t h e o t h e rinitiatives linked to education, mediaeducation and media literacy, itsignals the advent of this new typeof media because you can apply it ifyou want to run a community radiostation.

To be fair to this government, it hasg o n e m u c h f u r t h e r a h e a d i nadvancing the frontiers of mediafreedom especially in electronicmedia than any previous government.

Broadcasting live telecasts withpolitical leaders of virtually everyparty without censorship is just oneexample. You must remember thateven the independent press conductscensorship and they call it editing.But on TV and radio there havebeen live telecasts and broadcastswithout any censorship. I think wehave made progress and we mustbuild on that.

Wasif RizviHow do you dismantle the existingsystem that could mean that oneat tacks them or bans them orrestr icts them somehow. Whatcertain media analysts are pressingfor is perhaps that. Media, which isfilled with advertisements, needs tobe controlled.

If one is proposing the promotion ofa p a r t i c u l a r m o d e l a l m o s tautomatically it is demoting theother one. To me the more criticalquestion is what is the level ofpublic participation and what is thelevel of expanding the premise ofdiscourse, even if it is non-profit,public radio etc. Does it have thepossibility of people to participate inthe creation, does it al low thecreation of new reference points andframeworks to analyze scenarios.That’s an important question ifanyone, any public broadcastingsystem is going to come up withsuch kind of discourse. The range of

discourse, the way public mind isindoctrinated, the way the discourseis limited, just by changing themodel from money to non-profit isan important step but it is not reallythe critical step.

Shilpa JainIdeally, media needs to be consideredin its expanded sense, as message-making, i dea - sha r ing, f ee l ing -communicating (described earlier),small scale, diverse, and creative.Each locality would be preparingmany, many different forms of suchmedia, which would then be sharedwith other localities.

Once we understand the purpose,logic and impacts of the mass media,then I do not feel it makes muchs e n s e t o s e t u p a s y s t e m o falternative big media, or to try tomake the existing model of bigmedia more ‘free’. Especially if thealternative media comes to occupythe same space, take on the samerole, apply the same logic, and usethe same technologies/infrastructureas existing mass media. I do notthink we want to waste a lot oftime and energy trying to reform asys tem set up to indoctr inate ,manipulate, exploit and control. Wewould be much better off renouncingit and co-creating a diversity ofmedia to better meet our individualand shared interests, needs, anddreams.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

A major exponent of the work of the late Paulo Freire, Peter McLaren is considered one ofthe world's leading critical educational theorists. His work has been translated into eleven

languages.

CongratulationsDr. Peter McLaren on receiving the first Paulo Freire Democratic

Projects Award for Social Justice.

Peter McLaren

The EDucate! team

Page 40: Vol.1 issue4

democratizing

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

i s t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n m e d i a ,e d u c a t i o n a n d s o c i a l c h a n g e ?

media,education &

social change

I S E D U C A T I O N A G R E A T E R F O R C E T H A N M E D I A – M O R E P O W E R F U L T O S PA R K T H E P R O C E S S E S O F S O C I A L J U S T I C EC H A N G E ? I F G L O B A L M E D I A I S A S O C I A L C O N T R O L D E V I C E A N D E D U C A T I O N , A N I N D O C T R I N A T I O N T O O L , H O W A R E

P E O P L E , W H O R E C E I V E A H E A V Y D O S A G E O F B O T H E V E R Y D A Y, A N D E X P E C T E D T O B R E A K F R E E A N D L I B E R A T ET H E M S E L V E S ? W H A T A R E T H E P O S S I B L E W A Y S O F G E N E R A T I N G P U B L I C A C T I O N T O W A R D S C H A L L E N G I N G T H E

E X I S T I N G I N J U S T I C E S S U S T A I N E D W I T H T H E H E L P O F M E D I A A N D E D U C A T I O N ? M O S T O F U S , A T B E S T , C A N T H I N KO F A R A L L Y O R S O M E S O R T O F A P R O T E S T , C A N I T G O B E Y O N D T H A T ? H O W ?

Page 41: Vol.1 issue4

42

Michael AlbertIn the U.S. towns with alternative radio, towns with goodalternative news sources are more educated and moreinformed.

But education is a different matter. The more educationa person has, on average, the more ignorant of socialmatters they are and the less radical. Of course thereare exceptions, but this is the general rule revealed bypolls and general experience, all the time. And forobvious reasons. Knowledge empowers, and societies ofcourse want to ensure that those who are empoweredwill use their advantages in thrall to elites, not servingthe broad public. So, education comes with socialization.You learn more facts, more methods of thought, sure, asyou advance up the educational summits, but mostly youlearn more about how to behave, about who you aresupposed to like and to dislike, about what you aresupposed to pursue and what you are supposed to avoid.

Regarding media, to become a major TV newscaster, forexample, requires that you have great confidence, verbalskills, social manners, and so on. You have to beeloquent, etc. And this is in part a result of schooling,to be sure. But you also have to have had a kind ofmental lobotomy regarding matters of society and history.

Chomsky and Herman detai l these matters veryeffectively, showing how in the U.S. media system it isessential that a key TV news commentator – not evenbe able to think thoughts that are contrary to eliteinterests. This is socialization at work. The moreeducation one has, on average the less one knows andunderstands about key aspects of society, unless, ofcourse, the person is actually employed maintaining andcommanding those aspects. In that case, they understand,they just have no human sentiments to cloud theirbehavior. (It isn't just that education induces socialignorance, therefore, it is also that in our type of societyand economy to rise up the ladder of power andinfluence one must become immune to even perceivingmuch less caring about the wake of pain and sufferingo n e l e a v e s b e h i n d . I n s h o r t , g a r b a g e r i s e s …But we should remember that the fact that themainstream media and the education forced on us bysociety (whether to acclimate us to taking orders and toenduring boredom – or to prepare us to give orders andbe oblivious to injustice) deny and denigrate ouraspirations, doesn't mean media must do that, or thateducation must do that. And that is why, we have totake responsibility for our own edification with our own

alternative media, and why we have to use pressure toforce mainstream to do better.

Stephen FeinIt will be very difficult for most people to transcendmajor media control and indoctrination. Only those whomake a concerted effort to get beyond both the banalityand the commercial hype will have a chance of gettingthe information they need to be adequately informed.

However, as demonstrat ions , protest s and c iv i ldisobedience actions all over the world make clear, evenpeople with little access to alternative information, areable to recognize the truth, and act. When the wordsof political leaders are not compatible with governmentpolicies, when living conditions deteriorate as those inpower proclaim economic success, when the futures thatare being mandated for families are not the futures theywant, people will resist. Human beings desire freedom,seek justice, and dream of lives of dignity. Mediafabrication and obfuscation cannot change this. Theresistance of the ruling elites to popular demands, aidedby a self-serving media, will not prevent change, but itmay prevent peaceful change. Political leaders will forcethe people to take things into their own hands, to fight,to suffer, and to die for every social and economic gainthey are finally able to attain. It has always been thisway.

Chavi NanaYes, definitely. I think that actions like protests andrallies are useful ways to bring together the public insupport of a particular cause, but I question the extentto which they foster long term education about themedia – they can have this effect on some, but forothers they are short-term ventures. Because all types ofmedia are used in myriad and sometimes highly biasedways, the key is not to reject it, but to transform it intoa tool that is accessible, relevant and useful to differentpopulations.

In my vision, this would include the introduction ofvarious media sources in classrooms and communitycenters, meetings etc – the type of media employedwould depend on the resources available. But the key inthis process is to use media in such a way that it isdemystified; that is, not used simply to depict scenes fromfaraway lands or of big cities in the West. It is essentialthat the role of the media as it connects to everydaylife is emphasized; this could potentially result in a highernumber of people using various media sources, and also,

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

M E D I A , E D U C A T I O N & S O C I A L C H A N G E

Page 42: Vol.1 issue4

43

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

if it is (and it should be) encouraged, a greater degreeof critical thinking about the media.

Javed JabbarAbsolutely. It is a symbiotic relationship between socialchange and how media could be used and there havebeen examples in recent history. The Soviet Union is anexcellent example of how they used cinema both forpropaganda purposes but also for some very positivechanges that they brought about in Soviet society in theareas of literacy, education and health awareness.

Wasif RizviI think the idea of media education is how people canchallenge media, how people can reject it or accept it.In Pakistan, a lot of people are very highly educatedabout media. One of the refreshing things about Pakistanis that people really don't trust the garbage, which ispresented to them by the media. But yet there are veryfew signs of any social change.

If we are drawing possibilities of reflection, of socialinteraction, of people generating different forms ofexpression, finding ways of collective actions. Then bothmedia and education present a huge possibility. If suchforums are allowed to exist or are allowed to begenerated and there are possibilities of doing that. Thereare possibilities of recreating indigenous forums in whichpeople have interaction in certain manner. So that's one.

We must understand that education is a massive tool,for assembling people in a particular way so they don'tpose a serious threat to the established ways ofconformation or conforming to the frameworks, whichexist to protect and preserve the existing power interest.The term education itself is about learning, reflection,interaction, its about generating reference points andpossibilities for collective empowerment or promotion ofjustice, camaraderie of compassion and brotherhood withinsociety. So if we are looking at the terms in their idealforms and their socially constructive forms then ofcoursebut if we are looking at them realistically, the way theyhave existed, the way they started out in a constructiveway and immediately were corrupted by the powerinterest then such possibilities don't exist at all.

Shilpa JainOne can think of education as a kind of media, just asit is often claimed that the media is a kind of education.There are many reasons for saying this – not the leastof which is the similarity in format (passive viewersconsuming the sound bytes of information fed to themby an external source, as they s it i solated fromcommunities, families, nature, and are functionallyres t r ic ted in te rms o f ac t ion and interact ion) .

Media/Education – given its assumptions, goals, content,roles, impacts – cannot facilitate social justice or criticalchange. In form and function, it will be a tool ofcontrol, manipulation and indoctrination.

To challenge injustices and generate reflections, dialoguesand actions for critical change, we need to think moreabout opportunities for unlearning, co-learning, and self-learning. People are questioning the indoctrination theyare receiving, sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly – howdo we have more of it? This begins by each of us firstasking ourselves how we can live and interact in waysthat challenge exploitation and indoctrination and nurturejustice, meaning and balance? In terms of our work, wen e e d t o b e g i n t o b r e a k t h e m o n o p o l y t h a teducation/media has in our lives. What can we do topromote local, diverse self-expressions? How can weencourage people to reclaim learning as inherent tothemselves, not as something given to them by experts,to be digested and regurgitated without question?Rallies or protests, new laws or letter-writing campaigns:they mostly tend to be single- issue demands forsomething (accountability, resources, etc.) from someone(the government, corporations, courts). As said before,if we understand deeply what media/education is for andwhat it is doing, then we will see why these (now-stale)approaches will not open many spaces for unlearning,self-learning and co-learning, much less for achievingsocial justice. Instead, we need to come up with morecreative possibilities.

For example, here at Shikshantar, we are working on anumber of Critical Media Awareness and CreativeExpressions processes with children, youth, and parents.These include: analyzing images, dissecting advertisements,interpreting cartoons, recording our individual and familymedia habits, as well as making puppets and musicalinstruments out of waste materials, rediscovering danceas storytelling, writing our stories and poems in Mewari(the local language), painting provocative wall murals.These processes not only prompt critical dialogues aboutthe existing media in our lives, but they nurture ourabilities to creatively express ourselves and understandthe world around us. Moreover, they free us from theillusions of needing a lot of money, technology, ortechnical knowledge to create media in our lives andwork. We reconnect with and revalue not only our ownexperiences and feelings, but also the magical power andinfinite potential of our own hands (and backs and feet).While just the tip of the iceberg, I think that these areexamples of the kinds of self-organizing, locally-generated,dialectical processes that we will use to ‘liberate’ ourselvesf r o m t h e d a i l y o n s l a u g h t o f i n d o c t r i n a t i o n .

Page 43: Vol.1 issue4

democratizing

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

w h a t s h o u l d b e t h e r o l e o f a c a d e m i a i n g e n e r a la n d t e a c h e r s i n pa r t i c u l a r ?

role ofeducators

W H A T D O Y O U P R O P O S E S H O U L D B E D O N E A T A N O P E R A T I O N A L L E V E L , I N S C H O O L S , C O L L E G E S A N D U N I V E R S I T I E S ?H O W C A N W E H E L P T E A C H E R S E V O L V E A S T R A N S F O R M A T O R Y I N T E L L E C T U A L S ? C A N T H E C U R R I C U L U M B E D E S I G N E DT O P R O M O T E C R I T I C A L M E D I A L I T E R A C Y ? C A N E D U C A T I O N H E L P U N L O C K T H E T H O U G H T - C O N T R O L L I N G M E C H A N I S M S

O F T H E M E D I A ? H O W ?

Page 44: Vol.1 issue4

46

Stephen FeinAcademics are part of the praetorian guard of the rulingelites. They owe their positions to those at the top andmust serve them in order to maintain their status. If theygrow out of favor with those to whom they oweallegiance, they will be un-chosen, will be deprived ofthe accolades of the corporate press, and will lose theirlofty positions in society. Only academics with principlesthat are greater than their ambitions, will disregard thewishes o f those in power, and speak the t ruth.

The commercialization of education proceeds in theUnited States. Corporations pay for team uniforms sothey can display logos, they install classroom monitors sothey can air commercials to a captive student audience,and they fund research so their products can be givenuniversity imprimatur. As this commercialization proceeds,institutions of higher learning may lose some of theiraura. Students and their parents may begin to see themmore as places of indoctrination than of learning, andmay question their legitimacy.

Janet WeilI read this question as: what can we (teachers) do aboutmedia? I think we can do a lot, and not wait for‘academia’ to lead the way, develop the theories, and soon, though much can be done at that level as well.Through our lessons on how to listen to and watchmedia critically and for specific purposes, development ofdefinitions of ‘critical media literacy’, honest and openclass discussions, conversations with other teachers, closeobservations of how our students use media, and manyother strategies, we educators can:

g become aware of its effects, including of course onourselves

g use it for specific purposes

g protest it/critique it

g create our own

g teach our students to make their own media

When discussing phenomena as complex, far-reaching anddynamic as global media, looking at different aspects cangive us starting points for examination. Global media canbe thought of as products, such as press releases, stillphotographs, magazines, television programs, websites,books. Or, global media can be conceptualized as the

representation of industries with global impact; forexample, tourism exists as real-life activities andtransactions (US college students hiking in the Himalayas)and as the related media – films, videos, televisionprograms, slideshow presentations, print media and theInternet. A third form of media analysis considers themode: is it interactive (email, most websites to varyingdegrees, computer games) or is it one-way (television,radio)? A fourth method of analysis is to identify mediaproducers, for example the Pakistani government or US– or UK-held corporations, and to analyze theirobjectives, methods, cross-cultural effects, businesspractices, etc. Many lesson plans and specific learningactivities can be created from these (and doubtless other)perspectives.

So, yes, there is “hope that we will ever get ourselvesliberated from the existing situation.”

Shilpa JainTeachers would first need to understand how theythemselves are indoctrinated (on multiple levels) and howthey serve as agents of indoctrination. Teachers, students,parents, would all need to engage together with diversekinds of unlearning, self-learning, and co-learning processes(as mentioned before). I do not think this can be taught,or brought about with a change in the curriculum. Tounderstand why, we would have to see that the veryessence of curriculum, both in form and content, is alsopart of indoctrination. As my good friend Munir Fasheh,of the Arab Education Forum, says, “All curriculum isanti-learning.”

Moreover, most who consider themselves ‘criticalpedagogues’ or ‘radical educators’ still fall into the sametraps of mainstream teachers. They too lack faith in theinfinite potential of human beings and the human spirit,and see themselves as indispensable for ‘liberating’ othersfrom oppression, exploitation, etc. (An excellent critiqueof Paulo Freire, in this light, was recently prepared byGustavo Esteva, Madhu Suri Prakash, and Dana Stuchul,and will appear in the next volume of Vimukt Shiksha,U n f o l d i n g L e a r n i n g S o c i e t i e s , A p r i l 2 0 0 2 ) .

