Skip to main content

So, I was trying to get my friend to read a recent issue of Adbusters magazine.

"You've got to read this!" I said. "There's an article about how the media today is owned by only a handful of corporations, and corporate consolidation is leading to fewer voices getting on the air and stifling the range of debate, which is stifling the health of our democracy. And corporations themselves are legally bound by law to seek a profit over any other competing interest. And because of a judge's ruling that unlawfully declared that corporations are to be deemed legal "persons" - giving rights to corporations that were originally intended for recently freed black slaves - these corporations (due to their vast wealth and influence) now have more rights than people. And these corporate rights are now the source of the power they use to destroy all of humanity!!" I said with a half-laugh, nearly out of breath.

"Yikes," she said.

"Yeah I know. It's crazy."

And then there was a pause. "Yeah, the thing is..." she said with a sigh. "I really don't have time to read that. I mean, look: I know things are bad. Everyone nowadays knows about all these problems at some level. It just seems kind of tiring to keep reading about things that at a basic level, you already know."

And I thought about what she said, and I understand what she's saying - at some level. But here's the problem: When problems are vague, so are the solutions.

When you think about all the world problems... Oh jeez, well don't think about all of them. But if you think about just a few. Take: climate change, deforestation, bought-and-paid-for elections, and the corporate exploitation of millions of people working in sweat-shop factories around the world. How are we even going to begin to solve these problems? Now if we tried to attack each of these issues individually, well, we'll be trying to plant corn in the deserts of the Midwest on a very hot planet before that happens. Climate change and peak oil alone give us a deadline of five to ten years to do most of the significant work to solve these issues (scientists estimate that we need to stabilize our co2 emissions by 2015 to avoid a series of tipping points). We simply do not have the time to keep hacking at individual branches while new branches grow every day.

But what if there was one solution which got at the root of all these problems, and if you solved this one thing, it would quickly solve many of the others?

Now let's say I told you that the laws that give corporations their legal power were the source of all of the problems listed above. You change the laws that govern the corporation and you change the landscape of our economy, environment, and society all at the same time. Now of course, appreciating the significance of this solution can only be grasped when you have a full understanding of the problem. And this means specifics, and this means reading that damn article!

It was at this particular exclamation point that I realized: getting informed on the issues is kind of the whole point. It's the solution that leads to every other solution.

Because clear knowledge leads to clear actions, and clear actions lead to results.

When you understand the problem, you know what needs fixing, and you feel empowered to support actions that can lead to fixing it. And when a whole bunch of people learn about an issue and know what needs to be done to get our country back on track, then the people can start organizing. And as you launch targeted campaigns to solve specific issues, you eventually see results, and your community is the better for it.

It's all about getting informed and taking action. It's the essence of democracy. Not to bust out some history books on your asses, but this goes back to the days our forefathers first drafted the constitution. The first amendment talks about the need for a Free Press. They knew that a democracy could not thrive without the full participation of its citizens, and that you need to be fully informed to truly participate. The two go hand in hand.

Originally, informing the public and arming them with the knowledge they need to act was the cardinal responsibility of the media. It was to foster a free and open "marketplace for ideas," so that all could have a voice within the commons, and the best ideas could rise to the top - regardless of the economic or political power of the people who voiced them.

Today, these ideas seem quaint in comparison to the profit-driven, consolidated, and corrupt media we have now. Most of us are aware of how bad the mainstream media has gotten. It reveals itself every time a Lady Gaga story makes headline news, and when political pundits paid by the Pentagon debate the pros of more war, and lots of war.

You could stock a website full of examples. Between the unashamedly partisan coverage on FOX and the infotainment and soft-ball fluff predominant on CNN and the rest of the mainstream press, there is clearly a gap in quality news, and this gap represents the bottleneck that impedes the progress of nearly every social cause we care about.

Getting our elections free from corporate cash and undoing Citizens United is a big one. You can bet amending the Constitution to abolish corporate person-hood isn't going to be easy. It's going to require a mass movement of people all across this country demanding it, and to get to this stage, we need mass awareness.

So, what solution will go right to the thick, deep root that will reach every other rotten root and heal every branch and make those proverbial flowers bloom?

We fix the media. And rather than wait for these massive media conglomerates to reform themselves, or wait for congress to step in - we're going to create our own media. We're going to declare independence from the Corporate Media by creating new information channels that serve the public's interest and speaks with the public's voice. And we're going to do if from the bottom up.

We start in our communities, working on creating a communications infrastructure that will allow everyone to get the real deal on a given issue, so that the people have the power to mobilize in great numbers when the time is needed. Then as we build momentum we expand the scope of this network to eventually include the entire city. We'll accomplish this with documentary film screenings, public access TV, low-power FM radio, street team promotion, and a central indy-media website dedicated to keeping our city connected and informed.

Building on the classic IndyMedia model, these city sites will allow anyone to contribute content, and let the community decide what content is promoted to the front page. From here we can network with other city indy-media websites, allowing us to communicate news, mass actions and events with millions of people through these networks of city chapters. We will bypass the need to write press releases and get coverage from traditional media altogether. And before we know it, within the next three years, we have the potential to create a nations-wide communications channel that rivals the best of the old corporate giants.

A democratic media breaks the bottleneck. It's the strategic foundation that will allow us to amplify our efforts to build truly sustainable and vibrant new ways of living here in our own city, and in every city around the globe.

