Mass Media and Dissent

George Gerbner Temple University

Dissent is the life-blood of the democratic process. It word. Moreover, those who own the media are in a is the mark of a plurality of perspectives and a diversity position to detennine who is empowered to disseminate of competing (and sometimes confli cting) interests. whi ch dissenting views to the mass public. At the same time, however, the right to dissent­ The basic argument about political dissent, then, is although shielded by the First Amendment to the u.s. whether the First Amendment pro tects the rights of Constitution-is not unlimited and is always contested. media owners to suppress fundamental dissent regard­ Laws of libel, slander, defamation, and the protections less of the implications for democracy. The alternative extended to intellectual property are among obvious is to view the First Amendment's protection of a free constraints on expression, including dissent. press as a social right to a diverse and uncensored press But perhaps the principal limitation on political dis­ with allfple room for ·dissent. In this view the right of sent is financial. It has been observed that the current dissent to be heard is a right enjoyed by all citizens, cash-driven electoral system has a chilling effect on the not just by owners of media. Otherwise there is no nature and caliber of dissent. Furthermore, the market­ more need for its inclusion in the First Amendment driven and highly concentrated and conglomeratized than it would be to guarantee individuals the right to media system has little room for ideological pluralty­ establish a baking business or a shoe repair service. As and thus dissent. There are no socialist, communist, or Alexander Meiklejo hn points out, those commercial religious fundamentalist parties in the American main­ rights are explicitly covered in the Fifth Amendment stream. And even though the airways belong to the to the U.s. Constitution. public, they have been largely given away to the same Modern advertising emerged in the past sentury and market forces that marginalize dissent in politics. is conducted disproportionately by the largest corpora­ This marginalization of fundamental dissent in the tions. This corporate media system has none of the cultural/political' mainstream contributes to th e low intrinsic interest in politics or journalism that existed vo ter turnout and narrow range of debate where sub­ in the press of earlier times. U anything, it tends to stantive issues are ignored and personalities (not to promote depoliticization. Fundamental political posi­ mention private personal affairs) often dominate. tions are closely linked to elites. Dissent may exist on It is one thing to assure individuals the right to the margins, but th e commercial system assures that dissent without fear of government regulation or worse. these voices have no. hope of reaching a mass audience. Anyone.can find a street corn.er on which to pontificate. There are two solutions to the crisis for democracy It is another thing to say that any individual has the generated by a corporate-dominated media system. The right to establish a free press to disseminate dissent to most radical is to create a large nonprofit, noncommer­ a broader audience than could be reached by the spoken cial media system accountable to the public. In earlier

Copyright e 1999 by Academic Press.' Encyclopedia of Violence, Peact, and Conflict. Volume 2 375 All righlS or reproduction in an y form reserved. 376 ______MASS MEDIA AND DISSENT _____------times John Dewey and the Hutchins Commission both advertiser control of radid-especially against labor and proposed that newspapers be established as nonprofit the left-that it argued that the very system of commer­ and noncommercial enterprises, supported by endow­ cial broadcasting was a violation or the First Amend­ ments and universities, and managed through direct ment. For most of the 1930s the ACLU worked to have public election (or election by the media workers) of the government establish a nonprofit and noncommer­ their officers. cial radio system that would foster more coverage of The less radical solution is to tax the media giants social issues and public affairs and greater opportunities or use public monies to establish a viable nonprofit and for dissent. The ACLU backed off from this position noncommercial media system that can serve the needs when it became clear that the corporate power was of citizens who. are unable to own media corporations. entrenched and unchallengeable. After abandoning its Of course, proposals such as these have met· with commitment to structural reform, the ACLU went from significant corporate opposition and concerns that they being a proponent of regulation of commercial broad­ would let the government control the media to an unac­ casters in the public interest to being a defender of the ceptable extent, nO matter how the nonprofit media commercial system without government interference. system might be structured. From the Progressive Era Finally, in the 1970s, the courts began to include to the present day, the corporate media giants have corporate activities under the First Amendment, fanned the flames of this sentiment, using their im­ thereby eliminating or further weakening government mense resources to popularize the notion that a gulag­ regulation on behalf of an even playing field in the style, darkness at noon media system was the only possi­ public airways. ble alternative to the corporate, commercial status quo. Even political advertisingis lame and devoid of fu n­ Hence any challenge to their power was a challenge damental dissent. It is commercialized political speech, to democracy. indistinguishable from product advertising. Hence the Broadcasting offers the best hope for those who wish content of political advertising generates apathy, cyni­ to see the public airways committed to democratic cism, and mistrust, th ereby reinforcing the depoHticiz­ media and reasonable opportunities for dissent. All ing aspects of the broader political culture. Supreme Court" decisions have affinned the right of It would be comforting to think that we could de­ the government to regulate broadcasting in a manner pend on the Supreme Court to reverse this situation. that would be judged unconstitutional with the print But members of the Court were placed in office by the media. politicians who benefit from the status quo. The task In the last 1920s and early 1930s, however, the·gov­ for advocates of the right and value of vigorous dissent ernment turned over the best parts of the broadcast is to make it -a key component of 3 social movement spectrum toa handful of private commercial operators. that links electoral reform with media reform. One such There was no public or congresSional debate on the movement is the Cultural Environment Movement, matter. In the 1930s the ACLU was so alanned .by founded in 1996, and dedicated to diversity in media the explicit and implicit censorship in corporate and ownership, employment, and representation.