To avoid this demise, again, we would have to nurturevarious dialogues (via creations, discussions, games, etc.)among academics and teachers, to understand howeducation is also media and what we can do to get outof its indoctrinating traps.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

R O L E O F E D U C A T O R S

Page 45: Vol.1 issue4

democratizing

globalmediag e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e . . .

i s t h e r e a n y h o p e t h a t w e w i l l e v e r g e t o u r s e l v e sl i b e r a t e d f r o m t h e e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n ? d o y o u t h i n kt h o s e w i t h l i t t l e o r n o a c c e s s t o m e d i a a r e m u c hb e t t e r o f f a n d c a n b e c o m e a s o u r c e o f a l t e r n a t i v e

l i f e s t y l e s o r t h o u g h t p r o c e s s e s ?

breakingfree

D O Y O U T H I N K T H I S M E D I A G A M E I S H Y P E D A N D W I L L D E F E A T I T S E L F ? C R E A T I O N O F C R I T I C A L S P A C E S F O RD I A L O G U E S O N I S S U E S N E V E R D I S C U S S E D B E F O R E I N P U B L I C I S O N E O F T H E A F T E R M A T H S O F S E P T E M B E R 1 1 .

Page 46: Vol.1 issue4

48

Stephen FeinThe media in the United States may be the mostsophisticated and entertaining in the world, but theirproduct is homogeneous and undemanding, and itscitizens may be the least informed. There is no need toswitch TV channels to see what is on another station,because the information and the images are the same onall. There is no need to subscribe to more than onenewspaper or ‘news’ magazine, because the stories, thepoint-of-view, and even the photographs are the same,or too similar to make a difference.

Americans accept that their press is not censored, andas a result they tend to believe their government'spropaganda. Those who live in less democratic countries,know that governments lie and therefore tend todisbelieve their own country's press.

The irony might be that people in less democraticcountries may ultimately have a better opportunity ofbecoming informed, than citizens in western democracies,who, because of media self-censorship, are denied thefacts they need to make educated decisions. They maylose their freedom as a result, because they will haveforgotten that real democracy requires an informedcitizenry.

We, in the West, have been convinced that we aremuch better off than most, and in terms of comfort andconvenience, we may be. But, we have been soprogrammed not to question the authority of those inpower that we tend to accept even their most insanepolicies. In less-developed countries, although people mayhave little power to change the policies of theirgovernments, they are more likely to question thosepolicies and the motives of those in power. The advancedworld may not be so advanced when it comes to criticalthinking and independence of thought.

The media propaganda machine will never rest, but itdoes not have total control. Events have a way of

intruding. September 11th opened space for dialogue, sodid the Enron debacle, so has the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the ‘war on terrorism’. Citizenswill question their leaders, and those institutions,especially the media, that endlessly repeat the governmentline. If they become dissatisfied with what is beingoffered, they may look elsewhere for answers. Theprogressive media needs to be there, to provide adifferent point of view, and to offer hope for a differentfuture.

Janet WeilIn the formulation of the question, you already expresshope, because the truly hopeless or rigidly cynical do notask this: they have given up on hope. On a deeperlevel, I understand your first question as “Give mereasons to hope” or “The situation looks so bad, whatare we doing about it?”

Of course I can give you reasons to hope, based on myown experiences, but I would like you to consider yourquestion in a new way. What *IF* the current systemsof media indoctrination and education “geared toobedience” (Chomsky) is, indeed, without hope? What*IF* everything really is tragically bad and doomed toget worse and worse, until the entire globe is under thedomination of a single mega-corporation that controlseverything from food to medical care to religion? Orwhatever your worst fantasy is. What is your deepestfear? And then what would you *do*?

My guess (projection) is that you would cry out in yourheart, and then to others in your life that you trust.And from that experience of anguish and rebellion, youwould find a source of great energy. I have found, inmy own life and in historical struggles, that things getinteresting when there is ‘no hope’, when people faceour fears, when we stop expecting some rescue oramelioration, when we sit with ‘what is’. And then moveon to change it.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

B R E A K I N G F R E E

The irony might be that people in less democratic countries may ultimately have a betteropportunity of becoming informed, than citizens in western democracies, who, because of

media self-censorship, are denied the facts they need to make educated decisions.

Page 47: Vol.1 issue4

49

In human history as I understand it, there has alwaysbeen domination, and there has always been the struggle,sometimes subtle and covert, sometimes loud and public,against domination. You are addressing some of the moresubtle, internalized enslavements of our consciousness –questions of great interest to me since I was a youth 30years ago. Why do we think what/how we do, and who'smaking us think that way?

Maybe it's difficult, even depressing, to think that thereis an eternal struggle between domination and freedom.And maybe the struggle's not ‘eternal’, just very long.Almost my entire life has been framed by a question Irarely articulate, even to myself: “So when *is* therevolution [of human consciousness] going to happen,already?” Many, many things have changed in the almost47 years I've been alive, and yet our planet seems nocloser – indeed, in some ways much farther – to “thedemocratic, meaningful, and pluralistic lifestyle”. Except

that instead of ‘lifestyle’ I would say “institutionsthroughout the world that promote the well-being of all.”

As for the second part of this question, I would advise:be aware of a tendency to idealize those “with little orno access to media” – human beings have always hadsome kind of ‘media’, that is, reports through song,gossip, drawings, etc. of people and things they have notdirectly experienced themselves. Probably people inPakistan who have little or no access to *electronic*media have something to teach us; perhaps they canoffer some alternatives. I certainly mean no disrespect;on the contrary. I will be interested to read more onthis subject.

Electronic media offer an alluring, addictive, but extremelylimited and passive world of fakeness. I hate that world,and crave it, and am accustomed to it, and seek tobalance it with other parts of my life. Human beings areevolved to engage, in a varied, sometimes dangerous andoften beautiful biosphere, in an extraordinary range ofexperiences, not sit in front of ‘the idiot box’ as myfather called it, or even keep typing into a screen. I dorecognize that I am one of the very privileged persons

in our world to have the access to so much media, andthe leisure to reflect on it with others.

Wasif RizviMedia and education; why they are controlled and usedfor indoctrination because at certain level they do posea threat towards enormous power interest, and do possessa possibility of empowering and liberating society. Whenyou are saying that media is controlled and education ismisled that means that these institutions if not controlledor misled present these possibilities. Now one needs todiscover that level then one needs to recreate andgenerate such possibilities. So that's what you do.

Shilpa JainOf course, we can liberate ourselves – we don’t needanyone to do it for us. And I do have faith that it ishappening and can happen more, if we support spaceswhere people are, consciously and unconsciously, already

engaged in such processes. Can we value these existingspaces and grow more of them in our own lives andwork? In many ways, people who have not had muchexposure to the mainstream media have been able toretain and grow their common sense, creativity andwisdom (akal in Mewari), which are the bases for socialjustice. An appreciation and regeneration of this wouldcertainly bring us a lot closer to freeing ourselves fromthought-control.

While the media game may defeat itself in the long-run,as more and more people begin to renounce it, Icertainly do not believe our concern about it is over-hyped. Without a doubt, it has had, and continues tohave, serious effects on our psychologies, our ecologies,and our cosmologies. It has destroyed our humanconnectivity as well as many life-supporting activities(intergenerational dialogue, individual and collectivecreativity, hands-on labor, intimate interaction with nature,etc.) I think the reactions after September 11th, aboveall else, demonstrated the mass media’s tremendouscapacities for inhibiting understanding and incitingviolence. Whatever few deep reflections and criticaldialogues emerged were promptly overshadowed, ignored,or outrightly condemned and quashed by the mass media.

C O V E R S T O R Y - d e m o c r a t i z i n g g l o b a l m e d i a - g e n e r a t i n g a d i s c o u r s e

Of course, we can liberate ourselves – we don’t need anyone to do it for us. While themedia game may defeat itself in the long-run, as more and more people begin to renounce

it, I certainly do not believe our concern about it is over-hyped.

Page 48: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

50

What’s wrong with the media?

In my opinion, the biggest problem with media (especiallytelevision) today is manipulation of information. Local andinternational news programs are the best example. Also,the mainstream media is highly commercialized. Thecommercials seem to provide quick solutions to all ourproblems: within 14 days you can become beautiful andcharming by using highly-advertised beautifying products.These advertisements have become a source of fantasyand false idealism luring people into the web ofconsumerism. The younger generation is totally overtakenby media messages revolving around being beautiful, thinand buying what the corporations have to offer: expensivelifestyles. Media deliberately forgoes the real essence andmeaning of beauty and simplicity.

Most of the programs, advertisements and music showspromote and transmit information alien to our traditionsand culture because they present the Western mode oflife. They make people believe that their only way tohappiness and success in life is pursuing a Westernlifestyle. They make people ashamed of their own culturesand traditions. The media serves the vested interests ofthe powerful people of the world – the power managers.They are conveniently portrayed as heroes, saviors, humanrights preservers etc and the ‘real’ side of their actionsis never exposed.

Can the Internet be used as a tool for makingmedia more democratic?

Yes, Internet could become an excellent tool for creatingawareness and sharing reflection and action. I rememberChomsky saying in one of his interviews that when theInternet was invented, we heard the word ‘Informationsuperhighway’ everywhere. Just after 10 years, we arehearing another term: ‘E-commerce’. Generating morebusiness and money is the only emphasis now. This newcorporate mind-shift is affecting the youth of today themost.

The growing number of cyber cafes in our city andcountry could give the youth a chance to engage inmeaningful dialogue over the Internet but sadly thesevenues are used for trivialities like chatting, accessingpornographic materials, entertainment etc.

Selecting and accessing the right information on theInternet is a major concern although we have aninformation surplus online. One appropriate way to makethe Internet technology more democratic is to engageeveryone in a meaningful dialogue regarding the potentialsof the technology and exposing the processes, mechanismsand problems attached to it to audience’s views. Throughthis participative process, the audience may learn andunderstand to make intelligent choices on the Internet.

Is there a significant connection between media,education and social change?

Yes, there exists a strong connection. The existing mediahas played a vital role in shaping our lives, attitudes,behaviors, thinking etc. It has a huge impact on ourchildren’s personalities. It is more powerful than thelearning systems in our schools. A rally or protest maybe a good idea, but again, for making it sustainable weneed to educate our teachers about these issues. Theteachers, educators, school management, communities andchildren must be made to understand the potential ofmedia and the purpose of education to create a moreviable and just environment. The next step would be todevelop tools for creating such awareness and engagingmore people. There already exist some platforms formeaningful discourses like congregations in mosques andtemples, inviting parents to schools, publishing anddisseminating pamphlets, using local cable operators todeve lop p rograms and the i r d i s semina t ion e tc .

What could be the role of academia in generaland teachers in particular?

Unfortunately, majority of our teachers are trapped intothis false reality of completing the syllabus, preparingstudents to get better marks, promoting competitions,disseminating worthless information etc. This processcontinues throughout the academic life. There is an effortto address some of the societal issues but it is neverp u r s u e d i n a s u s t a i n a b l e , e f f e c t i v e m a n n e r.

The major challenge is to make the teachers aware abouttheir existing roles and redefining them. The teachersshould see themselves as agents of change. The teachershave to be trained to think and reflect on their practicesand try to identify the strengths and weaknesses andevaluate these keeping in view their vision of education.They could then be engaged in the process of developingtools, redefining and redesigning the curriculum andstrategies to generate meaningful dialogues. The schoolcould be an excellent place to engage parents andcommunities in these dialogues. If teachers could recordthese dialogues, then local cable operators coulddisseminate them. This would not only prove to be costeffective but also within control of the communities ratherthan commercial institutions.

This process should be carried out slowly and graduallyand within small groups and communities. Once theseprocesses are in place, it is upto the community to decidewhether they want to follow the existing systems ofindoctrination or follow their own self-made systems. Theteacher should then engage the community in designingnew systems coherent with the traditions and cultures,reflect upon them and design strategies for action.

N O O R U D D I N M E R C H A N T

Page 49: Vol.1 issue4

Aslam AzharAn Interview for EDucate!

UR On...

“The world is mass producing literature just as it is mass producing other consumergoods”, says Aslam Azhar, the pioneering veteran of nascent Pakistan Television. Frombeing the first Managing Director of PTV to a dynamic media critic, Azhar talks toEDucate! about the transition of electronic media in Pakistan, the rise of consumerism,t h e p l i g h t o f o u r e d u c a t i o n s y s t e m a n d t h e v i t a l i t y o f h o p e …

BYMASHHOOD RIZVI

Page 50: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

52

How did you get involved withPakistan Television?

Well very briefly, by chance, purelyby chance. I was the first Pakistanito be employed in television when itstarted in 1964. It was started as apilot project by a Japanese companywho were given a contract by theGovernment o f Pak i s t an . TheGovernment of Pakistan said, lookwe know nothing about television,you start a pilot project, run itsuccessfully for three months andthen we take it over if it succeeds.T h i s J a p a n e s e c o m p a n y w a sintroduced to me, I was then afreelance theater person, writer,journalist and so I became the veryf i r s t p rog rammed Pak i s tan i inPakistan Television.

I started the Lahore station and thatwas very successful, I started thethen Rawalpindi station, which laterbecame Islamabad station and thenthe Karachi station. So I started allthree of these. I went on to becomethe Managing Director of Pakistan

Television Corporation and in Zia-ul-Haq’s time I was sacked. I cameback when Benazir Bhutto cameb a c k i n h e r f i r s t t e n u r e , i nDecember 1988, as Chairman ofPakistan Television and PakistanBroadcasting Corporation, Radio

Pakistan. After a year-and-a-half Id e c i d e d t h a t t h e p o l i c i e s t h egovernment was pursuing were notthe policies that I had come topromote because I am a democratand I resigned. Since then I havebeen a freelance.

S o y o u w e r e n o t o n l ytechnically but also conceptually

and intellectually framing therole of television media or fort h a t m a t t e r m e d i a i n t h ePakistani society. What wereyour initial goals with respectto the societal elements andh o w w e r e y o u d o i n g i t ?

Ofcourse I had a team, a very goodteam. All along, throughout mycaree r, in the a r t s and in theperforming arts and in the fieldbroadly of culture, I have beenconcerned with somehow turningthese two sub societies of Pakistaninto one mainstream society. Thetwo sub societies of Pakistan are theurban society and the rural society

All along, throughout my career, in the arts and in theperforming arts and in the field broadly of culture, I have

been concerned with somehow turning these two subsocieties of Pakistan into one mainstream society. The twosub societies of Pakistan are the urban society and therural society and there is a big gap between these two.

Page 51: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

53

and there is a big gap between thesetwo, it is not a class gap in theMarxist sense; it is almost literally acast gap. There i s the Engl i shmedium class and there’s the non-English medium class and these aretwo casts in society and by andlarge the Engl i sh medium castinhab i t s the u rban cen te r s o fPakistan, whether they are poor orrich. Even the poor Pakistani todayasp i res to send h i s boys to anEnglish medium school because herealizes there’s no future for them inthe absence of an English medium.

The rura l ch i ld o r pa rent hasabsolutely no access to that, notonly no access but his aspirations aredifferent, his culture is different, soin the early days of television welaid a lot of stress on bringing ruralculture into the cities via television.And this was a conscious effort.

Now in those early days, 1964 tillmaybe 1970, television was verylimited in its reach, there weren’t allthat many television sets in thecountry but then gradually it beganto grow. In those days the b igdifference was that the programswere determined and decided andproduced by us producers. Today, thesituation is different, today theprograms are determined, decidedand produced at the will of he whopays, that is to say the advertiser,the great global corporations, whichhave swamped Pakistan. So this iswhy today television is no longer, inmy opinion, serving society’s needs.It is infact serving the needs of theglobal producers.

Noam Chomsky was recently inPakistan, you also met him.There are a lot of intellectualsin the West who have openlycrit icized the strangulatingcontrol of global media andhave also analyzed the role ofUS media within their ownsociety. Do you think anybodyin Pakistan has been able to dothat or if not, why?