This was the work I and the other members of the Films For Action team set out to accomplish when we first began the project four years ago. We have organized over two dozen film screening events, cataloged over 700 world-changing videos on our website, launched several targeted campaigns, and have currently finished work on version 2.0 of the website.

With the recent launch of our site - over a year in development - we've entered the 2nd major phase of the strategy. The new site's infrastructure has been programmed to make it easy to create whole new city chapter sub-sites with just a few clicks. Our original chapter based in Lawrence, KS demonstrates the concept, and shows how these cities will stay networked with our international "main" site. In the coming months, we expect to see dozens of new chapters form.

As I see it, these are all the first few steps in a thousand-step chess game. But there's no way to make progress until you get started on step one.

Tim Hjersted is the director and a co-founder of Films For Action. He will be heading to Boston in April to network and collaborate with thousands of other media activists at this year's National Conference on Media Reform.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That's Generally What the Rightwing Did In Our (8+ / 0-)

    position 45 years ago. They had no power in their party, and no voice in the media.

    They too decided to create their own channels. Mobilizing evangelical religion with its radio and televangelists, and direct mail were two of their bigger tools.

    We need to recruit the many pre-existing progressive issue and demographic groups such as unions, environmentalists, black and latino organizations and such.

    To some degree they come with their own messaging systems but they tend to be limited in scope. We really do need an overarching progressive movement, especially one for general progressive economics, because the party hasn't wanted to do that for decades. Their preference is to promote compassionate conservatism, so till they're being pressured from the left --and their ranks replaced from the left-- we're on our own.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 01:35:36 PM PDT

    •  Obviously this is important work and we can (0+ / 0-)

      help ourselves a lot by viewing our efforts clearly.

      What you call "limited in scope" messaging systems I prefer to think of as "focused."

      Many have been concerned because they don't see "an overarching progressive movement," yet this too may be a positive. The less centralized nature of our liberal movement makes it harder for opponents to exploit any perceived weakness by lumping huge groups of people who are not entirely in agreement together, and then insisting that people defend positions we may not favor ("If you're a liberal you must think __"). To be sure this does sometimes still happen, but it often costs the right-winger too much credibility to be worth it.

      Besides allowing progressives to "harmonize" without locking us all in to a rigid ideology the decentralized nature would make it harder to entirely silence us--there is no one plug to pull.

      Changing the subject a bit I hope we are thinking about ways to raise the cost of corporations being regarded as immortal, immoral super persons. If we discover methods to impact their "bottom line" in negative ways the corporations will do our work for us: Their "person-hood will dissolve immediately. We're a crafty bunch, this should be a fun project!

      An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out? Rene Descartes

      by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 03:50:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That Lawrence site is great. (8+ / 0-)

    And I enjoyed the trailer for the "Economics of Happiness."  Good stuff.

    I think your focus on corporations and Citizens United is misplaced.  My view is that if you could ever get rid of private financing of political campaigns, you would demonstrate that private financing was no longer a problem.  In other words, that will be that last thing to change, not the first.

    But independent, local media?  Even the organizational scheme you're using?  Great stuff.

    One other point with which you may or disagree.  Your litany of problems all derive from one root problem: Capitalism.  If you guys succeed by following a collectivist, local, participatory approach, you'll go a long way toward undermining that nasty monster.

    •  Is the root problem Capitalism or is it (0+ / 0-)

      unchecked Capitalism? Certainly there are negative aspects of any economic system. I think our trouble is at least partly caused by our lack of balance. In the past regulation of the many elements allowed us to at least approach an equilibrium. As power has shifted ever more in the direction of corporations much of our economic life has become artificial and more easily manipulated. Pretending that organizations equal people creates an unhealthy illusion. In the long run this fantasy doesn't even serve the corporations' interests (although, of course they remain focused on the next quarterly report).

      At its best our economic system might incorporate elements from a variety of sources, balancing each against the others and with a reasonable regulatory structure underlying all.  Ah, but I'm a dreamer.

      An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out? Rene Descartes

      by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 04:23:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I love this post and the two comments (so far) (0+ / 0-)

    What I see in your idea is a form of "systems thinking" that sees the rhizome connecting all other issues and which, if we address, gives us the most powerful leverage for impact. It also helps us not get caught in our respective inabilities to see how our priorities are related to other issues that may not be a priority or may actually be something we still hold in a conservative frame. I.e., the way there are still dems who call themselves "pro-life"--proudly. Or those who still question the need for unions, or those who really don't mind nuclear power, or those who believe there's a way to enforce capital punishment fairly, or those who think Native rights are a waste of time, or those who want immigrants to "just follow the rules" etc. IOW, many bright commenters here on DKos (and in the world at large) might be holding one liberal view but don't see the rhizome that connects all of these issues. They aren't unrelated. At all. On the contrary, they are so related that we won't be successful if we don't get that they are inseparable.

    And by figuring out the main rhizome and organizing to address it, we help us all build bridges toward a much greater end (true solidarity!) than any of our ghettoizing of issues provides. We are so dependent on people getting that "aha" moment of how immigration rights intersect w/ women's rights which intersect with health care, which intersect with environmental racism, which intersects with educational reform and so forth.

    We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

    by Tookish on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 03:35:34 PM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site