Right-Wing Criticism

excerpted from the book

The Problem of the Media

U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century

by Robert W. McChesney

Monthly Review Press, 2004, paper

Right-Wing Criticism

p100

In commercial media, owners hire, fire, set budgets, and determine the overarching aims of the enterprise. Journalists, editors and media professionals who rise to the top of the hierarchy tend to internalize the values, both commercial and political, of media owners. 2 As one critic put it, at leading news outlets like the Washington Post and New York Times, "the batting average in elevating safe figures is one hundred percent. The chances of an eccentric editor reaching the upper branches of the tree are zero, and near zero for reporters." Editors who toe the party line can be given autonomy because those in power know it will not be abused.

In terms of organizational sociology, the commercial newsroom is not unlike the media setup in the old Soviet Union. The top editors at Tass and Pravda did not have armed KGB agents hovering over them to enforce the party line; by the time they hit the big office in Moscow, they had internalized the necessary values and could be trusted to police the system themselves. And, of course, they were rewarded for their compliance.

p103
The U.S. news media ... pays little direct attention to the political Left. The Left-not only genuine radicals but also mild social democrats by international standards-lies outside the spectrum of legitimate debate. What attention the Left actually gets tends to be unsympathetic, if not explicitly negative. Foreign journalists marvel at how U.S. left-wing social critics like Noam Chomsky, who are prominent and respected public figures abroad, are virtually invisible in the U.S. news media.

p105
[Bernard] Goldberg notes: "Edward R. Murrow's 'Harvest of Shame,' the great CBS News documentary about poor migrant families traveling America, trying to survive by picking fruits and vegetables, would never be done today. Too many poor people. Not our audience. We want the people who buy cars and computers. Poor migrants won't bring our kind of Americans-the ones with money to spend-into the tent.

p106
Russell Baker, legendary columnist for the New York Times, put the matter well in December 2003: "Today's topdrawer Washington news people are part of a highly educated, upper middle class elite; they belong to the culture for which the American system works extremely well. Which is to say, they are, in the pure sense of the word, extremely conservative.

p109
A study released by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University in 2003 concluded that so-called liberal newspapers are more open-minded and willing to criticize a like-minded U.S. president (that is, Bill Clinton) than their "conservative" counterparts would criticize George W. Bush. The study also found a "striking difference in tone between the two sides as well," with the conservative media using far "harsher" language to describe President Clinton and engaging in ad hominem attacks. "We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective," a senior writer at Rupert Murdoch's right-wing Weekly Standard admitted in 2003. "It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want...

p111
Right-Wing Political Campaign Against the Media

So why does the conservative critique of the "liberal" news media remain such a significant force in U.S. political and media culture? It certainly isn't the quality of the arguments. It is kept alive by hardcore political organizing. Launched in earnest in the 1970s by financial backers with deep pockets, conservative critics blamed the liberal media for losing the Vietnam War and for fomenting dissent in the United States. Pro-business foundations were aghast at what they perceived as the anti-business sentiment prevalent among Americans, especially middle-class youth who had typically supplied a core constituency. Mainstream journalism-which, in reporting the activities of official sources, was giving people like Ralph Nader sympathetic exposure-was seen as turning Americans away from business. At that point the political Right, supported by its wealthy donors, began to devote enormous resources to criticizing and intimidating the news media .40 This was a cornerstone of the broader campaign to make the political culture more pro-business and more conservative. Around half of all the expenditures of the twelve largest conservative foundations have been devoted to moving the news rightward. During the 1990s, right-wing think tanks, almost all of which were not established until the 1970s, were funded to the tune of $1 billion. By 2003, the Heritage Foundation had an annual budget of $30 million, 180 employees, and its own television studios in its eight-story Washington, D.C., headquarters.

p112
The campaign to alter the media has entailed funding the training of conservative and business journalists at universities and bankrolling right-wing student newspapers to breed a generation of pro-business Republican journalists. It has meant starting right-wing print media such as the Washington Times and the Weekly Standard and supporting existing right-wing publications such as the National Review, not only to promote conservative politics but also so that young journalists have a farm system to develop their clips. It also includes conservative think tanks flooding journalism with pro-business official sources and incessantly jawboning coverage critical of conservative interests as reflective of "liberal" bias. A comprehensive Nexis search for the twenty-five largest think tanks in U.S. news media for 2002 showed that explicitly conservative think tanks accounted for nearly half of the 25,000 think-tank citations in the news, whereas progressive think tanks accounted for only 12 percent. Centrist groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution accounted for the rest. The pro-business Right understood that changing media was a crucial part of bringing right-wing ideas into prominence and their politicians into power. "You get huge leverage for your dollars," a conservative philanthropist noted when he discussed the turn to ideological work. A well-organized, well-financed, and active hardcore conservative crew is pushing the news media to the right. As a Washington Post White House correspondent put it, "The liberal equivalent of this conservative coterie does not exist." As Senate minority leader Tom Daschle commented in 2003, "We don't come close to matching their firepower in the media."'