In Chomsky’s lecture he was askeda s imi lar quest ion and he sa idnowhere in the world today andn o w h e r e i n h i s t o r y h a v e t h ema in s t r eam in te l l e c tua l s eve rsupported rebellion and dissonance.The mainstream intellectuals havealways supported the power structuresin power, the establishment. We area small group of people in Pakistan,who are now precisely raising ourvoices on this issue but we get verylittle support at the moment becausethere’s a long process of creatinglobbies in various sectors of society;in the middle-class, in the lowermiddle class, in the rural class.Lobbies which are conscientized andwhich understand what is being doneto them and how they are beingmanipulated by the global media ofwhich the Pakistani media, especiallythe electronic media, are a part andparcel.

Now, the e l e c t ron i c med i a inPakistan are pursuing, without reallythinking about these issues, the samecourse as the global media are, whatwe call in Urdu, bher chaal, they are

f o l l o w i n g l i ke s h e e p . N o b o d yunderstands that what the globalmedia and today’s contemporarymedia essentially do is to destroy thecritical ability of the individual. Heis deprived of his critical ability todistinguish between good and evil,between necessary and redundant,between need and greed and this iswhat they consciously want becausethey want this individual to stopbeing a human being and become,in inverted commas, ‘a consumer’. Aconsumer who consumes beyond hisnecessary needs because that’s theo n l y w a y i n w h i c h t h e g l o b a lcorporations can continue to holdand exercise power internationally.

There’s so much comparisonwhich is done between the wayIndian media, especially theelectronic media, has developedover the past decade after theinvasion of the satellite dishand the way Pakis tan hasrepositioned itself. Do you thinkthis is an invalid comparisons ince the ir thought -contro lprocesses are more sophisticatedthan ours or is this comparisondone on some other ground?

You are right. Your question is wellphrased. The Indians infact haveturned out to be very good studentsof the Western global media andtoday Indian television, satellitetelevision is even more efficient thanthe Western global media wouldhave hoped for in converting humanbeings into consumers.

Now the electronic media in Pakistan are pursuing, without really thinking about these issues,the same course as the global media are, what we call in Urdu, bher chaal, they are followinglike sheep. Nobody understands that what the global media and today’s contemporary mediaessentially do is to destroy the critical ability of the individual. He is deprived of his criticalability to distinguish between good and evil, between necessary and redundant, between needand greed and this is what they consciously want because they want this individual to stop

being a human being and become, in inverted commas, ‘a consumer’.

Page 52: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

54

Now the comparison with Pakistanis s imply because the Pakistanitelevision was only state-owned, therewas no private sector television andtherefore Pakistani television in theseearly decades tended to be a littlemore service-oriented but now in thelast five years, we see that PakistanTelevision which is still state-ownedis actually behaving like a privatesector television organization, whichis to say it’s doing exactly what theIndian television commercial stationsare doing; it is in the service of theproducers of goods and services.

In your opinion, whose interestsshould the media serve, thestate or the society?

Let me first say that I put this intothree categories not two, not stateand society. Number one is thestate, number two the governmentof the day and number three thecivil society. Now the state is all ofPakistan, the state has its permanentlong-term interests and every memberof c iv i l society must serve theinterests of the state without whichhe is nobody. The government ofthe day must protect the interests ofcivil society so that the state’sinterests continue to be served.The electronic media and ofcoursethe print media are not to be inthe service of the government of theday but in the service of c iv i lsociety and the state. This is theimportant thing. In Pakistan we havestopped differentiating between thein te re s t s o f the s ta te and theinterests of the government of theday. So the government of the daysays I must stay in power, don’tcriticize me and the electronic mediasays ‘ yes s ir ’ and therefore the

interests of civil society are ignored.Now people say, for example, thatthe BB C i s a ve ry democra t i cbroadcaster but the BB C doescriticize the government of the day,be it the Labor Party government orthe Conservative Party governmenton pa r t i cu la r i s sue s , the BB Ch o w e v e r n e v e r e n d a n g e r s t h einterests of the state of Britain. Butb e c a u s e i t i s c r i t i c a l o f t h egovernment here and there it isconsidered to have great credibility.I t i s not that the BBC is verysophisticated in its propaganda; it isthat it has differentiated between thegovernment of the day and theinterests of the state. Now theinterests of the state, for example,whether it be Iraq or Chechnya orthe Falkland War against Argentina,the BBC was on the side of thestate of Great Britain. But here andthere it is critical of the governmentof the day’s policies. In Pakistan andin India they are not making thisdistinction.

Lets talk about the way themedia have functioned underthe present government. A lotof people think that GeneralPervez Musharraf has givenmore space to people in somany ways …

I agree with that view because Ihave been at the heart o f theelectronic media in this country forall these decades and never beforehave either the electronic media orthe print media have had the spaceto operate, which they have now …

Do you think that’s a goodstep towards creating some

critical consciousness amongstpeople?

Yes. In his lecture Professor Chomskyw a s a s k e d w h e t h e r m i l i t a r ydictatorship can be expected tocreate the ground or prepare theground for a real transit ion togenuine democratic society. Hisanswer was that the work of politicsin governing a country is not likethe laws of physics. The laws ofp h y s i c s a r e u n c h a n g e a b l e , i fsomething has to happen, it willhappen, if something can’t happen itcannot happen. But with humanbeings and politics, governments haveinterests, have wisdom, have vision,have insight. Anybody can show thatvision and insight, whether he is inuniform or whether he is not inuniform. And he said that if yourgovernment has the vision and thestatesmanship, well, then I don’t seewhy we cannot have the groundprepared for democratic dispensations.

How would you assess thestrength of Pakistani media? InUS, where there ’ s g rea te rliteracy and dependency onmedia, the people are literallysubject to the worst form ofindoctrination. As some criticss a y , t h e y a r e t h e m o s tdisempowered society; they known o t h i n g a b o u t w h a t i shappening outside the US. InI n d i a , t h e r e a r e s o m a n yconsumer s tha t the g loba lcorporations have put moree f f o r t s i n f u r t h e r i n g t h esophisticated manipulation ofideas and manufacturing of

the comprador producers of Pakistan are in alliance with the global producers andhave the same interests in developing the media in a direction where it becomes

as effective in manipulating society

Page 53: Vol.1 issue4

55

consent. Do you think the samelevel of control is exerted by mediain Pakistan too?

Not yet. I like the way you havephrased your question, which isreally not a question, you’ve almostanswered your se l f , I l i ke yourstatement and I agree with it. Notyet, in Pakistan but it is going inthe same direction because thecomprador producers of Pakistan arein alliance with the global producersand have the same interests indeveloping the media in a directionwhere it becomes as effective inmanipulating society in the directionsin which they want, but the time iscoming and I think that the speedwith which we are going in thedirection of the consumerist cultureis accelerating.

Do you think that the religiousvalues act as a deterrent or assomething which would always resistin constructive as well as destructiveforms the corporatization of ourculture.

No, I do not think that religionstands in the way of anything. I donot think that Islam stands in theway of the corporatization of ourc u l t u r e o r i n t h e w a y o f t h edemocratization of our culture. Alsoit is necessary to understand thatthere’s no one monolithic thingcalled Islam. Islam is the culture ofits people; the Malaysian Muslimsare one kind of culture, the SaudiArabian are another kind of Muslimculture, the Lebanese are a thirdkind, the Egyptian are a fourth kindand the Pakistani are the fifth kind.

In the same way as in Christianity,Roman Catholic France or RomanCatholic Italy is very distinct fromRoman Catholic Latin America. Verydifferent, you had that liberationtheology in Latin America, whichhas never come into the Catholicismor European Catholic Church. In thesame way there’s no monolithicIslam. Now, what happens is thatthe forces of society, the productive

forces of society can sometimesmanipulate religion, be it Hinduism,I s l a m o r C h r i s t i a n i t y , t h emanipulation is always done by thepower structures. Now if the powerstructures choose to manipulate Islamthen we have to first ask what isthe aim of the power structures inPakistan or what is the aim of thepower structures in Saudi Arabia andaccordingly Islam will be used andmanipulated but intrinsically there’snothing in it to stop anything fromhappening.

Pakistani Islam is very suficallyinfluenced. People of Pakistan, thecommon people of Pakistan, be theyurban common people or villagepeople, are very strongly responsiveto sufi Islam. Now sufi Islam teachesthat you don’t forget the needs ofthe spirit, that you don’t fall in lovewith the world so much that youforget the needs of the spirit. In theWest, in consequences of Renaissanceand a long historical development,there has been a distance createdbetween the life of the spirit andthe love of the world to the extentthat the life of the spirit has almostcompletely disappeared in mainstreamWestern civilization. Now the wayt h i s i s p u t s o m e t i m e s i s t h a tmaterialism has displaced God fromthe throne. Here this has not yethappened.

Do you think i t ’ s on i ts way?

It is on its way and the only thing,which can stand in the way andstop this process or atleast slow itdown is a revivification of the spiritthrough sufi Islam, if we were towork on those lines because sufiIslam, by no means, is monastic. SufiIslam does not say that you go andsit in a cave in the mountain tocontemplate and forget the world.

There is a very beautiful statementattributed to the Prophet (PBUH)when he was asked by Hazrat Alionce to give him a piece of adviceand the Prophet of Islam said “Livein this world as though it is to beyour home forever and prepare forthe next world as though you are todie tomorrow morning.” In otherwords “Live in this world as thoughit is to be your home forever” whichmeans keep it beautiful and clean,look after your parents, attend toyour worldly responsibilities becauseyou are here forever and be a goodcitizen of the world, a clean citizenof a clean world but at the sametime prepare for tomorrow; “preparefor the next world as though youare to die tomorrow morning” Nowthe two things have to go side byside; neither displaces the other, youmust live in this world and youmust prepare for the next.

Page 54: Vol.1 issue4

56

I was just hoping if you could shedsome light on Iran … I have hadthe opportunity of seeing somemovies and they were very touchingand sensitive. They addressed thecultural, social and the economicp r o b l e m s a n d w e r e t r y i n g t ostrengthen the belief systems. Do youthink that’s also indoctrination orthat’s how media should function?

I don’t know anything at all abouthow the media in Iran, the creativemedia, are developing. By hearsay, Ihear that Iranian independent filmproducers are doing some very goodartistic work. Artistic work is neverpropaganda. In artistic work, theartist is expressing himself and hisinsights, as he sees the world, hisperceptions, he’s not in the serviceof any global corporation or anypower structure. The artist is neverin the service, this is the differenceto under s tand , whether he beIranian, American or British orPakistani, an artist, a true artist, isn o t i n s e r v i c e o f a n y p o w e rstructure. What is he in service of?He is in service of human beings,he is in service of humanism; PavloNeruda was in service of humanism,Faiz Ahmed Faiz was in service ofh u m a n i s m . T h e y w e r e n o tpropagandists.

Lets go back a little bit and try tolearn from your experience. You saidthat your major goal was to bridgethe gulf between rural and urbanmasses and you even tried doingthat . What were those things;policies and programs without theelement of urban bias?

Not very much, but basically oura u d i e n c e s a t t h a t t i m e w e r e

predominantly, preponderantly urbanaudiences because the television setsh a d n o t r e a c h e d i n t o t h ecountryside. So therefore, what wewere trying to do was to educatethe urban audiences about theculture and the life of the ruralmasses. For example, I placed agreat emphasis on folk music. Thefolk music in Pakistani society isbasically sufi music, be it Sindhi folk,Punjabi folk, Frontier folk or Balochifolk. And the folk music of Pakistansomehow expresses spontaneously therural culture of Pakistan and thefolk culture. Now city audienceswere unfamiliar with these soundsand these sights. So we used tobring a lot of that into it. Also Iencouraged our playwrights to writeon rural themes and many of themdid very well in this area.

Since you are not involved with theelectronic media anymore, you mustfind it very disturbing the wayPakistani media is functioning thesedays. Most of the programs areb e i n g s h o t a b r o a d d e p i c t i n gextravagance and urban bias towhich majority of the populationcannot relate to. One example fromIndia is a recent film (Dil ChataHai) which is under heavy criticismbecause what it displays is polesapart from the true realities of Indiaand completely deviated from socialresponsibility.

Ofcourse, ofcourse. I am distressedand I can’t bear watching eitherPak i s tan i t e l ev i s ion o r Ind iant e l e v i s i o n o r e v e n A m e r i c a ntelevision for that matter for ther e a s o n s t h a t y o u h a v e j u s tenunciated in your question. Themedia in service of Mammon. Now

why, for example, have the otherforms of art not gone in service ofMammon, the way commercia lcinema or television all over theworld, be it the Western world orthe Eastern world. For example,theater in countries where theaterflourishes on the stage continues tobe the work of artists and not inservice of Mammon. Ofcourse thereis also commercial theater but goodtheater does exist, why doesn’t goodtelevision exist, why is the cinemano longer producing the IngmarBergmans and the Satyajeyteras andthe Kurosawas of 20, 30, 40 yearsago in the same degree. Ofcoursehere and there, there are exceptionsbut the c inema has gone af terMammon. Why hasn’t the theatergone after Mammon, why hasn’t thepainter gone after Mammon, whyhasn’t the poet gone after Mammon,the answer is metaphor. Metaphoricalexpression is what the human spiritreally needs; theater is metaphorical;you can’t bring horses and wars onthe stage, as Shakespeare said in hisprologue to Henry, the fifth, “Thinkwhen we speak of horses that yousee them, pr int ing their proudhooves in the receiving earth”,because he meant we can’t bringhorses onto the stage but we aregoing to talk about war and horsesand kings and soldiers so when wespeak of them, you think of them.In other words use your imagination.

Now television does not require youand me to use our imaginationinfront of the TV set. Televisionpredigests everything and gives it toyou.

Therefore, television is an opiatewhereas good theater is not an

forEDucating Social Change

...the world is mass producing consumer goods, soaps, perfumes, toothpaste and McDonalds burgersand the rest, in the same way the whole world is mass producing literature, mass producing wordsand looking around I do not find a best seller that can be the creation of a Tolstoy today –there are no Tolstoys today, there are no Nerudas today, there are no Faiz Ahmed Faizes or

Allama Iqbals today. Can there be?

Page 55: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

57

opiate, the painter is not an opiate,poetry is not opium. When you readgood poetry or see a good paintingyour mind and your spirit comesawake. When you sit infront of thetelevision set, your eyes are open butyour mind and spirit are asleepb e c a u s e y o u a r e b e i n g g i v e npredigested entertainment.

So what you are saying is thattelevision could never become a goodeducat iona l o r l i be ra tory too lanyway?

I am saying precisely that. It iss e v e r e l y l i m i t e d d u e t o i t sdependency on money and thecommercial interest. Now if therewas somewhere in the world a stateand a government that said nocommercial television, we will findthe money to fund good television,it is possible, then to turn televisioninto a metaphorical medium ofexpression, in the service of civilsociety. It is possible but then itneeds the money; a writer just needsa pen, a painter just needs brushes,o i l pa in t s and a canvas but atelevision producer needs a lot ofmoney, a lot of equipment and abroadcasting system, where is that tocome from? No state is willing tofund all of that so who funds? Thecorporate sector, and then as theysay, “He who pays the piper, callsthe tune”.

In your opinion, when did thesevere decline of media and publicsector in Pakistan begin?

Basically, what you call the declineo f t h e m e d i a i s t h ecommercialization of the media. Eversince Pakistani society also began tobe a consumer society, our mediahave been commercialized and,therefore, the purpose of the mediais no longer serving society butserving the people who pay themedia to flourish.

Do you think there’s hope thats omeday a f r amework can b ebrought in where things can be

turned around or is it too heavilycontrolled by the corporates that itis too late?

What comes to my mind is that justas the world is mass producingconsumer goods, soaps, perfumes,toothpaste and McDonalds burgersand the rest, in the same way thewhole world is mass producingliterature, mass producing words andlooking around I do not find a bestseller that can be the creation of aTolstoy today – there are no Tolstoystoday, there are no Nerudas today,there are no Faiz Ahmed Faizes orAllama Iqbals today. Can there be?N o w t h e w o r l d i s c o n s u m i n gliterature the way it is consuming allthe other consumer products and sothe bookshelves of the bookshopsand of houses are ful l of trashbecause mass production of wordscan only lead to trash – thesep e o p l e w h o w r i t e n o v e l s a r eproducing a novel a year and theyare selling and selling and selling.Millions of copies is just nothing,here and there a good book alsosells a lot but that’s because then itis somehow serving a felt-need inthe reader.

