Saturday, January 27, 2007

Reflections on National Media Reform Conference

As my friend Bill pointed out to me, I really drop the ball on what makes live blogging interesting -- a sense of continuity and something approximating real-time excitement. One posting doesn't cut it.

With that admission, I want to go back and angle in on the NMR Conference from a different angle. Overall, I felt very encouraged. Much of my positive impression is owed to the fact that I had the chance to work with some very great people - Free Press staff and volunteers. Despite all the stress of pulling off such a huge event like this, everyone I worked with exceptionally friendly, positive and cooperative. I don't just throw out these compliments ceremonially. This is a truly exceptional bunch of people. From having worked with many organizations, the only times I've seen teamwork equal to what I saw in Memphis were during my best moments with NCCC teams. I think there are many reasons the Free Press is thriving to the extent that it is, from picking the right issue at the right time to some very smart organizing strategies. But my summer at the Free Press's DC office and now this opportunity to meet most of the staff from both offices proved to me that the wonderful people who work for Free Press and their spirit of cooperation are certainly a big key to their success. If nothing else, it just felt good for me to feel part of a team again.

Aside from the enclosure, the NMR conference felt much different from the only major academic conference I've attended - the National Communications Association. As McChesney said, they only have one academic session per conference to prevent it from being any sort of vitae-padder. But the SSRC's Media Policy Research Pre-conference might have served that purpose. Most presenters were advocates or media folks. I can’t generalize much about the attendees who were not presenters, seemed to be a mix of age, some different styles, many occupations and passions. It was mostly white, though not as disproportionately so as NCA. During the sessions I saw, there were always some vocal and sometimes challenging audience members. A couple of ranters. The 9/11 truth forces were there, of course, tho I did not see them being disruptive. A disability-rights groups staged a protest in the middle of the conference center. It didn’t seem like this protest was directed against the conference organizers, just a good opportunity for media publicity. No one stopped them.

Here and there I picked up on an undercurrent of discontent among some of the participants. The issue was whether the Free Press was getting too comfortable with, let’s just call it, “the liberal establishment.” Had the constituents of the conference basically just become upper-middle class whites who don’t like corporations? The attendence might have reflected that, tho at least a significant chunk of the panels explicitly had to do with race and immigration issues, and many of the main speakers had come from marginalized communities. Another complaint had to do with lack of transnational perspective. Interestingly, Robert McChesney seemed to acknowledge this fault during his introduction at the SSRC pre-conference, telling us all that we wouldn’t see much from an international perspective this NMR Conference but that would be a priority for the next one.

I heard some criticism of the race angle voiced in a constructive way, and some not so constructively. I want to explore this a bit, acknowledging my own perspect comes from a particular place. One group, privileged in their own way, mocked the Free Press as “the White Man’s Free Press” even while Free Pressers had gone out of their way to set up some studio space for them. From my perspective, this was hard to not see as a form of snotty arrogance because this group seemed to see themselves as particularly sophisticated. That said, this media movement needs make sure it does not only respond to the white middle class. To say that the movement is only “white progressives” now is inaccurate and only marginalizes the contributions of those who do not fit that category. Still white progressives, as I said, do have a disproportionate amount of influence on the media reform movement right now. Unless that change, the media justice goals are bound to be shortchanged. I know the Free Press is trying to build greater connections with groups whose primary constituencies are not white or middle class, but this is certainly a crucial area where more work needs to be done. As Deepa Fernandez said into her microphone in the big ballroom, “Disenfranchised communities don’t just want to be invited in, and we don’t just want a mic put in our hands. We want to own the mic and own the station.” The challenge is not only “reaching out” to the most oppressed communities, but either really breaking down divisions or working in solidarity with leaders and groups putting the concerns of the most oppressed communities at the forefront.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Letter from the FCC

I'm not sure what petition this must be responding to, but today I received an email from the FCC. I had thought they were a government agency, but apparently they are a big-box retailer:

Dear Consumer,


Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We are reviewing your correspondence to determine how we can best serve you.

The FCC regulates interstate (between states) and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. The FCC is charged with ensuring that communications service providers promote the public interest. Further information is available on the Commissions web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

Again, thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Your views and comments are important to us.


The Federal Communications Commission

Saturday, January 13, 2007

National Media Reform Conference

My first live blogging experiment.

I'm at the National Media Reform Conference in Memphis, more on this generally later. Right now at I'm at a session on new media and citizen journalism with Chris Nolan, Chris Rabb, Jay Rosen and Dan Gilmore. The most interesting presentation was Chris Rabb of Afro-Netizen who discussed his accidental rise in the blogosphere that brought him to be one of the few bloggers of color at the DNC in 2004. One of his main points was that if we think of blogging as revolutionizing who's creating the news we've got to make sure that it's not the same sorts of elite who gain attention in the blogging world as in the MSM world. What made his speech particularly powerful was that he acknowledged his position as a black person speaking to a primarly white audience, yet he also discussed his own privileges (such as his ability to call up "a buddy" on Capital Hill, access to the latest computer, etc) that had made it possible for him to become a prominent blogger. His point was not blogging is too mired in privilege to ever have a value, only that enthusiasts needed to be conscious of the ongoing segregation, classism, racism, etc that carries over from land to the cyberspace. He urged us to not to have faith in blogging solving all these problems. The meaning I took from him was that bloggers shouldn't simple swagger forward against Big Media waving the name-tag of the underdog, but must attempt expand their social networks and strive for greater inclusion outside of their own privileged circles.