"Honorable Intentions"

Published in Video Age International, October 2005

I understand that Corporations set out to make as much money as possible. I also understand that the Federal Government exists in order to serve the needs of the public. Broadcasters, hold a license in order to serve and inform the public in addition to making money. It appears that neither the "Feds" nor the "Broadcasters" are doing what they have committed to do.

Without exception, all commercial companies have the intention to increase business and reduce costs at the same time. It was no secret that is what they were to do for their owners or shareholders. As a rule, I have no problem with this.

It is apparent that the Bush administration has been dedicated to the "intention" of increasing the "revenue" to the richest Americans by dramatically reducing their taxes, (or as they now say) by instituting "tax reform" while decreasing the country's "overhead" by eliminating or reducing social programs, (invariably called wasteful programs). Simple isn't it? Sort of a Robin Hood in reverse, rob the poor in order give to the rich, and announce how everyone will benefit from these policies.

This has appeared to be the administrations goal, or "intention". Eliminate or sharply reduce those "Communist" programs started by the Democrats three quarters of a century ago. It does not require a graduate degree to notice itsy bitsy things like Social Security privatization, reducing Medicaid and such while going to war, rebuilding Louisiana and Mississippi and at the same time cutting taxes for those who need it least.

Like the scorpion when asked, "why do you try and kill people?" the scorpion replies," Because that is what I do". That is what the administration does, and "sells their intention" by using "Madison Avenue" slogans, and of course by directly and indirectly controlling broadcast televisions news divisions. (This is probably an unfair characterization, but what the hell)

There is one possible counterbalance to what the Federal government is doing, or has ever done in the last 50 years and of course it is broadcast television.

Have "licensed" broadcasters spoken out against the "disadvantage the poor and give the money to the rich policies" of this administration? Have they spoken out on other vital issues concerning our country such as a minor war that we continue to wage?

When no WMD's were found in Iraq please tell me which Networks covered the event in one or more documentaries? Is the issue of the FEMA collapse worthy of broadcast network examination? I know that the public would be upset if the networks pre-empted any of their valuable programs to the airing of investigative programs, yet I think that the public would get over it.

Would Bob Scheifer, Brian Williams, or Charles Gibson ask their owners (Viacom, General Electric, and The Walt Disney Company) to produce and air such programs? I think that they would love to do such programs, but I doubt that they could or would go "to the wall" over these issues. Do you think that the Fox Network (News Corp.) would even think of doing this?

In the late 60's and 70' the network news divisions were "at war" with the entertainment guys to obtain time periods for their documentaries. They won some, and lost some, but our country benefited from the battles that they won as well as the content that made it to air.

There has never been a more powerful "light" that can shine on issues, (or intentions), then over the air television. Knowing that the networks were "looking" at what was going on would alter the dynamic of government and politics in our country. I don't think that the congress or the administration cares what the New York Times says, but they would care what CBS, NBC, or ABC would say. Do you think that the transportation bill would have been as full of self- serving projects if the networks were reporting on the specifics of the bill?

The saddest part for me is my continued expectation that the networks would do this kind of reporting in order to fulfill their obligations. Why should they you might ask? My reply is because the stations are supposed to serve in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, and they don't. I would not expect this of General Motors, who own no broadcast properties, yet I would expect this of General Electric, who own NBC.

How naieve of me.

Norman Horowitz

Back to Articles