Part 1 ======================================================= T H I N K I N G A B O U T E F F E C T I V E N E S S ======================================================= In thinking about the role of the media and access to information, a good starting point, I think, is to ask the following two easy questions: How many Americans out there are aware of the fact that, according to Amnesty International, the so-called Salvadoran ``death-squads'' are in fact made up of regular Salvadoran army and security forces, acting under orders, and who have murdered since 1980 on the order of magnitude of 1% of the civilian population? The second question is even easier: How many Americans would tolerate the current U.S. policy in that country if they were made aware of these facts? The central issue is the assertion that the primary -or, a primary- obstacle to achieving fundamental change is getting "the facts" out to the American public. Other such obstacles include the inherent power structures in America; however, not only are these structures related to the systems of information (or "info-tainment") delivery in place, which effectively pacify the population into accepting the truth and policies of the power-elites, but more basically, if we intend on changing these structures, a necessary first step is to have an informed populace which would be on "our side"; then we would have to face the obstacles of achieving the popular will which are present; but first and foremost the structures *controlling* the popular will need to be changed. So the assertion is that *information*, not a lot of "convincing arguments" is what is both necessary and, essentially sufficient to affect the necessary fundamental change, as suggested by the second question. In particular, what would be neither particularly necessary nor sufficient are strategies which do not directly channel information to the public; this includes writing letters to the editor, or sending news-clips to newspapers, and more generally attempts to "reform" the media. It isn't that reform is impossible, or that these strategies don't affect any positive change whatsoever. It is that the changes, the reforms needed are so deep, so fundamental -we are talking about changing such deeply rooted practices as having "respect" for (i.e., not questioning) authority, and the *defining* of what "news" is to be essentially what those in authority, those in power say, or do, or suggest- such fundamental changes would require years and decades, at least; and hence such a "reform" strategy is not what a rational Left ought to be engaged in while mutilated corpses continue to be regularly and unceremoniously dumped on the streets of the "democracies" which "we" support. As for this rejection of media "reform" (as a central strategy), it's worthwhile to consider why it is that the media has been and is so quiet about these "death squads" which are supported by their readers' tax-dollars; or, if they are interested in selling papers, why so quiet about about findings that 90% of their readers are paying more taxes than they did 12 years ago (while the very rich pay less) -- surely a selling issue. In emphasizing the assertion that getting information -this includes images of the consequences of US policy as well as human rights reports and interviews with any of a multitude of sources outside the narrow circle of "experts" and "leaders" which form the acceptable spectrum in the mainstream media- in asserting that getting "pure information" to the public is the primary obstacle, and the primary goal, as suggested by the two opening questions, it is perhaps useful to consider some substitutes for the first question; i.e., how would the public's acceptance of and reaction to US policies be different if they were aware of... * The overwhelming international acceptance of the fairness of the '84 Nicaraguan elections (or the assessment of $17 billion in damages against the U.S. by the World Court finding for Nicaragua)? * The US's standing vis a vis the rest of the western industrialized world in terms of infant mortality, or national health care, or use of the death penalty, or a multitude of other areas? * The extensive data documenting the massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich during the 1980s? * That according to many respectable (in the sense of the establishment) sources, $100,000,000,000 would be more than adequate for defense (how "radical" this proposed 66% cut seems, when >10% is "liberal" to "leftist" in the national arena of discussion?) * The details of the proposed covert operations "reform" bill; * Or that Ollie North, Rob Owen, the former US ambassador, and other Iran-Contra characters have been declared "persona non grata" by the Costa Rican legislature due to the criminal activities they were engaged in? Or the amble documentation of CIA involvement in drug dealing, assassination, etc, etc. Another point regarding effectively disseminating information is that even *within* the Left these avenues are very rusty, at best. I hadn't been made aware of the basic findings of Amnesty's report until I ordered the report myself; receiving leaflets from CISPES in college and other involvements in "activism" -even going to a lecture by Ungo- non of these had disseminated the essential information on the subject to me. Of course, we can't open every article on Central America or El Salvador with one of the key quotes from Amnesty, but other avenues need to be found -there's nothing wrong with including the statement and such references in each article, for example- and, again, it is this which is crucial, not writing lengthy, clever, "persuasive", or emotional articles (not that emotion should be eliminated by any means.) Another disturbing question is: what percentage of the progressive/liberal public invests or even knows about socially conscious money funds? All this relates to the observations that the American Left is fractured, disorganized, and ill- coordinated; that the overall situation is that most "components" of this Left, lacking coherent central communication, often have little or no idea as to what the other components are saying, or are up to. Finally, in regards