To the general public the conservative critique is not packaged as an effort by the wealthiest and most powerful elements of our society to extend their power, weaken labor and government regulation in the public interest, and dramatically lower their taxes while gutting the public sector, aside from the military. To the contrary, this conservative critique, much like the broader conservative political movement, is marketed as a populist movement. It is the heroic story of the conservative masses (Pat Buchanan's "peasants with pitchforks") battling the establishment liberal media elite. In this righteous war, as spun by right-wing pundits such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, and Sean Hannity, conservatives are the blue-collar workers (white, of course, though that is only implied) and self-made business leaders while the liberals are Ivy League snobs, intellectuals, hoity-toity limousine riders, and journalists who hold power. As one conservative activist put it, the contest over media is a "David and Goliath struggle."

p114
... a 2003 Gallup Poll found that 45 percent of Americans thought the news media were too liberal," while only 15 percent found them "too conservative."

p114
... the right wing of the Republican Party, typified by Reagan and now George W. Bush, has gained considerable political power while the Democratic Party leadership has become steadily more pro-corporate in its outlook. This means that editors and journalists who simply follow the professional code have much greater exposure through official sources to neoliberal and conservative political positions. The body of relatively progressive official sources used more frequently in the 1960s and 1970s is viewed today as irrelevant. The hallowed political center of officialdom has moved sharply to the right.

p115
... conservatives move easily in the corridors of corporate media. This conservative campaign has meshed comfortably with the commercial and political aspirations of media corporations. This is precisely what one would expect. Many prominent media moguls are hardcore, rock-ribbed conservatives such as Rupert Murdoch, John Malone, former GE CEO Jack Welch, and Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays. Although some media executives and owners donate money to Democrats, none of the major news media owners is anything close to a left-winger. Journalists who praise corporations and commercialism will obviously be held in higher regard (and given more slack) by owners and advertisers than journalists who are routinely critical of them. Media owners don't want their own economic interests or policies criticized. Murdoch's Fox News Channel, which operates as an adjunct of the Republican Party, is an obvious example of blatant corporate shilling, but the point holds at other outlets, too. Punditry and commentary provided by corporate-owned news media almost unfailingly ranges from center to right. According to Editor & Publisher, the four most widely syndicated political columnists in the United States speak from the Right. TV news runs from pro-business centrist to rabidly pro-business right, and most newspaper journalism is only a bit broader. Perhaps most important, the explicitly right-wing media are now strong enough and incessant enough to push stories until they are covered by more centrist mainstream media.

The upshot is that by the early years of the twenty-first century the conservatives had won the media battle. The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne termed this a "genuine triumph for conservatives The drumbeat of conservative press criticism has been so steady, the establishment press has internalized it." By 2001, CNN's chief Walter Isaacson was polling conservatives to see how he could make the network more palatable to them.

p116
A staple entrée in this diet is political talk radio-[Partisan radio went national in the late 1980s following the rise of satellite technology, toll free 800 numbers, and the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, which called on broadcast news to provide balanced viewpoints on social and political issues. Talk radio has not only stormed into prominence on the AM dial but it also "tends to run the gamut from conservative to very conservative," as one reporter characterized it. "There are 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts," the conservative activist Paul M. Weyrich boasts. "The ability to reach people with our point of view is like nothing we have ever seen before. "59 The right-wing dominance of broadcasting is demonstrated by the shift of groups such as Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media and Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum. Back in the 1970S and 1980s they crusaded for the Fairness Doctrine-which required broadcasters to present contrasting perspectives on politics as a way to battle liberal bias on the airwaves; since the ascendance of Rush Limbaugh et al. these groups now oppose the Fairness Doctrine.

By 2003, a Gallup Poll showed that 22 percent of Americans considered talk radio their primary source for news, double the figure of 1998. Every city has its own local Limbaughs trying to outdo the master on the pro-Republican political Richter scale. The Republican National Committee has a Radio Services Department whose sole function is to provide daily talking points to feed "the voracious appetite of conservative talk show hosts. 1112 Even in the liberal college town of Eugene, Oregon, for example, a 2002 study determined that 4,000 hours per year of conservative Republican talk shows and zero hours of liberal Democratic talk shows were broadcast on the local radio dial. Were foreigners never to visit the United States but only listen to a steady diet of its radio fare, they might imagine that Americans were overwhelmingly on the right wing of the political spectrum, that George W. Bush won the 2000 election by a near unanimous vote, and that the average IQ of those opposing President Bush was around 40.

p118
Partisan Coverage in Peace and War

The average American cannot help but be exposed to the noticeable double standard in the treatment of politicians and issues in the media, depending upon party and ideology. The fate of Bill Clinton and George W Bush reveals the scope of the conservative victory. A Nexis search ... reveals that 13,641 stories focused on Clinton avoiding the military draft but a mere 49 stories featured Bush having his powerful father use influence to get him into the Texas Air National Guard instead of the draft .Clinton's comment about smoking marijuana but not inhaling made headlines and monologues for weeks. His small-time Whitewater affair justified a massive seven-year, $70 million, open-ended special investigation of his business and personal life that never established any criminal business activity but eventually did produce the Lewinsky allegations. Rick Kaplan, former head of CNN, acknowledged that he instructed his employees to provide the Lewinsky story with massive attention despite his belief that it was overblown; he knew he would face withering criticism from the Right for a liberal bias if he did not pummel it. "I think if you$ look at the way Clinton s been treated, former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed said, "you'd be hard-pressed to say that the personal liberal ideological views of most reporters ... have somehow led to a free ride for Bill Clinton."

Bush, in contrast, had a remarkably dubious business career in which he made a fortune flouting security laws, tapping public funds, and using his father's connections to protect his backside, but the news media barely sniffed at the story. His questionable connections to Enron during his presidency-even at the height of the corporate scandal in 2001 and 2002-produced no special prosecutor and no media drumbeat for one to be appointed .61' His conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol barely attracted notice.

p120
The appropriateness of the U.S. invasion of Iraq hinged on the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and terrorists and Saddam Hussein's possession of usable stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Even though evidence for these claims bordered at best on the nonexistent, the charges were repeated ad nauseam in the news with little effort to examine their veracity. In-house weapons experts, presented on an hourly basis on cable news channels, provided little or no skepticism about the allegations and some even trumpeted their import.

The news media roundly praised the February 5 speech to the United Nations by Secretary of State Cohn Powell in which he laid out the Bush administration's case for war. As Editor & