Free Press
LIKE it or not, information counts. The control of the flow of information is arguably the most important kind of control there is. The men---almost always men, like Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Branson---who control the flow of information are among the most powerful people in the world.
Our press, we are told (by our press), is free. Free not in the sense of gratis, without payment: oh no, we have to pay, whether it's directly through the cover price of our paper, or indirectly by paying an advertising levy on our products. Free not in the sense of liberalis, without restriction: there are countless laws and codes about what can be said, where, when and by whom. No, our press is only free in the specific sense of unprotected from capitalist take-over.
Look at Rupert Murdoch: under his company name, News International, he owns the Times and Sunday Times he bought and then closed Today, he owns the Sun, BSkyB, Harper- Collins Books and a host of other media companies across the world. It is not an exaggeration to describe his companies as a media empire, which gives him the power to make, break, and dictate to governments. The purpose of this empire is not to serve the world's people as an impartial provider of news and information, of course. It is to make money for, and increase the power and prestige of, Rupert Murdoch.
There is no real political debate in Murdoch's world. Sure, the Times and Sunday Times devote a lot of space to politics, but it's thoroughly Establishment stuff; no suggestion there that capitalism might not be the be-all and end-all of human achievement. There are no alternatives, just choices. Blue or Red, it's just a question of style.
The advantages to a company of large-scale media production are obvious. Say Harper-Collins is publishing a certain book; it can be reviewed in the Times, BSkyB can do a half-hour special on the author, and the programme can be heavily trailered in the Sun. This process can be (and is) repeated ad nauseum by world-wide multi-media conglomerates, so that in the end much of what they are reporting as news is merely publicity for their own company.
Of course, it's not just in terms of production that the big players have the advantages. The distribution of news is another area where the large companies have an overwhelming market share. The ITV regions are currently merging like crazy, Murdoch again has satellite broadcasting to the UK sewn up, WH Smiths controls a vast proportion of the printed media trade, and so on. The Internet, possibly the most useful tool in the history of communication, is increasingly being policed by both governments and corporations to remove users' rights to access information.
Some net browsers secretly filter topics that might be considered unsuitable, such as information on abortion or AIDS. The British Government is considering legislation allowing the security services access to private passwords and the contents of e-mail. Across the world, governments, councils, religious and political organisations and companies are forcing activists to move, change the names of and even shut down critical websites.
It seems to me that this is fundamentally bad for democracy. "He who pays the piper calls the tune" and when information is a commodity the one with the most money calls loudest. The fact that the Sun sells 3m copies a day doesn't mean that in some sort of Darwinian Nightmare "jungle market" it is the "best". The fact that Carlton TV owns Central TV doesn't mean it is more capable of delivering high-quality programming. The fact that software companies can determine the content of your Internet searches doesn't mean that people want information to be censored without their knowledge. All it means is that, in this era of "free" market monopolism, big players have a natural advantage. It is in the interests of the existing power structures to preserve the status quo. Discussion of alternatives to the system is sidelined in favour of choices within the system; ultimately this means there can never be a progression, just change.
If you want to know about the effects of dam-building projects in Kurdistan or the fightback of the Indian peasant farmers or logging in the Philippines or GM crops in the UK, you are unlikely to get much information from the ITV nightly news, the Daily Mirror or Leicester Sound FM The mainstream is very unlikely to touch such subjects in any meaningful way. At "best"---i.e. when such issues are even reported---there tends to be an assumption that protesters, critics, strikers or whoever are by definition the problem, and anything the "properly constituted authorities" do must pretty much be justified.
The J18 "riots" last year were a case in point. Media coverage concentrated on the violence of the protesters, while the injury figures were (from memory) 4 police officers injured and 44 protesters. Presumably the "violent" protesters were beating themselves up in attempt to cause a public nuisance and make the police look bad.
Independent publishing may not seem much of an answer, and in some ways it isn't. There are small magazines and papers produced without big capitalist backing which are just as reactionary, objectionable and Establishment-orientated as some of the huge ones. There are websites containing horrible, bigoted material which have been set up by horrible, bigoted people. Small publishers print some of the must appalling books available.
However, there are also signs of hope in the independent/small press sector. Undercurrents, Schnews, Earth First, Genetics Information Network, the Free Information Network (FIN), and a host of others produce material for activists and other concerned parties on topics which are difficult if not impossible to access through the conventional media. Information is available on McDonalds, Nestle, Sainsbury's, Shell, Unilever, Monsanto, Balfour Beatty---whoever your corporate bugbear is, someone is gunning for them.
There are newsletters, videos, pamphlets and books out there---they just aren't always easy to find. Large companies such as WH Smith will usually refuse to take published material which has not been 'professionally' produced. Sometimes they say it's because there's no demand. Sometimes they'll claim it's due to the fear of libel actions. The result is that large chains do not stock magazines specialising in radical politics. Small bookshops---especially those with their own radical agenda---are often the major way that small presses distribute their information.
The Net is also an information battleground---if it wasn't, companies and governments wouldn't be concerned what was on it. The very fact that those in power want to censor some information and give the police and "security services" access to private encryption keys proves that they have something to hide and won't allow us the same privilege. Freedom of information is a necessity for a democratic society. If we don't have the necessary information, how can we make informed decisions? Democracy is about choices, and how can you choose if you don't know the consequences of that choice? In our society, the 'freedom' of our press is almost entirely commercial freedom. Commercial interests dictate what news, what information, is delivered to whom, and by whom.
Small presses, independent bookshops, activists' websites and the like give us a glimpse of something better than what we've got---media which are more directly related to real people and real issues. No-one ever started a pamphlet to make money---the majority are produced as a counterblast to the commercial mainstream. They need your support.