Now More Than Ever, It’s Money That Talks

Bill Moyers hosts his latest PBS special tonight. It’s not as much fun to watch as “Spin City” or “Felicity,” which air at the same time, and a relatively small number of people will tune in, including a few who nod off during the preceding “Nova” special, “Leopards of the Night.”

Nevertheless, there is an exotic element within this particular show, which features something you almost never see on television: a program that intelligently explores TV’s vast influence in terms of framing public and political discourse, as well as the inordinate sway exercised by a handful of huge companies that control an astounding portion of the media.

“Free Speech for Sale” is far from perfect as entertainment goes. It’s mostly talking heads, with no laugh track, no supermodels to ogle, not even any whooshing graphics to match “Dateline NBC” or “20/20.” The first piece is about a local politician chased from office thanks to the big-money ad campaign thrown against her by a group of irate hog farmers--a topic that sounds as enthralling as watching paint dry, or the lost episodes of “The Nanny.”

Listen closely, however, and Moyers presents a compelling case about how the “modern electronic square” undermines principles behind the 1st Amendment and the simple right to speak freely, primarily because of the unequal opportunity that exists in getting one’s message heard.

“I don’t consider democracy to be really functioning when one side’s got a loudspeaker and the other side is being forced to whisper,” observes Bert Neuborne, legal director of the New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice, during the program.

Moyers seizes on the little-understood notion that if the sky starts falling, we won’t know about it until Time Warner, Disney and News Corp. decide we should. At the least, this new production from the former CBS News journalist and Lyndon Johnson aide sounds a timely alarm about the need for media literacy, encouraging people to exercise healthy skepticism--if not wholesale cynicism--in taking the source into account when judging the accuracy of news and advertising.

The special also underscores how the Clinton administration, for all its politically motivated rhetoric about TV violence, has let media companies run amok by concentrating ownership--an area nearer to the hearts of modern media barons, and with broader implications, than whether networks have to slap a “V” in front of “Nash Bridges” or “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”

Moyers makes this point eloquently in the most noteworthy segment, about the giveaway of digital spectrum to broadcasters as part of the sweeping Telecommunications Act passed in 1996. Despite the legislation’s major financial and public-policy implications, media critic Dean Alger notes that ABC, CBS and NBC--all beneficiaries of the reforms adopted--devoted a mere 19 minutes to the story in the nine months leading up to its passage.

To be fair, no one has offered any proof that corporate parents dictated this policy to their news divisions. In fact, executives have consistently denied such pressure or collusion takes place, just as they say Walt Disney Co. Chairman Michael Eisner would never use his influence to have an unflattering book about himself scrapped, or that politically conservative News Corp. boss Rupert Murdoch would never put the kibosh on a TV movie about the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings--both allegations raised in the last year.

The problem, of course, is that the twisting corporate tentacles of these entertainment monoliths reach so far and wide, placing news organizations in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t bind. With parent General Electric possessing such far-flung assets, NBC News opens itself to criticism either by ignoring industries in which GE operates or reporting on them, invariably leading to accusations of softball coverage. Even changes in NBC’s recent miniseries “Atomic Train” fueled speculation that GE’s nuclear holdings spurred the decision.

As Moyers points out, “There was no golden age of self-scrutiny by the press lords. What’s different today is never before have so much media been controlled by so few owners.”

Thanks to the consolidation of ownership, this becomes an issue in the most minute of areas, including coverage of the entertainment industry. When the magazine Entertainment Weekly proclaims “Friends” TV’s best comedy or TV Guide splashes “The X-Files” across its cover for the umpteenth time, should people look askance at those subjective judgments, knowing that each entails one holding of a huge media conglomerate (Time Warner and News Corp., respectively) rising to applaud another?

While news and publishing executives insist not, media barons don’t help themselves by leveling these charges at each other. Is CNN liberally inclined because Time Warner Vice Chairman Ted Turner calls the shots? Murdoch clearly implies as much; indeed, his competing Fox News Channel tacitly charges the rest of the media with harboring such a bias in its slogan, “We report. You decide.”

As for the Murdoch-backed TV Guide, NBC didn’t inspire faith in its editorial independence by yanking advertising for a spell, citing perceived favoritism exhibited by the publication toward Fox.

For Murdoch, however, free speech isn’t just for sale. It’s for trade. That was the message some decoded when Fox broke ranks with the other networks and unilaterally agreed to adopt content-based TV ratings in 1996, currying favor regarding several regulatory matters pending before Congress. “This was grandstanding designed to win points in Washington,” one competing network official raged at the time.

Such strategic maneuvers represent a more subtle threat to the 1st Amendment--namely, what happens when these billion-dollar companies, with so many vital interests at stake, need to give a little here to gain something there. Do they hold fast to journalistic principles when they collide with more tangible bottom-line benefits? Which way do you think Murdoch is going to vote?

While the public seems largely unconcerned about such conflicts, rest assured, the big keep getting bigger. The cable TV industry, in particular, has undergone a series of mergers with so many billions being tossed around that even the late Carl Sagan might need help doing the math.

Media outlets such as Fox News, CNBC and CNN will certainly report on these deals; still, if nothing else, “Free Speech for Sale” offers a timely reminder that you’d be well-advised to think long and hard not just about what’s said, but who’s saying it, before you decide.

* “A Bill Moyers Special: Free Speech for Sale” airs today at 9 p.m. on KCET and KVCR.

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.