And that is where that ray of hopeis?

Exactly, there is that ray of hope …here and there, there might arisethinkers who serve felt-needs insociety be it via television or printor music.

The education system of Pakistanhas nothing in its curriculum tocreate critical consciousness amongststudents to critically examine whatis on the news, on TV or in thenewspapers. Do you think that ifthe education sector begins to takeits responsibility, it can be a greaterforce than media and it can helpbreak the cycle of manipulation?

Ofcourse, education is at the centerof hope, but education by whomand who educates the educator?Now, in Pakistan the state education

sector, the public education sector, ismoribund. They haven’t got themoney, they haven’t got trainedteachers, they haven’t got text bookboards, which are properly educatedand, therefore, they are just goingon doing what they have done forthe last 50, 70 years. The privatesector is there in the education fieldto make money – I don’t have anyhopes whatsoever from private sectoreducation in Pakistan or anywhereelse in the world. The public sectorunfortunately, the government ofPakistan, is not in a position bute v e n i f i t w e r e , t h e r e a r egovernments in the world that havethe money, bu t ye t they haveabdicated from their responsibility inthe field of education of the young.But there are some societies, whichhave not abdicated f rom thei rresponsibil it ies. For example inGermany there is a very strong andgood public sector education, inAmerica there is virtually none.Now, in Pakistan our public sectoreducation is what I would hope forand one day I am hoping that therewill be a government, which saysthese are now our new priorities ofinvestment and the top priority willnot be media, the top priority willbe education and health.

Thank you so much, is there anymessage you want to give outthrough our magazine to people?

Yes, since you ask because it mightseem that some people might thinkI’m a pessimist. I don’t like the wordpessimism it does not belong in mylex icon . I don’ t l ike the wordoptimism either, that does not belongin my lexicon. I believe in lookingat the world after removing scalesfrom my eyes and looking at mysociety seeing it without propaganda,without prior brainwashing and thenseeking answers. That’s neitheroptimism nor pessimism.

It’s a drive towards the truth.

Correct!

Page 56: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

58

hile it is true that the media is largely in thehands of a relatively few corporations andrepresent one of the most powerful forms of public

pedagogy, it does not mean that everything they producelies entirely on the side of domination or that it is notpossible to challenge their pedagogical functions andmessages. There are also alternative sources of informationthat are being produced in counter public spheres bymany groups in the forms of magazines, newspapers,journals, videos and on the Internet. For instance, in theUnited States the Media Education Foundation provides,online and through its distribution process, an amazingarray of sources of entertainment.

We need to remember that power and domination arenot the same thing. This suggests that conditions haveto be created in as many sites as possible to providepeople with the intellectual skills, knowledge andmotivation to both be able to understand how powerworks as a form of domination but also how it can beused as a mode of cr i t ique and transformation.

g At one level, we need a language of critique andpossibility to make dominant power visible.

g Second, we need to develop modes of pedagogythat address the new sites in which learning istaking place outside of the limited confines of theschool, such as in popular culture, mass media, andthe new electronic media.

g Thirdly, we need to educate young people andothers in a wide array of literacies that linkknowledge to social change, and education to theproject of expanding their sense of political agencywhile also connecting such agency to the broader

struggle for economic, political, and social justiceand global democracy.

g Fourthly, we need to organize, on an internationallevel, to not only fight the corporate forces of neo-liberalism, but also to create alternative publicspheres that would offer new spaces for creatingthose vital discourses and technologies that wouldenable people to come together to defend vitalp u b l i c g o o d s a n d t h e o n g o i n g p r o c e s s o fdemocratization on a global level.

In every instance, it is crucial to create world wideorganizations that come together to defend the notionof the public good, democracy, and social justice and doso in a way that repudiates the powerful neo-liberalassumption that democracy and the market are the same.It is crucial to reclaim the language and project ofradical democracy as a weapon to both critique andovercome the collapse of social orders into marketrelations.

This means redefining the importance of the democraticsocial, citizenship, political agency, transformative politics,and critical education. We need an inventive democraticimaginary as a basis for linking education and pedagogyto the broader processes of democratization itself. Hopemust lie not only in the ongoing damage that neo-liberalcapitalism is doing to the planet but also to the hardpedagogical task of making contradictions visible, affirmingand reclaiming the ethical imperatives of realizabledemocracies, and resurrecting educated hope as a basisfo r c rea t ing the cond i t ions fo r s e l f and soc ia ldetermination.

BY HENRY GIROUX

ROLE OFEDUCATORSIN ANINDOCTRINATEDWORLD

Page 57: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

59

Combining the discourse of criticism and hope is crucialto affirm that critical activity offers the possibility forsocial transformation. One option that progressiveeducators could consider is to develop an oppositionalcultural politics that engages basic considerations of globalsocial citizenship aimed at expanding democratic rightsw h i l e d e v e l o p i n g c o l l e c t i v emovements that can challenge thesubordination of social needs to thedictates of capital, commodification,and commercialism.

Central to such a politics would bea public pedagogy that attempts tomake visible, in a wide variety ofs i t e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e g l o b e ,a l t e rna t i ve mode l s o f r ad i ca ldemocra t i c cu l tu re that ra i sefundamental questions about therelationship between polit ical agency and socialresponsibility, technology and globalization, and the re-inscr ipt ion of the state as a force for domest icmilitarization. At the very least, such a pedagogy involvesunderstanding and critically engaging dominant publictranscripts and values within a broader set of historicaland institutional contexts.

Making the political more pedagogical in this instancesuggests producing modes of knowledge and socialpractices that not only affirm oppositional cultural workbut offer opportunities to mobilize instances of collectiveoutrage, if not collective action, against glaring materialinequities and the growing cynical belief that today’sculture of investment and finance makes it impossible toaddress many of the major social problems facing boththe United States and the larger world.

Most importantly, such work points to the link betweencivic education and modes of oppositional political agencythat are pivotal to elucidating a politics that promotesautonomy and social change. Unfortunately, manyprogressives have failed to take seriously AntonioGramsci's insight that “[e]very relationship of `hegemony'is necessarily an educational relationship” – with itsimplication that education as a cultural pedagogicalpractice takes place across multiple sites as it signals how,within diverse contexts, education makes us both subjectsof and subject to relations of power.

Hopefully, the challenge facing educators as publicintellectuals in an age of global plunder by an uncheckedmarket authoritarianism will manifest itself in a pluralityof forms of political and pedagogical interventions,including challenging the historical inevitability of global

capitalism, defending the historical advances associatedwith nation states by pushing for “more education, morehealth, more guaranteed lifetime income,” mobilizingmarginalized groups on all fronts, and making anti-racistand class struggles paramount to any struggle fordemocratization. Economic restructuring on a global level

makes class a more central category than ever before asa result of the increasing divisions between the rich andthe poor, accelerated by the massive transformation ofpower from nations to transnational corporations, on theone hand, and the equally massive transfer of wealthfrom the poor and middle class to the upper classes onthe other hand. But any attempt to abolish forms ofclass, racial, gender, and other types of oppression requiresa di f ferent kind of pol i t ics than what has beentraditionally associated with the politics of class struggles.

A new politics must be steeped in an attempt to publiclyconfront oppressive relations, explain them, situate themhistorical ly, engage how they are worked in theintersection between the local and the global context,and refuse to accept their inevitability. A pedagogy ofpersuasion and transformation in this instance becomescrucial to any viable politics of democratization. Anyfeasible movement that challenges neo-liberalism andcorporate globalization will need to develop pedagogicalstrategies that debunk the cherished myths of capitalism,offer knowledge, skills, and tools that “will be immediatelyuseful in people’s lives” and, at the same time, “pointt o l o n g e r - r u n , m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l c h a n g e s . ”

Simultaneously, it is crucial for educators and others tofight against the effects of neo-liberalism and financecapital by becoming border crossers and workingcollectively with other groups spread out across the planetto develop global institutions “of effective and politicalaction as could match the size and power of the alreadyglobal economic forces and bring them under politicalscrutiny and ethical supervision.” Such projects andinterventions while not offering a politics with guaranteescan unleash the pedagogical and political energies

We need to remember that power and domination are not thesame thing. This suggests that conditions have to be created inas many sites as possible to provide people with the intellectualskills, knowledge and motivation to both be able to understandhow power works as a form of domination but also how it can

be used as a mode of critique and transformation.

Page 58: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

60

necessary to combine a strong hostility to the existenceof human suffering and exploitation with “a vision of aglobal society, informed by civil liberties and humanrights, that carries with it the shared obligations andresponsibilities of common, collaborative citizenship.”

Instances of such movements can be glimpsed in thepeaceful globalization protests that have taken placeagainst the WTO, IMF, G8, and WEF in Seattle,Washington, Genoa, Italy, and more recently, New YorkCity. The move from protest to building astute analysesand international alliance can also be seen in meetingssuch as the World Social Forum that took place recentlyin Porto Alegre, Brazil. Both of these movements echoDavid Held and Mary Kaldor’s call for a left that iswilling to address as part of a broader notion of globaljustice the ethical issues “posed by the global polarizationof wealth, income and power, and with them the hugeasymmetries of life chances,” none of which can be leftto market solutions.

This suggests a non-hierarchical, popular movement ona global scale which makes pedagogy, economic justice,and cultural recognition central to the goal of creatinga world in which democratic principles provide the fertileground for spreading the values of human rights, the ruleof law, and social justice as a way of connecting peopleof all cultures and places not merely through theabstractions of theory but through the everyday, place-based experiences that shape their lives.

I think that the issue of pedagogy must be central forany movement for democratic change. What this suggestsfor educators both inside and outside of the universityis that they need to take seriously their role asoppositional public intellectuals who believe that whatthey say and do can make a difference in creatings t r a t e g i e s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g, e n g a g e m e n t , a n dtransformation. Such a position would suggest thateducators attempt to understand and engage how capitalworks pedagogically to secure its political interests, how

it uses cultural politics precisely as an educational forcein shaping a new generat ion of accommodatingintellectuals.

I t would a l so show how capita l leg i t imates thedismantling of the gains of the welfare state andeliminates those public spaces that provide the conditionsfor social movements to organize and spread theirmessages. Additionally, such pedagogical politics requiresgreater attentiveness to linking studies about theownership of the media to how the media functionspedagogically as a form of cultural politics; how thedecline of the military-industrial complex has given riseto a prison-industrial complex buttressed by a politics ofrace and identity politics that permeate the culturalinstitutions of everyday life; and how cultural work inthe academy might articulate with and play a role inexpanding the possibilities of radical democratic struggles.This focus requires, in part, that critical educators helpto s t rengthen and bu i ld soc ia l movements andorganizations capable of addressing and mobilizing againstthe numerous forms of violence and oppression thatincreasingly are being waged against large segments ofthe global population.

Publicizing the myriad forms of educational and politicalwork that are attempting to reclaim public spaces suchas the schools and expanding democratic relations shouldbe made available not only among politically similar alliesbut in the larger public sphere. Such work provides aconcrete opportunity to challenge the culture of politicalcynicism and indifference. There is little doubt in mymind that such work goes a long way in challenging theculture of political avoidance while demonstrating that,as Bourdieu succinctly puts it, democracies cannot exist“without genuine opposing powers.” It is particularlycrucial that academic intel lectuals assume someresponsibility and engage what Bourdieu calls “thefunction of education and culture in economies whereinformation has become one of the most decisiveproductive forces.” Because it is precisely through such

Hopefully, the challenge facing educators as public intellectuals in an age of global plunder byan unchecked market authoritarianism will manifest itself in a plurality of forms of political and

pedagogical interventions, including challenging the historical inevitability of global capitalism,defending the historical advances associated with nation states by pushing for “more education,more health, more guaranteed lifetime income,” mobilizing marginalized groups on all fronts,

and making anti-racist and class struggles paramount to any struggle for democratization.

Page 59: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

61

cultural and institutional formations that cultural studiespractitioners – in conjunction with broader socialmovements – can produce analyses, questions, ideas, andpedagogical practices that the media both ignore andoffer the conditions through which people might bemobilized.

Educators must revitalize a radical pedagogy and politicsthat links political economy and the economy ofrepresentations, desires, and bodies to scholarly work,public conversations, and everyday life. Moreover, suchwork can be addressed as part of a broader attempt toreclaim the culture of politics, to rethink and expandthe possibilities for social agency as part of an ongoingeffort to reverse the evisceration of public goods, and toprevent the increasing commodification and privatizationof public spaces, especially the public schools and highereducation. Similarly, cultural studies must directly engagethe question of how to imagine and build politicalalliances and social movements.

This suggests producing, whenever possible, the theoreticaltools, political strategies, and pedagogical practicesnecessary to wage multiple struggles in a variety of sitesagainst those institutions and cultural formations thatprovide social guarantees only to the privileged, and thatprovide suffering, uncertainty, and insecurity to everybodyelse.

Educators should continue their efforts to raise questionsabout and rethink not only diverse articulations of cultureand power, but also how such relations work both toclose down and open up democratic relations, spaces,and transformations both within and outside of theclassroom, and what the latter mean theoretically andstrategically for how we think the meaning and purposeof education and politics. As admittedly difficult as sucha task might appear, it offers the opportunity for culturalstudies advocates to rethink their role as oppositionalpublic intellectuals within a global context, and providesi n c e n t i v e s f o r m a s t e r i n g n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s o fc o m m u n i c a t i o n , e x c h a n g e , a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n .

If the future is to have any meaning, educators fromaround the globe must demonstrate that issues linkinglearning to political agency and democracy are centralto both understanding struggles over resources and power

as well as organizing a politics that enables people tohave a voice and an investment in shaping andtransforming the conditions through which they live theireveryday lives. Such a collective voice and investmentrequires that people experience themselves as criticalsocial agents along multiple axis of identification,investment, and struggle. Only then can we provide thebasis for opening up the space of resistance, for imaginingdifferent futures, for drawing boundaries and makingconnections, and for offering a language of critique andpossibility that makes visible the urgency of politics andthe promise of a vibrant and radical democracy.

If one of the characteristics of the present time is aretreat from the political accompanied by a growingdisdain, if not cynicism, towards public life, it is a crucialtask of critical educators to keep alive what it means torecognize that changing consciousness and transforminginstitutions is as much a pedagogical issue as a strictlypolitical one. Any worthwhile notion of politics mustacknowledge that while it is easier to imagine the endof the world than the end of capitalism, any viablenotion of struggle must foreground the crucial relationshipbetween critical education and political agency andrecognize that the longing for a more just society doesnot collapse into a retreat from the world, but emergesout of critical and practical engagements with presentbehaviors, institutional formations, and everyday practices.

About Henry GirouxHenry A. Giroux received his doctorate from Carnegie-MellonUniversity in 1977. He has taught at Boston University andMiami University and accepted the Waterbury ChairProfessorship at Pennsylvania State University. Professor Girouxhas published extensively in a wide ranging number ofscholarly journals and books. His recent books include:Fugitive Cultures: Race, Violence, and Youth, Channel Surfing:Racism, the Media and the Destruction of Today's Youth,Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope, The Mouse That Roared:Disney and the End of Innocence. He is currently theDirector of the Waterbury Forum in Education and CulturalStudies at Penn State University. He is also on the editorialand advisory boards of numerous national and internationalscholarly journals. He also serves as the editor or co-editorof three scholarly book series. Professor Giroux lectures widelyon a variety of cultural, social and educational issues in theUnited States and abroad.

Educators must revitalize a radical pedagogy and politics that links political economy and theeconomy of representations, desires, and bodies to scholarly work, public conversations, and everyday

life.

Page 60: Vol.1 issue4

BY NOAM CHOMSKY

WHAT MAKESMAINSTREAM MEDIA

MAINSTREAM

62

o f t h e r e a s o n w h y Iwrite about the media is

because I am interested in thewhole intellectual culture, and thepart of it that is easiest to study isthe media. It comes out every day.Y o u c a n d o a s y s t e m a t i cinvestigation. You can compareyesterday’s version to today’s version.There is a lot of evidence aboutwhat’s played up and what isn’t andthe way things are s t ructured.

My impression is the media aren’tvery different from scholarship orfrom, say, journals of intellectualopinion — there are some extraconstraints — but it’s not radicallydifferent. They interact, which is whypeople go up and back quite easilyamong them.

You look at the media, or at anyinstitution you want to understand.You ask questions about its internalinstitutional structure. You want toknow something about their settingin the broader society. How do theyrelate to other systems of power andauthority? If you’re lucky, there is aninternal record from leading peoplein the information system, whichtells you what they are up to (it issort of a doctrinal system). Thatdoesn’t mean the public relationshandouts but what they say to eachother about what they are up to.There is quite a lot of interestingdocumentation.

ART Those are three major sources ofinformation about the nature of themedia. You want to study them theway, say, a scientist would studys o m e c o m p l e x m o l e c u l e o rsomething. You take a look at thestructure and then make somehypothesis based on the structure asto what the media product is likelyto look like. Then you investigatethe media product and see how well

i t conforms to the hypotheses .Virtually all work in media analysisis this last part — trying to studycarefully just what the media producti s and whether i t conforms toobvious assumptions about the naturea n d s t r u c t u r e o f t h e m e d i a .

Well, what do you find? First of all,you find that there are differentmedia which do different things, likethe entertainment/Hollywood, soapoperas, and so on, or even most of

the newspapers in the country (theoverwhelming majority of them).T h e y a r e d i r e c t i n g t h e m a s saudience.

There i s another sector of themedia, the elite media, sometimescalled the agenda-setting mediabecause they are the ones with thebig resources; they set the frameworkin which everyone else operates. TheNew York Times and CBS, thatkind of thing. Their audience ismostly privileged people. The peoplewho read the New York Times —people who are wealthy or part ofwhat is sometimes called the politicalclass — they are actually involvedin the political system in an ongoingfashion. They are basically managersof one sort or another. They can bepolitical managers, business managers(like corporate executives or thatsort of thing), doctoral managers(like university professors), or otherjournalists who are involved inorganizing the way people think andlook at things.

The elite media set a frameworkwithin which others operate. Sothere are a lot of ways in whichpower plays can drive you right backinto line if you move out. If you tryto break the mold, you’re not goingto last long. That framework workspretty well, and it is understandablethat it is just a reflection of obviouspower structures.

Part of the reason why I writeabout the media is because Iam interested in the whole

intellectual culture, and the partof it that is easiest to study isthe media. It comes out every

day.

Page 61: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

63

The real mass media are basicallytrying to divert people. Let them dosomething else, but don’t bother us(us being the people who run theshow). Let them get interested inprofessional sports, for example. Lete v e r y b o d y b e c r a z e d a b o u tprofessional sports or sex scandals orthe personalities and their problemsor something like that. Anything, aslong as it isn’t serious. Of course,the serious stuff is for the big guys.‘We’ take care of that.

What are the e l i te media , theagenda-setting ones? The New York

Times and CBS, for example. Well,first of all, they are major, veryprofitable, corporations. Furthermore,most of them are either linked to,or outright owned by, much biggercorporations, like General Electric,Westinghouse, and so on. They areway up at the top of the powerstructure of the private economy,which is a very tyrannical structure.Corporations are basically tyrannies,hierarchic, controlled from above. Ifyou don’t like what they are doingyou get out. The major media arejust part of that system.

What about their inst i tut ionalsetting? Well, that’s more or less thesame. What they interact with andrelate to i s other major powercenters – the government, othercorporations, or the universities.Because the media are a doctrinalsystem they interact closely with theuniversities. Say you are a reporterwriting a story on Southeast Asia or

Africa, or something like that. You’resupposed to go over to the biguniversity and find an expert whowill tell you what to write, or elsego to one of the foundations. Theseoutside institutions are very similarto the media.

The universities, for example, are notindependent institutions. There maybe independent people scatteredaround in them but that is true ofthe media as well. And it’s generallyt r u e o f c o r p o r a t i o n s . B u t t h einstitution itself is parasitic. It’sdependent on outside sources of

support and those sources of support,s u c h a s p r i v a t e w e a l t h , b i gcorporations with grants, and thegovernment (which is so closelyinterlinked with corporate power youcan barely distinguish them), theyare essentially what the universitiesare in the middle of. People withinthem, who don’t adjust to thatstructure, who don’t accept it andinternalize it (you can’t really workwith it unless you internalize it, andbelieve it); people who don’t do thatare likely to be weeded out alongthe way, starting from kindergarten,all the way up.

There are a l l sorts of f i l ter ingdevices to get rid of people who area pa in in the neck and th inkindependently. Those of you whohave been through college know thatthe educational system is very highlygeared to rewarding conformity andobedience; if you don’t do that, youare a troublemaker. So, it is kind of

a filtering device which ends upwith people who really honestly(they aren’t lying) internalize theframework of belief and attitudes ofthe surrounding power system in thesociety. The elite institutions like,say, Harvard and Princeton and thesmall upscale colleges, for example,a r e v e r y m u c h g e a r e d t osocialization. If you go through aplace like Harvard, most of whatgoes on there is teaching manners;how to behave like a member of theupper classes, how to think the rightthoughts, and so on.

When you critique the media, theyget very angry. They say, quitecorrectly, “nobody ever tells me whatto write. I write anything I like. Allthis business about pressures andconstraints is nonsense because I’mnever under any pressure.” Which iscompletely true, but the point isthat they wouldn’t be there unlessthey had already demonstrated thatnobody has to tell them what towrite because they are going to saythe right thing. If they had startedoff at the Metro desk, or something,and had pursued the wrong kind ofstories, they never would have madeit to the positions where they cannow say anything they like. Thesame is mostly true of universityfaculty in the more ideologicaldisciplines. They have been throughthe socialization system.

Okay, you look at the structure ofthat whole system. What do youexpect the news to be like? Well,

The real mass media are basically trying to divert people. Let them do something else, butdon’t bother us (us being the people who run the show). Let them get interested in professionalsports, for example. Let everybody be crazed about professional sports or sex scandals or thepersonalities and their problems or something like that. Anything, as long as it isn’t serious.

Of course, the serious stuff is for the big guys. “We” take care of that.

Page 62: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

64

The next thing you discover is thatthis whole topic is completely taboo.If you go to the Kennedy School ofG o v e r n m e n t o r S t a n f o r d , o rsomewhere, and you study journalismand communications or academicpolitical science, and so on, thesequestions are not likely to appear.That is, the hypothesis that anyonewould come across without evenknowing anything that is not allowedto be expressed, and the evidencebearing on it cannot be discussed.Well, you predict that too. If youlook at the institutional structure,you would say, yeah, sure, that’s gotto happen because why should theseguys want to be exposed? Whyshould they allow critical analysis ofwhat they are up to take place? Theanswer is, there is no reason whythey should allow that and, in fact,t h e y d o n ’ t . A g a i n , i t i s n o tpurposeful censorship. It is just thatyou don’t make it to those positions.That includes the left (what is calledthe left), as well as the right. Unlessyou have been adequately socializedand trained so that there are somethought s you ju s t don’ t have ,because if you did have them, youwouldn’t be there. So, you have a

The obvious assumption isthat the product of the

media, what appears, whatdoesn’t appear, the way itis slanted, will reflect theinterest of the buyers andsellers, the institutions, andthe power systems that are

around them. If thatwouldn’t happen, it would

be kind of a miracle.

it’s pretty obvious. Take the NewYork Times. It’s a corporation andsells a product. The product isaudiences. They don’t make moneywhen you buy the newspaper. Theyare happy to put it on the worldwide web for free. They actually losemoney when you buy the newspaper.But the audience is the product.The product is privileged people, justlike the people who are writing thenewspapers, you know, top-leveldecision-making people in society.You have to sell a product to amarket, and the market is, of course,advertisers (that is, other businesses).W h e t h e r i t i s t e l e v i s i o n o rnewspapers, or whatever, they areselling audiences. Corporations sellaudiences to other corporations. Inthe case of the elite media, it’s bigbusinesses.

We l l , w h a t d o y o u e x p e c t t ohappen? What would you predictabout the nature of the mediap r o d u c t , g i v e n t h a t s e t o fcircumstances? What would be then u l l h y p o t h e s i s , t h e k i n d o fconjecture that you’d make assumingn o t h i n g f u r t h e r. T h e o b v i o u sassumption is that the product ofthe media, what appears , whatdoesn’t appear, the way it is slanted,will reflect the interest of the buyersand sellers, the institutions, and thepower systems that are around them.If that wouldn’t happen, it would bekind of a miracle.

Okay, then comes the hard work.You ask, does it work the way youpredict? Well, you can judge foryourselves. There’s lots of materialon this obvious hypothesis, whichhas been subjected to the hardesttests anybody can think of, and stillstands up remarkably well . Youvirtually never find anything in thesocial sciences that so stronglysupports any conclusion, which isnot a big surprise, because it wouldbe miraculous if it didn’t hold upg i v e n t h e w a y t h e f o r c e s a r eoperating.

second order of prediction which isthat the first order of prediction isnot allowed into the discussion.

The last thing to look at is thedoctrinal framework in which thisproceeds. Do people at high levelsin the information system, includingthe media and advert is ing andacademic political science and so on,do these people have a picture ofwhat ought to happen when theyare writing for each other (not whent h e y a r e m a k i n g g r a d u a t i o ns p e e c h e s ) ? W h e n y o u m a ke acommencement speech, it is prettywords and stuff. But when they arewriting for one another, what dopeople say about it?

There are basically three currents tolook at. One is the public relationsi n d u s t r y, y o u k n o w, t h e m a i nbusiness propaganda industry. Sowhat are the leaders of the PRindustry saying? Second place to looka t i s w h a t a r e c a l l e d p u b l i cintellectuals, big thinkers. What dothey say? The people who writeimpressive books about the nature ofdemocracy and that sort of business.The third thing you look at is theacademic stream, particularly thatpart of political science which isconcerned with communications andinformation and that stuff which hasbeen a branch of political science forthe last 70 or 80 years.

So, look at those three things andsee what they say, and look at theleading figures who have writtenabout this. They all say (I’m partlyquoting), the general population is‘ignorant and meddlesome outsiders’.We have to keep them out of thepublic arena because they are toostupid and if they get involved theywill just make trouble. Their job isto be ‘spectators’, not ‘participants’.

They are allowed to vote every oncein a while, pick out one of us smartguys. But then they are supposed togo home and do something else like

Page 63: Vol.1 issue4

65

watch football or whatever it mayb e . B u t t h e ‘ i g n o r a n t a n dmeddlesome outsiders’ have to beobservers not participants. Theparticipants are what are called the‘responsible men’ and, of course, thewriter is always one of them. Younever ask the question, why am I a‘responsible man’ and somebody elseis in jail? The answer is prettyo b v i o u s . I t ’ s b e c a u s e y o u a r eobedient and subordinate to powerand that other per son may beindependent, and so on. But youdon’t ask, of course.

So there are the smart guys who aresupposed to run the show and therest of them are supposed to be out,and we should not succumb to (I’mquoting from an academic article)“democratic dogmatisms about menbeing the best judges of their owninterest.” They are not. They areterrible judges of their own interestsso we have done it for them fortheir own benefit.

forEDucating Social Change

That’s the doctrinal side and itcoincides with the institutionals t r u c t u r e . I t s t r e n g t h e n s t h epredictions about the way the thingshould work. And the predictionsare we l l con f i rmed . But theseconclusions, also, are not allowed tobe discussed. This is all now part ofmainstream literature but it is onlyfor people on the inside. When yougo to college, you don’t read thec l a s s i c s about how to cont ro lpeople’s minds.

Just like you don’t read what JamesM a d i s o n s a i d d u r i n g t h econstitutional convention about howthe main goal of the new systemhas to be “to protect the minorityof the opulent against the majority,”and has to be designed so that itachieves that end. This i s thefounding of the constitutional system,so nobody studies it. You can’t evenfind it in the academic scholarshipu n l e s s y o u r e a l l y l o o k h a r d .

That is roughly the picture, as I seei t , o f t h e w a y t h e s y s t e m i sinstitutionally, the doctrines that liebehind it, the way it comes out.There is another part directed to the‘ignorant meddlesome’ outsiders. Thatis mainly using diversion of one kindor another. From that, I think, youcan predict what you would expectto find.

About Noam ChomskyNoam Chomsky is one of the leadingintellectuals of our time. He is alsoregarded as one of America’s mostprominent po l i t i ca l d i s s idents . Arenowned professor of linguists at MIT,he has authored over 30 political booksd i s s e c t i n g s u c h i s s u e s a s U S .interventionism in the developing world,the political economy of human rightsand the propaganda role of corporatemedia. Chomsky has most k indlyallowed EDucate! to reproduce from theplethora of his internationally acclaimedworks.

There is another sector of the media, the elite media, sometimes called theagenda-setting media because they are the ones with the big resources; they

set the framework in which everyone else operates.

[email protected] - [email protected] - www.idsp.sdnpk.org

IDSPInstitute for DevelopmentStudies & Practices Quetta,

Pakistan

Page 64: Vol.1 issue4

Can you share some of your generalperspectives on the media vis-a-viss o c i a l c hange and d emoc ra cy ?

I think it is important to understand thatwe cannot treat the media as some kind ofa u t o n o m o u s e n t i t y. M e d i a s e c t o r sinterpenetrate in various ways, but overallthe media are overwhelmingly structured bythe state and function, by and large, toservice the interests of capital. I wouldb e g i n b y a r g u i n g t h a t t h e c u r r e n tcommercialization of broadcasting actuallysubstantially undercuts public systems ofc o m m u n i c a t i o n . P u b l i c s y s t e m s o fcommunication are really at the mercy ofthe market.

Today, it appears as if the hypertrophy offinancial capital has become the functionalgrid in which media economies are secured.We need to understand that media servethe interests of national capital and itsh y d r a - h e a d e d e n t a n g l e m e n t s w i t htransnational economic relations. So thatthe media need to win the support of thetransnational money markets. I would argue

that it is impossible for the media to fosterdemocratic social relations when they donot challenge the principle of privateownership and profit. If the media and thecapitalist state work hand-in-glove, how isit possible for the media to really be aninstrument for helping the poor andpower l e s s in the wor ld ? We l i ve inprecarious and ominous times.

The destinies of the media – and theideological interests that they serve – areinterlocked with the vagaries of the ‘free’market. When you begin to comprehendthe enormous power and global reach ofthe U.S. media, the challenge becomesoverwhelming. The media cartel of AOLTime Warner, Disney, General Electric,News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, Sony,Bertelsmann, AT&T, and Liberty Media dotheir best to ensure that the news mediacontinue in their role as the servants ofthe dominant ideological instruments. That,and the fact that the majority of publicbroadcasting outlets in the U.S. rely onlarge corporate-backed think-tanks to offer‘expert’ opinions to their audiences, are justa few of the reasons why the United Statespopulation has been so willing to give upits long-cherished democratic freedoms.

On a global scale, the media serve tomyst i f y the process o f human va lueproduction. Social relations linked tocapitalist production are glossed over andn e v e r e x p l a i n e d i n t e r m s o f t h econsequences that they have for thepowerless and the poor. According to MarkCrispin Miller, the cartel’s favorite audienceis that stratum of the population mostdesirable to advertisers. Thus, we are facedwith the media’s complete abandonment ofworking people and the poor. Traditionally,the role of the press has been to protectus against those who would abuse thepowers of government. However, the currentmedia cartel is unwilling to take on thepowers that be. Why should they? Theirvalue systems are too similar and thepowers that be share their own interest inthe accumulation of surplus value. As

66

An Educator ’sViews on MediaAn Interview with Peter McLarenBY MASHHOOD RIZVI

Page 65: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

67

Miller notes, media journalists now appearto work against the public interest – andfor their parent companies, their advertisersand the political administration that holdssway in Washington. Miller argues, and Iagree, that we have to take bold steps inorder to liberate the media from oligopoly,so as to make the government our own.

Don’t regulations exist to help preventthe formation of cartels?

Yes, but historically they have been ignored.And now they are be ing overturnedaltogether. A few weeks ago, the Districtof Columbia Court of Appeals overturnedone o f the country ’ s l a s t - remain ingregulatory protect ions against mediamonopoly. According to a report fromFAIR, the court overturned the rule thathad prevented one company from owningboth television stations and cable franchisesin a single market. The court also orderedthat the FCC either justify or rewrite therule that bars a company from owningtelevision stations which reach more than35 percent of U.S. households, stating thatas is, the rule is arbitrary and illegal. If youlook at the broadcast TV markets in theUnited States, one-seventh are monopolies,one-quarter are duopolies, one-half are tightoligopolies, and the rest are moderatelyconcentrated. In addition, while the numberof TV stations has increased from 952 to1,678 between 1975 and 2000, the numberof station owners in the same period oftime has actually declined from 543 to 360.Let me give you an example of what amedia monopoly can do. One of theprimary ideological vehicles of the newmedia maf ia i s Fox News. Fox NewsChannel and 26 television states are ownedoutr ight by Rupert Murdoch’ s News

Corporation. Fox News is rapidly gaining awide and committed audience on the basisof its appeal to right-wing male viewers. Itsp o l i t i c a l c a t e c h i s m i s s p i k e d w i t htestosterone and rage and gives ballast tothe logic of transnational capitalism andU.S. militarism.

The corporate media have driven out anyhope for even left-liberal news coverage orcommentary in the United States. Thetruth is that the so-called ‘leftists’ are, attheir most extreme, ‘centrists’ and moreoften than not tilt politically to the right.With virtually no leftist representation inthe media, the U.S. public are beingideologically massaged by opinions andpositions that serve the interests of theruling class. The myth of the liberal mediatalked about so much by right-wing punditsis simply a lie (Extra! July/August, 1998).

But the worst offenders in the media areorganizations like National Public Radio. OnJanuary 10, FAIR [Fairness & Accuracy InReporting] put out an Action Alert askingpeople to write to National Public Radioabout the polit ics of its Middle Eastreporting. NPR had been referring to thesituation in Israel and Palestine around theNew Year as a period of ‘relative calm’ or‘comparative quiet’. NPR went on to clarifythis description by noting that ‘only oneIsraeli has been killed in those threeweeks’. What NPR failed to acknowledgewas that during this ‘quiet’ period, anaverage of one Palestinian per day wasb e i n g k i l l e d b y I s r a e l i . ( S e ehttp://www.fair.org/activism/npr-israel-quiet.html.) Despite protests organized byFAIR, this distortion continues to berepeated. But think about it, the left in theUnited States does not have a lot ofmoney behind it. Do you know how much

I think it is important to understand that we cannot treat the media as some kind ofautonomous entity. Media sectors interpenetrate in various ways, but overall the media are

overwhelmingly structured by the state and function, by and large, to service the interests ofcapital. The destinies of the media — and the ideological interests that they serve — are

interlocked with the vagaries of the ‘free’ market.

Page 66: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

68

it costs to enter the national media market,l e t a lone the in te rnat iona l market?

How is the struggle for media reformlinked to the larger struggle fordemocracy?

There is no question in my mind that thestruggle for media reform is an essentialpa r t o f the s t rugg le fo r democracy.McChesney and Nichols (2002, pp. 16-17)have argued that media reform proposalsneed to apply existing anti-monopoly lawsto the media; restrict ownership of radiostations to one or two per owner; fight themonopolization of TV – station ownership,break the lock of newspaper chains onentire regions, create reasonable mediaownership regulations, establish a full rangeof low-power, noncommercial radio andtelevision stations across the globe; investin public broadcasting so as to eliminatecommercial pressures and to serve low-income communities; allow tax credits toany non-profit medium; lower mailing costsfor nonprof i t and s igni f icant ly non -commercial publications; eliminate politicalcandidate advertising as a condition of abroadcast license; require that stations whorun paid political broadcasts by politiciansrun free adds of similar length from all theother candidates on the ballots immediatelya f t e r w a r d ; r e d u c e o r e l i m i n a t e T Vadvertising directed at children under 12;and decommercialize local TV news withregulations that require stations to grantjournalists an hour daily of commercial-freenews times; and set budget guidelines forthose newscasts based on a percentage ofthe station’s revenues.

In his magisterial work, Rich Media, PoorDemocracy, Robert McChesney writes thatmedia reform cannot be successful i f

isolated from other struggles for democracy.He writes that media reform will not, andcannot, be won in isolation from broaderdemocratic reform. He argues that the onlyway to gain some control over media andcommunication from the giant firms thatoverrun the field will be to mobilize somekind of a popular movement. He also notesthat while media reform is a cornerstonefor any type of democratic movement, it isnot enough. This must be accompanied byelectoral reform, workers’ rights, civil rights,environmental protection, health care, taxreform, and education. In other words,McChesney links media reform to the largerstruggle for democracy. In this sense hisadvice is similar to that of Chomsky andEdward Herman, both of whom I greatlyadmire, along with McChesney.

What about information technologies?

Well, I believe that information technologies– when they are embedded heart and soulin the capitalist marketplace – can actuallyinc rea se a l i ena t i on in the s en se o fcommodifying information. A marketplace –even one that has been digitalized – is stilla marketplace. The digitalized informationsystems so necessary to capital helps tospeed up its circulation and production.The speed ing up o f c i rcu la t ion andproduction does little, however, to de-mystify the world and in fact createsmystification at a higher register. On theother hand, alternative media that challengemarketplace values are very important inthe struggle for democracy. Magazines likeyours (EDucate!), Z Magazine, CovertAction Quarterly, High Times – as well asmany Internet magazines – all of thesepublications are crucial in providingin fo rmat ion and ana ly s i s c ruc ia l tochallenging dominant ideological and

The media serve to mystify the process of human value production. Social relations linked tocapitalist production are glossed over and never explained in terms of the consequences thatthey have for the powerless and the poor. According to Mark Crispin Miller, the cartel’s favoriteaudience is that stratum of the population most desirable to advertisers. Thus, we are faced

with the media’s complete abandonment of working people and the poor.

Page 67: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

69

political interests. Can the new media technologiescreate, through forms of cyberactivism, a new global‘cognitariat’ capable of challenging capital’s law of valueand the digital networks of the international financialsystem? Let’s just say that I am hopeful but notoptimistic.

What can radical educators do?

Wherever and whenever possible, radical educatorshave been implementing critical media literacy classesin high school and university classrooms. Examiningthe politics surrounding media policy and practicesfrom a historical materialist perspective (i.e., lookingat the media in the context of the creation of atransnational capitalist class), critical media literacyeducators also employ a critical semiotics to analyzethe media as a form of popular culture – a popularculture that carries a lot of unexamined ideologicalfreight; it investigates the form and content ofc o m m e r c i a l b r o a d c a s t i n g ; a n d i t e x a m i n e srepresentations of race, class, gender, and sexualrelat ions as a form of ideological production.

I have students at UCLA who work in working-classcommunities, helping young people create their ownmedia representations of themselves and theircommunities through alternative media. Of course,examining the media critically and creating alternativev i ews – e spec i a l l y w i th r e spec t to the Bushadministration’s war on terrorism – at this particularhistorical juncture, in the United States, risks chargesof anti-patriotism. Yet, from a critical perspective onecould argue that patriotism that is not at the sametime conjugated with introspection, sustained criticalself-reflexivity, and the possibility of transcending thereified knowledge and social relations of the corporatecapitalist state, is a patriotism that does an injusticeto the meaning of the word.

One of the best features of a democracy lies in itsprovisions for the ability to be self-critical, to challenge,or af f i rm, as the case may be, what has beenpresented by the dominant capitalist media ascommonsense. That feature has been effectively erodedby increasing corporate control of the media.Democracy cannot exist in a society whose media areowned and run by the transnational capitalist elite.From where I stand, a socialist alternative is the onlypossibility for democracy to be secured.

References

g Coen, Rachel. (2002). New York Times Buries Storiesof Airstrikes on Civilians. Extra! Update. February, p. 3.Cummins, Bruce. (2002). Reflections on ‘Containment’.The Nation, vol. 274, no. 8, pp. 19-23.g FAIR-L, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Mediaanalysis, critiques and activism, ACTION ALERT: MediaGiants Cast Aside Regulatory “Chains”: FCC should resistattempt to gut ownership restrictions, March 1, 2002Field Guide to TV’s Lukewarm Liberals. (1998). Extra!Vol. 11, no. 4 (July/August).g Hart, Peter, and Ackerman, Seth. (2001). Patriotism &Censorship. Extra! Vol. 14, no. 6 (December), pp. 6-9.Hart, Peter. (2001). No Spin Zone? Extra! Vol. 14, no. 6(December), p. 8.g Massing, Michael. (2002). Black Hawk Downer. TheNation, vol. 274, no. 7 (February 25), pp. 5-6, p. 23.g McChesney, Robert W. E (1999). Rich Media, PoorDemocracy: Communications Politics in Dubious Times.New York: The New Press.g McChesney, Robert W.E., and Nichols, John. (2002).g The Making of a Movement: Getting Serious AboutMedia Reform. The Nation, vol. 274, no. 1, (January7/14), pp. 11-17.g Miller, Mark Crispin. (2002). What’s Wrong With ThisPicture? The Nation, vol. 274, no. 1, (January 7/14),pp. 18-22.g Wolcott, James. (2001) Terror on the Dotted Line.Vanity Fair, January, pp. 50-55.

About Peter McLarenProfessor McLaren began his teaching career in his hometownof Toronto, Canada, teaching in an inner-city school in oneof the most highly populated housing projects in the country.McLaren completed his Ph.D at The Ontario Institute forStudies in Education, University of Toronto, in 1983. In 1984he held the position of Special Lecturer in Education at BrockUniversity's College of Education where he taught in theundergraduate and graduate programs. In 1985 McLarenworked with Henry Giroux to create the Center for Educationand Cultural Studies, at Miami University of Ohio, where heserved as both Associate Director and Director. While atMiami he was awarded the title of Renowned Scholar inResidence, School of Education and Allied Professions. AFellow of the Royal Society of Arts and Commerce, andAssociate of Massey College, Professor McLaren is the authorand editor of over 35 books. He began teaching at theUniversity of California in 1993, where he serves as Professor,Division of Urban Schooling, Graduate School of Educationand Information Studies. Professor McLaren lectures worldwideand his work has been translated into 15 languages. His mostrecent books include Schooling as a Ritual Performance, 3rdedition, Rowman and Littlefield, 2000, Critical Pedagogy andPredatory Cul ture , Rout ledge , 1995, Revo lut ionaryMulticulturalism, Westview, 1997, and Che Guevara, PauloF r e i r e , a n d t h e Pe d a g o g y o f R e v o l u t i o n , 2 0 0 0 .

Page 68: Vol.1 issue4

70

“The dish is not creating a good impact onthe innocent minds of children. They shouldshow more cultural and informational programsso that children can learn something fromthem. Religious programs should be preparedkeeping in mind the demands of the modernage to help children understand religionbetter.”

Tosia Sardar Ali - school teacher

“I think the impact depends on the type ofprograms shown on TV. If good programs wereshown, they would create a good impact andvice versa. I think TV programs should allowchildren to know about their religion, worldlyeducation and moral training.”

Saeed Rehman - tandoor owner

“As children cannot go out much, I think TVprovides them a lot of awareness and,therefore, creates a good impact. I think suchprogrammes should be shown through which

people not only get information and educationat home but are also able to distinguishbetween good and bad.”

Ayoob Khan - student

“I think TV creates both good and badimpacts on children. We should have programst h a t m a n i f e s t t h e f a c t t h a t w e a r e aprogressive Muslim nation. They should alsobe congruent to the 21st century so that theyhelp us progress like other progressive nations.”

Mir Mohammed - fruit seller

“Due to the influence of TV, children do notgo for prayers and argue that they cannot missa drama at that time. Dish is not creating agood impact because inappropriate movies andprograms are shown on the channels .”

Liaquat Ali Khan - driver

“TV is good as well as bad for children. It isgood because informative programs help them

B Y M U H A M M A D K H A N ( D R I V E R )

Muhammad Khan is an integral member of our team. Although not 'literate' in theconventional sense of the word or 'educated' by the standards of the privileged few, he hasthe brilliance and motivation to handle perhaps the most radical section of our magazine:'Opinions of the Oppressed'.

For this issue we gathered opinions of people regarding television andits impact on children:

What is the impact of television on children?

Results . . .

VOICEVOICELESS

of the

Page 69: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

71

to add on to their existing information. Itis bad because through dish children arebecoming careless; instead of payingattention to education, they tend to pursuethings like infatuation/love affairs at ayoung age.”

Sher Khan - gatekeeper

“I think TV is good as well as bad forchildren. PTV telecasts good programs forchildren while cable spoils them. They donot pay attention to eating, drinking oreducation.”

Ghalib Gul - driver

“I used to have a TV at my house but Ihad to remove it because I felt it spoiltn o t o n l y m y c h i l d r e n b u t a l s o t h eenvironment at home. It becomes a diseasefor children because it not only wins theirattention but also deviates them fromeducation and their family. It nurturesvulgarity and kids tend to imitate whateveris being shown on TV. When they areasked to study or pray they argue to watchthe programs first before performing otherduties. I was so exasperated that I threwout the TV from my house. I also told myrelatives to do the same.”

Sadiq - driver

“I don’t have a TV at home because Ifeel it is bad for my family. Televisionprograms usually show Western culturewhich has destructive influence on mychildren.”

Rehmat - gatekeeper

“If you see it from my perspective, TV willmake a good impact on children if moreeducational programs are shown. Cartoonsare usually shown at a time when childrenreturn from school and have to go fortuitions so these programs create a bigdistraction and children refuse to go forstudies. They lose interest in education andonly want to watch television. If moreeducational programmes are shown then itsOK, otherwise watching TV is not goodfor children.”

Nasir Khan - police gunman

“TV is good if more informative programsa r e s h o w n . T h e r e s h o u l d b e m o r e

educational programs rather than dramasand serials that are of no benefit tochildren. Television programs should aim tomake children more conscious aboutrespecting their parents and adults.”

Moharam Ali - gatekeeper

“I think TV is not essential for children.But if somebody thinks it is, then theyshould show programs, which are suitablefor children, and not those that are moreadult-oriented. TV programs should bemore focused on education and learningrather than love stories and songs.”

Asad Ali - salaried employee

“TV programs should be such that thewhole family could watch them together.Chi ld ren have a hab i t o f imi ta t ingwhatever is being shown on TV, so ifmore educational programs are shown, theywould naturally create a good impact onchildren.”

Rukhsana Sheik - school teacher

“Watching too much TV is not appropriatefor children because it not only affectstheir studies but also their vision. Theyhave innocent minds and watch ingunsuitable programs may create a negativeimpact on them. TV is a powerful mediumof expression and it can be used to createawareness about our local culture ratherthan that of the West. Programs aboutsports and physical exercise and popularhistorical dramas like Akhri Chatan andMuhammed Bin Qasim (telecasted in thepast) should be shown.”

Rafiq Ahmed - school teacher

“Different programs create different impactson children. Children often repeat thedialogues of popular dramas and serials.They not only call each other by thenames of the drama characters but also tryto imitate the way of talking of thosecharacters. They know all the popularsongs by heart. The best way to create aposit ive impact on children throughtelevis ion programs is by combininge n t e r t a i n m e n t w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n . ”

Ahmera Khawaja - school teacher

Page 70: Vol.1 issue4

This makes frightening sense in a globalizedeconomy where consumerism is more desiredthan active citizenship, where power isincreasingly concentrated and the public isincreasingly unwelcome in a public discoursedefined by the powerful. If your goal is tonumb people and drive them away fromactive participation, then TV as ‘weapon ofm a s s d i s t r a c t i o n ’ a n d w a l l - t o - w a l lentertainment makes sense. Shut up and shopis now the message, one that makes sense toa d v e r t i s e r -d o m i n a t e d m e d i a o u t l e t s .

Danny Schechter

The professed concern for freedom of thepress in the West is not very persuasive inthe light of ... the actual performance of themedia in serving the powerful and privilegedas an agency of manipulation, indoctrination,and control. A ‘democratic communicationspolicy’, in contrast, would seek to developmeans of expression and interaction thatreflect the interests and concerns of thegeneral population, and to encourage theirself-education and their individual andcollective action.

Noam Chomsky

The most potent weapon in the hands of theoppressor is the mind of the oppressed.

Steve Biko

Private capitalists inevitably control, directlyor indirectly, the main sources of information.It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed inmost cases quite impossible, for the individualcitizen to come to objective conclusions andto make intelligent use of his political rights.

Albert Einstein

Most of the news the world receives comesfrom and i s d i rected at a minor i ty o fhumanity – understandably so from the pointof view of the commercial operations that sellnews and collect the lion's share of theirrevenues in Europe and the United States.It's a monologue by the North ... Otherregions and countr ies get l i t t le or noattention except in the case of war orcatastrophe, and then the journalists coveringthe story often don't speak the language orhave the least idea of local history or culture.The [global] South is condemned to look atitself through the eyes of those who scorn it.

Eduardo Galeano

Whoever controls the media – the images –controls the culture.

Allen Ginsberg

Electric technology is directly related to ourcentral nervous system, so it is ridiculous totalk of ‘what the public wants’ played overits nerves. Once we have surrendered oursenses and nervous systems to the privatemanipulation of those who would try tobenefit from taking a lease on our eyes andears and nerves, we don't really have anyrights left.

Marshall McLuhan

We are drowning in information, but starvedfor knowledge.

John Naisbilt

It is by the goodness of God that in ourcountry we have these three unspeakablyprecious things: freedom of speech, freedomof conscience, and the prudence to practiceneither.

Mark Twain

Beware of the newspapers. They will haveyou hating the oppressed and loving thepeople doing the oppressing.

Malcolm X

forEDucating Social Change

72

& Reflections...Inspirations

Page 71: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

73

WAKEUPCALLS!!!

The networks and magazines sell your head tothe corporations that make the products that youwill in turn buy. A magazine in fact promisesthe advertiser a certain amount of heads. “Mycirculation is 25,000 copies, 3 readers per copy... that's 75,000 heads. In other words, 75,000people that could buy your product ... the biggerthe size of the ad, the bigger the cheese on themousetrap.

The global media market has come to bedominated by seven multinational corporations:D i sney, AOL Time Warner, Sony, NewsCorporation, Viacom, Vivendi, and Bertelsmann.These seven companies own the major U.S. filmstudios, all but one of the U.S. televisionnetworks, the few companies that control 80-85percent o f the g loba l mus ic market , thepreponderance of satellite broadcasting worldwide.

Whopping three-quarters of global spending onadvertising ends up in the pockets of a mere 20media companies. Ad spending has grown byleaps and bounds in the past decade, as TV hasbeen opened to commercial exploitation, and isgrowing at more than twice the rate of grossdomestic product growth.

As a reader, have you ever filled out those pollsin magazines? They don’t do those for popularitycontests. They do them to know what you arebuying, where you live, how old you are. etc.The magazines then use this information to sellyour head. And hopefully you will buy a productadvertised in the next issue.

There has been a dramatic shift in sales amongthe books that were published. The bookbusiness has begun shifting even more heavilytowards celebrity-driven best-sellers. The numberof best-sellers (books that sold 100,000 or morecopies) grew substantially in the 1990s. Whenthat fact is juxtaposed against an overall declinein book sales, it is clear that mid-list books arefalling off the edge. Good fiction, investigativereporting and other quality books are simplybeing squeezed out of the market.

Ad spending hit a record $244 billion last year,with companies investing more money andbrainpower than ever to make you buy. Thatfigure will drop this year for the first time since1991, though it is projected to hit a new recordin 2002.

Kids influence $200 billion in spending eachyear; the ad industry employs market researchersand developmental psychologists to hone itspitch.

Recent research shows that the average American3 - y e a r o l d r e c o g n i z e s 1 0 0 b r a n d l o g o s .

A study by the University of Wisconsin foundthat the space occupied by corporate logos atschools, such as billboards and scoreboards, wentup 539 percent in the last decade, while theamount of corporate-sponsored education materialshad gone up 20-fold.

Companies are hiring people to surf the Web,enter chat rooms and pose as regular folks whiletouting products – or just defending certaincompanies from criticism.

Page 72: Vol.1 issue4

In a sense the media and the educationalapparatus have similar roles. In the oldest societiesabout which there is evidence, this role was tosocialize the young to accept the dominantworldview and, along with it, the power structure.Education was in the hands of the family but insocieties, which had an agrarian base there wasenough surplus wealth to support a paidpriesthood, which imparted education. In ourpart of the world, after the family, the child wastaught – if at all – by the village priest (the maulvior Mian Ji). The equivalent of the media was thenai, the village barber, whose official functionsincluded announcing marriages, exchanginginformation through gossips etc. Along with ita mirasi or bhand served similar functions. Therewere other similar functionaries too who spreadnews by beating drums.

Even at this unsophisticated level both theeducational and the media establishmentwere differentiated in various ways. Theeducational establishment generally concerneditself with the past, with the ‘Word’, and its

meaning. The contemporary situation wasreckoned with but in the light of canonicaltexts or oral discourses. The media concerneditself with the here and now: marriages,deaths, elopement, theft, jokes, gossip etc.Both had pro -and ant i -estab l i shmentpractitioners. In the educational establishmentthe anti-establishment ulema and sufia stayedaway from the patronage of the court andthe nobles. The pro-establishment ones gotthe huge tracts of land for the madrassasand khanqahs, which they established. Mostly,however, the madrassa was established by anendowment (waqf) given by a rich patronwho did not, or could not, interfere with theteaching, which remained firmly in thecontrol of the ulema. If the ulema were nottoo radical, especially if they left the kinghimself in peace, they could carry out theirteaching without fear. So, the educationalestablishment could generally carry on itswork unhindered by the state.

Not all of the educational establishment wasin the hands of priests or mystics. Some ofit was in the hands of practicing poets too.They corrected the poetic compositions oftheir pupils without fees. Sometimes, however,they were compensated by rich pupils.Ghalib, for instance, was given a monthlystipend by both Bahadur Shah, the king ofDelhi , and the Nawab of Rampur forcorrecting their verses.

While the ecclesiastical teachers emphasizedt h e i r i d e o l o g y ( m a s l a k ) , w h i c h w a spredominantly theological, the poets too didthe same though their ideology was aesthetic.In both cases a discourse of what was rightor appropriate or beautiful was generated. Ifone was to succeed one had to adhere to it.Dissent was possible but it too followedestablished patterns – mystical, heretical,psychological etc. As a mystic one could bedifferent from the orthodox ulema but, ingeneral, one had to follow a school ofmysticism. One could, of course, be a hereticbut this was dangerous though the state didnot reach everywhere nor was the religiousestablishment very efficient so one couldsurvive unless one annoyed someone very

74

Media, Education andPublic ConsciousnessBY DR. TARIQ RAHMAN

Page 73: Vol.1 issue4

75

powerful in a personal way. One could, of course, poseto be insane or prone to falling into a trance. This gaveone a certain license and the restrictions of a highlytraditional society were relaxed for such people. In SouthAsia, those possessed by supernatural beings were nothurt on the stake (as they were in Europe) though theycould be beaten with shoes.

As for the media, it too was either pro-or anti-establishment. The pro-establishment nai, mirasi, bhat ordom (domni) merely sang the praises of the paymaster.The anti-establishment one made fun of the great. Thejokes and songs were irreverent but the solemnity andmajesty of the powerful could hardly afford to punishthem because that would be considered in bad taste.This is exactly what the ‘fools’ or court jesters did inEurope. They often pointed out to their powerful patronsthat they were wrong and were, after all, mere humanbeings with no special claims to be the representativesof divine power.

Thus the fool’s cap sometimes hid some of the wisestheads in Europe. It gave the fool the license to speakthe truth before a tyrant who would cut off the headof anyone else who said the same thing. This is clearlyp o r t r a y e d i n S h a k e s p e a r e ’ s p l a y ‘ K i n g L e a r ’ :

Lear: Dost those call me fool, boy?

Fool: All thy other titles those hast given away;That those wast born with.

Kent: This is not altogether fool, my lord.

Fool: No, faith, lords and great men will not let me;If I had a monopoly out, they would have partOn’t, and loads too: they will not let meHave all fool to myself; they’ll beSnatching.

The Fool is so highly critical of Lear, indeed sodisrespectful, that if anyone else had been like that he

would have been in danger of life. But the Fool goesunpunished.

This kind of license is part of aristocratic patronage. Itcomes from the consciousness of the patron that he isso powerful that the words from a ‘fool’ cannot harmhim. Moreover, the source is itself inauthentic – afterall, he is a ‘fool’! Thus the words do not have forceunless one wants to invest them with it.

Both literature and comedy inherit this ambiguous power.If you want to decode the symbols and unpack the ironythe discourse is critical. If you do not, you can dismissit as an artifact. However, in the movement against thepower of the establishment, especially the state as such,both critical academia and the media established astraightforward critical edge and the prerogative offreedom. These are established only in self-assuredWestern societies but not in parts of Africa, Asia andLatin America where the state is less self-assured.

The modern media creates myths and confers visibility.If the media does not show the pain of an individual orgroup of people it is not known. This, incidentally, istrue in the world of fairy tales where we feel the sorrowof the princess, however trivial its cause, but not thesorrow of the soldiers’ families when the soldiers die inbattle for the princess. The CNN and Fox News, duringthe U.S bombing on Afghanistan at the end of 2001showed us the pain of the Americans who died in NewYork. They showed us the families of the Americans whohad died. But they blanked out, for the most part, thefamilies of the Afghans. It was not a complete blank-outthough as some reporters like Robert Fisk showed us theother side of the picture i.e. Afghan sufferings. However,on the whole, the world saw Americans as sufferinghumans rather than Afghans. This, then, is what themedia does. It makes us fully human by making us partof the consciousness of other human beings. If we arenot part of any consciousness we do not exist. Themedia, then, gives us life.

The media also gives us a profile. It tells people how toperceive us. It gives information, which is itself filtered

The modern media creates myths and confers visibility. If the media does not show the painof an individual or group of people it is not known. This, incidentally, is true in the world

of fairy tales where we feel the sorrow of the princess, however trivial its cause, but not thesorrow of the soldiers’ families when the soldiers die in battle for the princess. The CNN andFox News, during the U.S bombing on Afghanistan at the end of 2001 showed us the painof the Americans who died in New York. They showed us the families of the Americans who

had died. But they blanked out, for the most part, the families of the Afghans.

forEDucating Social Change

Page 74: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

76

and, obviously, less than complete. And then it laysdown rules of interpretation and, even more subtly, cuesto emotional registration. I can portray people fromPakistan’s villages as hospitable and gregarious; warm andcaring (for the family) or, alternatively, vicious andaggressive; servile and bullying – all profiles supportedempirically. In short, we are not only created by themedia; we are also moulded by it. We are not createdas a blank slate because we are all socially slotted insociety but the media writes our stories on the slate. Itcan distort the stories and hide the slate if it likes.

After this comes the educational establishment, whichcan perpetuate us as, it wishes for posterity. Theeducational establishment, like the media, does its ownsorting out and it may change the profile. It may evenkill the memory that we ever existed. But, for verycomplex and widely differing reasons, if we are preservedthen our images may be quite different from both thereality and even the reality conjured up by the media.Education, like the media, also moulds consciousness.

Because of this power of controlling visibility, emotionalbias and consciousness all wielders of power have tried

to control education and the media. Plato is not theonly one to have tried to banish poets – the media –but almost everyone tries it one way or the other. Themost interesting experiment is the one now in progressin Western democracies. This is, essentially, the ‘CircusMethod’ – at par with the gladiatorial shows organizedby the Roman emperors when the people were nearstarvation. Everybody is given a TV screen to watchinane soap operas or sports. The more enterprising canplay video games and the really perverse can watchpornography and video nasties. These packed and readyproducts have an underlying message: ‘the world is afinished product to take at its face value. It is there toentertain you – for a price, of course. It is not to bechanged’. Since it is not to be changed one needs tobuy as much entertainment as possible. This, of course,means leaving the screen for forays to the place of work.But, essentially, life means lying back and being deludedwith pleasure-inducing sensations. This is the perfectworldview for a consumer-oriented, post-industrialistproletariat which, ironically, does not see itself as aproletariat at all.

In this worldview economics takes a front seat andpolitics is left out. The reductive, often unspoken,assumption is that if you work hard you will ‘make it’.One is not encouraged to question whether this ispossible everywhere in the world? For all classes? Allgenders? All ages? No! These are uncomfortable questionswhich puncture the myths of equality, liberty and thefairness of the market forces. Because criticism is blunted,one condones layoffs, malnutrition in parts of the world,the increase in poverty in countries where IMF policiesare followed, the terrible increase in crime where themarket forces have recently come to operate – all thesethings are impatiently shrugged away by the ordinaryperson whom the media mesmerizes to believe thathistory has actually ended, a la Fukuyama, and that theblessed state of the world is one of free market.

The question for us in Pakistan, however, is as to howthe media and the education system affect us. Ourgovernments are not free from colonial compulsions yetso we are not given the circus treatment. We follow theplatonic model of banishing the poets though, of course,we pretend to follow the Western model of making themperipheral and, as it were, fangless. Thus the electronic

media is completely controlled and the print media iscontrolled through self-censorship (for the most part).Our educat ional system supports the project ofnationalism in history, social studies and languagetextbooks. This ‘nationalism’ means hating India, denyingmulti-culturalism and sacralizing both the state and themilitary by using the emotional power of Islam. Thus ourmedia does not question the military and its policieswhile our educational system glorifies its wars and showsit as a saviour.

While the state is still the major power controlling oureducational system and the media, private entrepreneurshave emerged too. Like their Western counterparts, theyare in the business of making money. But, unlike them,our businesses target the elite ignoring the masses. Thus,while ordinary people eat fast food and wear jeans inthe West, in Pakistan only the elite does so. So, unlikethe West, the idea is not to increase the purchasingpower of the masses to make them all consumers. Theidea is to impoverish the middle classes while ignoringthe masses.

The more enterprising can play video games and the really perverse can watch pornographyand video nasties. These packed and ready products have an underlying message: ‘the worldis a finished product to take at its face value. It is there to entertain you – for a price,of course. It is not to be changed’. Since it is not to be changed one needs to buy as much

entertainment as possible.

Page 75: Vol.1 issue4

The political consequences of such private interventionsmay be disastrous. The government media and educationcreate a nationalistic, Urdu-using, religious-idiom-usingPakistani. This Pakistani is under-privileged and poor. Heis also angry because he is aware that there is anotherworld cheek by jowl with his own world of misery. Thisother world, created by the new media entrepreneurs,foreign media and English-medium education is alienatedfrom our society, English-using, secular-idiom-using andfull of contempt for ordinary Pakistanis. These two worldsare on a collision course because traditional brakes arebecoming loose. Whereas people earlier believed in fateand did not ever see beautiful houses and voluptuousmaidens in tight-fitting jeans having a party, young peoplefrom the have-nots do see them every day on the TVscreen. Thus the brakes are becoming loose and one daythey might fail.

I can recommend what can be done but who will do it?I know that the media and the education will alwayscreate myths and always with some distortion. And,equally, whenever they create they also leave out muchwhich remains unborn, uncreated because the myth-makers have not noticed it. The process is, and willremain, intrinsically violent. What is, however, possibleis that the colonial and medieval forms of control aregiven up. The platonic way is far too violent to becountenanced. The circus method will hold sway but itcan be modified firstly by making both education andthe media subject to the control of those who work inthem. I mean this quite literally – that teachers andjournalists should actually have shares in educationalinstitutions and media offices. This will reduce the powerof the state and the plutocratic owners. This, coupledwith critical pedagogy and insights into dissent, may gosome way towards making the media and the educationalprocesses more supportive of the rights and concerns ofthe common people.