to insufficient understanding of -or lack of attention to- the effects and functions of the mass media, there is lacking the sort of self-examination which evaluates the "bang per buck" of activism: how much effort X are we putting into a given project, and how much "results" Y are we getting in return? The following example illustrates this problem: ...the American Left continues to spend much of its resources on relatively unproductive actions, in the sense of not making gains on the central issues -e.g. "democratizing the media"- which must be dealt with before any structural, any fundamental change can be affected. An example of this is the well-intentioned March on Washington to commemorate Romero's assassination. Predictably, there was very little coverage, and what little coverage I heard told the gentle listeners what the protesters were commemorating, and, perhaps, that these marchers were demanding a cut-off in aid to El Salvador. Romero had been assassinated by "a suspected right-wing death-squad", the reports said, of course. In other words, zero percent of Americans hearing media reports of the event came out knowing *anything* about the basic reasons these people were out protesting, and why they were demanding a new policy, and which. The media was quite "safe" reporting what was being called for since the crucial information necessary to understand why a change of policy was called for was being suppressed. It is sad, then, to think of the amount of time, money, energy, and general resources that were put into that event, which could have gone towards pushing for fundamental change... The Left is spending, it seems to me, too many resources on trying to promote positive change through democratic avenues, democratic channels/institutions, which *do*not*, in fact, exist, to any meaningful extent. Resources need to be spent on *creating*, such democratic channels. The sad fact is, there *is*no* free press in this country, and so long as this continues, the minds of the public will continue to be under the strong influence of the elites (and the media's informational "filters"); they will continue waving flags as Panamanians are slaughtered; continue talking about the dangerous `communism' to be fought (i.e., the need to send `death squads' to take care of unruly peasants.) So long as this status quo -the monopolizing, distortion of, and insulation of the public from information (reality)- continues, *no* *fundamental* *change* can begin to occur. In particular, we must start viewing such actions as carrying signs and marching, and writing letters to the editor or to Congress (which are sometimes important, which sometimes do some good); these should be viewed as *symptoms* of the fact that there doesn't exist true democracy in this country today; if your government is spending your tax-dollars on mass-slaughter, and has been for years, and the most you can do about is stand outside with a sign or write letters, that's a symptom of the lack of real, genuine democratic channels for governmental response to the will of the people. That doesn't mean we pack up our bags and go home. It means we spend our time and energy and resources on *creating* democratic avenues; and in a country where the population is very efficiently indoctrinated, a key first step is to "de-program" the population, since creating democratic channels is difficult enough a challenge for an entire population when such don't exist, let along for a small minority. Finally, there is the tendency within the activist community to work on "issues" while ignoring the underlying, key power structures; if we get some form of National Health Insurance, how deep a victory is that likely to be if these power structures are in place, and hence will continue to protect their intere$ts, so that we know, a priori, that NHI would be undermined, just as environmental laws, on the books, have had some positive effect, but the intere$ts and power of corporations has meant the subversion of these laws... Laws alone don't equal progress; certainly not fundamental progress. Similarly for Gay rights, women's rights, etc; getting legal protection is important, but what is this in relation to the existence and perpetuation of the power/money concentrations and the elite circles which have the real power, which are not only protected by, but are effectively above the Law? Let's conclude with some concrete, albeit long-term goals with respect to the issues of cooperation and communication within the peace movement and getting information out to the public; and, inevitably, to talk seriously of these, the creation of the solid financial base (more about which in the second file) needed for any such major undertaking, especially outside the establishment. Concrete Goals: =============== 1)Increase ten-fold, say, the number of people who have access to alternative sources of information, e.g. PeaceNet, Ralph Nader's Citizen's for Tax Justice, Fairness and Accuracy In Media (FAIR) reports, Amnesty reports, foreign news sources, etc. For example, some specific goals: * Locally, then nationally, create *genuinely* "public" TV * A national progressive cable channel (on firm financial ground!) 2)Increase ten-fold the circulation of some progressive publications, e.g. The Nation, In These Times, Zeta, etc.; possibly a national progressive newspaper as well. 3)Increase ten-fold, say, the amount of money in development/ human-needs related (rather than profit-related) investments; e.g. increase significantly the amount of money held in socially responsible funds like Working Assets Money Fund, in Co-ops, Credit Unions, etc. It is critical that at the same time emphasis be placed on increasing democratic control (and democratic decision making mechanisms) over such funds. 4)More generally, increase substantially the financial pool available for activist/progressive projects/causes. 5)Create a central network allowing efficient communication within the progressive/peace movement and enabling efficient coordination of national actions/projects, while maintaining the autonomy of the various "components." HB, spring 1990 ------------------------------------------------------------------