'Nobility of capitalism.'(Pundit Watch)(Column)

Well, it's been quite a month. First, with a jubilant Magic Johnson on the cover of all the major newsmagazines (Newsweek had him as Superman bursting out of his fuddy-duddy Clark Kent disguise), AIDS became the happy disease. Newsweek's headline, IT'S MORE THAN MAGIC, suggested that some new medical hocus-pocus has made the AIDS catastrophe a thing of the past--especially if you have a good attitude. I'm sure glad Magic's return to the NBA has "dispelled gloomy myths about living with HIV" once and for all.

Then we got the Telecommunications Act of 1996--now don't glaze over on me, as the press has urged you to do. Not since NAFTA has a corporate giveaway of this magnitude received such superficial and skewed coverage. Quick--what do you think of when you hear mention of this bill? Could it be the provision that outlaws "indecency" on the internet? While front-page stories have focused on the "Communications Decency Act" and the already concerted efforts to overthrow this complete abrogation of the First Amendment, the big story was buried.

Why? Because telecommunications law is confusing and boring. Just ask David Brinkley. "Congress passed a huge, enormous, er, I guess, communications bill, is the best description of it," Brinkley informed his viewers. "It deals with television, telephone, lord knows what else. What will it do to us and for us?" (This is a direct transcript).

In case you, too, weren't sure about the impact of this bill, here's how communications expert George Will fielded the question: "It's going to make life more interesting, increase productivity, and expand freedom." It takes imagination to make this legislation sound like a cross between a Thai restaurant, a rowing machine, and the drug ecstasy.

Just after Sam Donaldson noted that "some people" (that's fussbudgets like you and me) worry "that the media moguls will end up with a monopoly of the whole thing," Brinkley cut off discussion and changed the subject. No need to get to the real heart of the story, which is that this new bill helps consolidate more and more media outlets into fewer and fewer hands. Since 1934, the FCC has restricted the number of radio and television stations individuals or corporations can own, both nationally and in local markets, to prevent anyone from gaining a monopoly of the airwaves. No more, my dears. (Oligopolies were always fine with the FCC, but monopolies made it look like maybe the government wasn't guarding the public interest.)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The various media mergers over the past decade have set the stage for this airgrab, but now it's legally sanctioned. There will be no more restrictions on the number of TV stations "any entity" can own, only minimal restrictions on the number of radio stations "any entity" can own, and such "entities" will now be able to own broadcast stations and cable franchises. Hence George Will's references to "freedom" and--I kid you not--the "nobility of capitalism." Brinkley brightened. "You mean," he said, finally grasping the government's message to the telecommunications industry, "you boys just work it out among yourselves." Bingo!

This leads us, of course, to the biggest surprise story for our nation's pundits this past month: Pat Buchanan's victories in the early caucuses and primaries. I know of only one journalist, The Nation's David Corn, who consistently warned readers about the power of Buchanan's economic populism. (Al Franken, in Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot, a book no home should be without, also predicted Buchanan's rise.)

Remaining completely oblivious to the boarded-up store fronts and declining standard of living throughout much of America, the pundits simply echoed the line that Dole was unbeatable. Ignoring the fact that Dole seemed to incur less excitement among the electorate than a pool of egg albumen, and remaining totally clueless about layoffs, downsizing, and corporate flight, most of the pundits were completely bushwhacked by Buchanan.

And boy, are they pissed. And scared. All of a sudden, Newsweek featured a three-inch-high scarlet headline, CORPORATE KILLERS, with the photos of CEOs and captions citing how many jobs they've axed. Inside, we also saw how much these guys make (hint: the gross national product of Kuwait). This would not have been a major cover story without Buchanan's success. This Week With David Brinkley invited Buchanan as the sole guest two days before the New Hampshire primary. Pit-bull performances by all of them--Will and Donaldson especially--were disastrous, confirming every suspicion most regular folks harbor about the privileged and insulated Washington press corps.

They baited Buchanan with old quotes from old columns, suggested he was a Nazi, and constantly interrupted him when he sought to answer their charges. But the story here isn't that Buchanan is a reactionary on every social issue--that's common knowledge. The real story is that the establishment press, in its utterly superficial coverage and/or outright promotion of NAFTA and GATT, and in its celebration of the bull market and our alleged "robust economy," assumed that everyday working people wouldn't care that the rich continue to get richer while the middle class (not to mention the poor) get poorer.

But Buchanan got his message out. Frustrated by this treatment, and responding to a charge that his proposed policies went against what business wanted, Buchanan warned that "American business is not going to run a Buchanan Administration. It's run too many administrations--it is too much in control of Congress--and controls too much of the decision-making in my party." Buchanan would "take the country back from $400,000 lobbyists." See, that's the problem with Buchanan--when he speaks like this, everyone knows he's telling the truth.

After he left, the pundits enjoyed a self-satisfied chuckle, with Will calling Buchanan's economics "the equivalent of creationism" and Donaldson noting, "Yeah, jobs are important," but not a big issue. Maybe not for him.

But when elitists control public discourse, and dismiss or deny the genuine economic fears of millions who see the world from a less privileged vantage point, they help pave the way for demagogues like Buchanan. Worse, in ridiculing his populism, they happily embrace the ongoing corporate sellout of America which, as Buchanan has discovered with lethal glee, is one of the least covered and most politically potent stories of the decade.