About Dr. Tariq RahmanTariq Rehman, Ph.D., is an acclaimed Pakistani scholar specializing inlinguistics. He is currently Professor of Linguistics and South AsianStudies at Quaid-e- –Azam University, Islamabad, and was fullprofessor at the University of Sana’a, Yemen and Fulbright researchscholar at the University of Texas, USA. As head of the Departmentof English, he has the distinction of introducing a Masters program inLinguistics and English Language Training at the University of AzadJammu and Kashmir. He writes with simplicity and clarity andincreasingly draws on the two disciplines of history and politics. Amonghis many published books, A history of Pakistani Literature inEnglish remains a landmark.

SUPPORT THE PROGRESSIVE

We rely on you for your activism,and we also rely on you for yourfinancial support. Your contributionsenable us to play our part in themovement for peace and socialjustice.

J o i n O u r M e m b e r s h i p P r o g r a m(tax–deductible contributions)Become a Sustainer (monthly, quarterly,or semi–annual donations via your chargecard or automatic transfer)Donate Stock (and reduce the amountthe Pentagon gets from your estate!)Include The Progressive in Your Will

The Progressive survives on donationsf r o m r e a d e r s . C o n t r i b u t i o n s a r etax–exempt when you itemize. Mailchecks to:

The Progressive,409 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703

$3.50 US and $5.50 CanadaWeb address:

www.progressive.org

By highlighting injustice, and byunderscoring the need for activism,we try to give you the means andmot i va t i on t o p r e s s f o rward .

That’s how social change happens.It’s by agitating with our friends,neighbors, and colleagues to buildmass movements for social change.Howard Zinn writes a lot aboutt h i s f o r u s , a n d w e t a k e i tseriously.

We believe we’re beginning to win.

TheProgressivesince 1909

Journalism with a Purpose!

Page 76: Vol.1 issue4

78

T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a n dregulation of culture by large corporations suchas Disney profoundly influence children’s cultureand their everyday lives. The Hollywood filmindustry, television, satellite broadcastingtechnologies, the internet, posters, magazines,billboards, newspapers, videos, and other mediaforms and technologies have transformed cultureinto a pivotal force, “shaping human meaningand behavior and regulat[ing] our social practicesat every turn.”

Mass-produced images fill our daily lives andcondition our most intimate perceptions anddesires. An issue for parents, educators, andothers is how culture, especially media culture,has become a substantial, i f not primary,educational force in regulating the meanings,values, and tastes that set the norms that offerup and legitimate particular subject positionswhat it means to claim an identity as a male,female, white, black, citizen, non-citizen. Themedia culture defines childhood, the national past, beauty, truth, and social agency.

Consider the enormous control that a handful of transnational corporations have overthe diverse properties that shape popular and media culture: “51 of the largest 100economies in the world are corporations.” Moreover, the U.S. media is dominatedby fewer than ten conglomerates, whose annual sales range from $10 billion to $27billion. These include major corporations such as Time Warner, General Electric,Disney, Viacom, TCI, and Westinghouse. Not only are these firms major producersof much of the entertainment and news, culture, and information that permeates ourdaily lives, they also produce “media software and have distribution networks liketelevision network, cable channels and retail stores.”

For adults, Disney’s theme parks offer an invitation to adventure, a respite from thedrudgery of work, and an opportunity to escape from the alienation of daily life. Forchildren, Disney is a wish-landscape that combines fantasy, fun, and the opportunityto enter into a more colorful and imaginary world. Its animated films usher childreninto terrains that are exotic and filled with the fantasies of escape, romanticadventures, and powerful emotional themes about survival, separation, death, and loss– and provide points of identification and the capacity to mediate and experiencein fantasy form realities that children have not yet encountered. Disney offers childrenthe opportunity to dream, vindicating the necessity of fantasies that contain utopiantraces and that offer an antidote to the brutality and emptiness of everyday life. Butlike all dreams, the dreams that Disney provides for children are not innocent andmust be interrogated for the futures they envision, the values they promote, and theforms of identifications they offer.

This book takes as its main tenet that what Disney teaches cannot be abstractedfrom a number of larger questions: What does it mean to make corporationsaccountable to the public? How do we link public pedagogy to a critical democraticview of citizenship? How do we develop forms of critical education that enable youngpeople and adults to become aware of and interrogate the media as a major political,pedagogical, and social force? At the very least, such a project suggests developing

Books for a

worldBETTERBETTER

Today, cultural p o l i t i c s a n dinstitutions shape nearly every aspectof our lives. Henry Giroux takes upth i s i s sue by looking at thew o r l d ’ s m o s t i n f l u e n t i a lcorporation. He e x p l o r e s t h ediverse ways in which the DisneyCorporation has become a politicalforce in shaping images of publicmemory, producing c h i l d r e n a sc o n s u m i n g sub je c t s , andl e g i t i m a t i n g i d e o l o g i c a lpos i t ions tha t constitute a deeplyconservative and disturbing view ofthe roles imparted to children andadults alike. Giroux shows how Disneyattempts to hide behind a cloak ofinnocence and enter ta inment ,while exercising its influence as amajor force on both global economics and cultural learning. Disneyis among several corporations that not only preside over internationalmedia but also outstrip the traditional practices of schooling in shapingthe desires, needs, and futures of today’s children. Written by one ofthe leading cultural critics, this book is important reading for anyoneinterested in education, society and poli t ical culture.

THE MOUSE THAT ROAREDDISNEY and the End of Innocence

educational programs, both within andoutside of schools, that offer studentsthe opportunity to learn how to use andc r i t i c a l l y r e a d t h e n e w m e d i at e c h n o l o g i e s a n d t h e i r c u l t u r a lproductions. Organizing to democratizethe media and make it accountable toa participating citizenry also demandsengaging in the hard political andp e d a g o g i c a l t a s k o f o p e n i n g u pcorporations such as Disney to publicinterrogation and critical dialogue.

Disney’s overwhelming presence in theUnited States and abroad reminds usthat the battle over culture is central tot h e s t r u g g l e o v e r m e a n i n g a n dinstitutional power and that, for learningto become meaningful, critical, andemancipatory, it must not be surrenderedto the dictates of consumer choice or toa prohibition on critical engagementswith how ideologies work within culturaldiscourses. On the contrary, criticall e a r n i n g m u s t b e l i n k e d t o t h ee m p o w e r i n g d e m a n d s o f s o c i a lresponsibility, public accountability, andcritical citizenship.

Far f rom be ing a mode l o f mora lleadership and social responsibility, Disneymonopolizes media power, limits the freeflow of information, and undermines

Page 77: Vol.1 issue4

forEDucating Social Change

79

substantive public debate. Disney posesa se r ious threat to democracy bycorporatizing public space and by limitingthe avenues of public expression andchoice. Disney does not, of course, havethe power to launch armies, dismantlethe welfare state, or eliminate basicsocial programs for children; Disney’sinfluence is more subtle and pervasive.It shapes public consciousness throughits enormous economic holdings andcultural power. Michael Ovitz, a formerDisney executive, says that Disney is nota company but a nation-state, exercisingvast influence over global constituencies.Influencing large facets of cultural life,Disney ranks fifty-first in the Fortune500 and controls ABC, numerous TVand cable stations, five motion picturestudios, 466 Disney Stores, multimediacompanies, and two major publishinghouses. In 1997, Disney pulled in arecord $22.7 billion in revenues from allof its divisions.

Disney’s view of children as consumershas little to do with innocence and agreat deal to do with corporate greedand the realization that behind thevocabulary of family fun and wholesomeentertainment is the opportunity forteaching children that critical thinkingand civic action in society are far lessimportant to them than the role ofpassive consumers. Eager to reachchildren under twelve, “who shell out$17 billion a year in gift and allowanceincome and influence $172 billion morespent by their parents,” Disney relies onconsultants such as the marketingresearcher James McNeal to tap intosuch a market. McNeal can barelycontain his enthusiasm about targetingchildren as a fertile market and arguestha t the “ wor ld i s po i s ed on thethreshold of a new era in marketing andthat…fairly standardized multinationalmarketing strategies to children aroundthe globe are viable.” For McNeal andhis client, the Walt Disney Company,kids are reduced to customers, ands e r v i n g t h e p u b l i c g o o d i s a nafterthought.

As market culture permeates the socialorder, it threatens to cancel out thetension between market values and thosevalues representative of civil society thatcannot be measured in commercial termsbut that are critical to democracy, valuessuch as justice, freedom, equality, health,respect, and the rights of citizens as

equal and free human beings. Withoutsuch values, students are relegated tothe role of economic machines, and thegrowing disregard for public life is leftunchecked.

What strategies are open to educators,pa rent s , and o ther s who want tochallenge the corporate Disney baronswho are shaping children’s culture in theUnited States? First, it must becomeclear that Disney is not merely aboutpeddling entertainment; it is also aboutpolitics, economics, and education.Corporations such as Disney do not givea high priority to social values, exceptto manipulate and exploit them. Withevery product that Disney produces,whether for adults or children, there isthe accompanying commercial blitzkriega imed a t exce s s ive consumer i sm,selfishness, and individualism. Thiscommercial onslaught undermines anddisplaces the values necessary to defineourselves as active and critical citizensrather than as consumers.

Educators, parents, community groups,and others must call into questionexisting structures of corporate power inorder to make the democratization ofmedia culture central to any reformmovement. In part, this suggests takingownership away from the media giantsand spreading these resources amongmany sites in order to make mediaculture diffuse and accountable. Suchmonopolies are a political and culturaltoxin, and their hold can be brokenthrough broad-based movements using avariety of strategies, including publicannouncements, sit-ins, teach-ins, andboycotts, to raise public consciousness,promote regulation, and encourageantitrust legislation aimed at breaking upmedia monopolies and promoting thenoncommercial, nonprofit public sphere.

Defending media democracy is nottantamount to demanding that schoolsteach media literacy, nor is it simplyabout providing students with morechoices in what they watch, hear, buy,or consume. These issues are importantbut become meaningless if abstractedfrom issues of institutional and economicpower and how it is used, organized,controlled, and distributed. For example,as important as it is to teach studentsto learn how to read ads critically inorder to understand the values andworldviews the ads are selling, it is not

enough. Such literacy should not bel i m i t e d t o m a t t e r s o f t e x t u a linterpretation or to the recognition thatmedia culture is about business ratherthan entertainment. Parents, educators,and others need to actively question themanufactured myths, lifestyles, and valuescreated by media giants like Disney tosell identities and increase profits.

The time has come to challenge Disney’sself-proclaimed role as a purveyor of‘pure entertainment’ and take seriouslyDisney’s educational role in producingideologically loaded fantasies aimed atteaching children selective roles, values,and cultural ideals. Progressive educatorsand other cultural workers need to payattent ion to how the pedagog ica lpractices produced and circulated byD i s n e y a n d o t h e r m a s s - m e d i aconglomerates organize and control acircuit of power that extends fromproducing cultural texts to shaping thecontexts in which they will be taken upby children and others.

Finally, we need to organize those whoinhabit cultural spheres that produce,circulate, and distribute knowledge butwho seem removed from matters ofeducation, pedagogy, and cultural politics.Artists, lawyers, social workers, andothers need to acknowledge their role aspub l i c in te l l ec tua l s engaged in apedagogy that offers them an opportunityto join with other cultural workers toexpand the non-commodified publicspace.

Challenging the ideological underpinningsof Disney’s construction of commonsense is the first step in understandingthe ways in which corporate culture hasrefashioned the relationship betweeneducation and entertainment, on the onehand, and institutional power andcultural politics, on the other. It is alsoa way of rewriting and transforming sucha relationship by putting democracybefore profits and entertainment and bydefining such a project within theparameters of a broad political andpedagogical struggle. The aims of thisstruggle are:(1) creating public spheres that educatefor critical consciousness,(2) closing the gap in wealth andproperty between the rich and poor, and,(3) providing the resources for creatinga democratic media linked to multiplepublic spheres.

Page 78: Vol.1 issue4

80

ZNet is a “Community of people committed to social change”. Zis an independent political magazine of critical thinking on political,cultural, social, and economic life. It sees the racial, political, andclass dimensions of personal life as fundamental to understandingand improving contemporary circumstances and it aims to assistactivist efforts to attain a better future. To these ends, Z attemptsto operate in a democratic fashion, both internally and also withrespect to its contributing writers and artists and the broadernational progressive community.

Michael Albert, longtime activist, speaker, and writer, is editor ofZNet, and co-editor and co-founder of Z Magazine. He also co-founded South End Press and has written numerous books andarticles. He developed, along with Robin Hahnel, the economicvision called Participatory Economics (for more on participatoryeconomics, checkout zmag’s parecon section).

This site is an enormous repository of articles, interviews, links,features, quotes, commentaries and resources pertaining to today’spressing concerns like mainstream media, alternative media, globaleconomy, Middle East crisis, labor, repression etc. For a new userfinding the information they want can be a daunting task. Tofacilitate, we have compiled a list of some key components(especially those relating to media) of ZNet with their briefoverviews:

ZMagazine SubsiteZ Magazine articles go online three to five months afterpublication, and about a thousand articles are now available. Youcan view articles by author or topic, etc and also find out aboutZ and related projects.

War/Terror PagesIn times of crisis, ZNet creates special sites to track busy topics.These range from ‘scandals’ like Enron, to major left events likethe Seattle Demos. The War/Terror pages provide analysis of the‘War on Terrorism’ and give an example of a timely componentfocusing on a world crisis.

Globalization SectionZNet prioritizes activism and movement involvement. A goodexample is the subsite devoted to the anti-corporate globalizationmovement.

WatchesWatch sites are devoted to pressing issues that require frequentattention. Content is updated regularly. The Watch Areas compriseof topics like activism, alternative media, economy, Asia, foreignpolicy, gender, globalization etc.

TranslationsVolunteers from around the world have translated ZNet articlesinto many languages. Articles can be read in Spanish, Italian,Slovak, Turkish/Kurdish and many more.

Instructionals

ZNet includes a number of self-contained ‘instructionals’. Theyinclude a main sequence of information, often based on a bookor series of Z articles.

Contributor Biography PagesA list of authors who contribute to ZNet. Clicking each nameyields a short biography plus links to some of their articles. Regularcontributors include Noam Chomsky, David Barsamian, Tariq Ali,Aziz Choudry, Robert Fisk, Eduardo Galeano, Edward Herman etc.

ZNet InteractiveZNet's interactive facilities can be used to post or to view reports,analyses, reviews, photos, lyrics, links, quotes, and cartoons. Beyonduploaded material, there is also a remarkably diverse pen palsfacility, among other features.

Sustainer ProgramPeople who donate to Z use the ZNet sustainer facilities.Premiums, users receive for their donations include daily sustainercommentaries, access to an online zine of commentaries, plusaccess to a forum system where people ask various ZNetcontributors, like Noam Chomsky and Michael Albert, questions.

Contact ZIf you need to get in touch with Z, this page lists the addressesfor contacting Z Magazine, ZNet, Z Video, Z Media Institute anddivisions of each.

ALTERNATIVE MEDIA WATCH

This component of ZMag provides hundreds of links to non-corporate media. It is a great way to connect to community-basedmedia. It also contains some analysis of the mainstream media.

ZNet’s alternative media resources include links to diverse mediainstitutions (FAIR, Association For Progressive Communication,Alliance For Community Media etc), general media articles andcommentaries by media critics (Chomsky, Michael Albert, EdwardHerman etc), print periodicals (The Progressive, CounterPunchetc), progressive media bookstores, alternative radio, TV and filmsites and translations in many languages (Spanish, Italian, Turkishetc).

Z MEDIA INSTITUTEThe Z Media Institute is held each year in Massachusetts. Thesessions provide training in general political, education, organizationbuilding, activism, and particularly radical media work. Focusesinclude political studies, media studies, organizational skills andstudies, computer skills and techniques. The program involves fourcourse sessions each day plus project groups and lectures fromnoted guest lecturers and teachers.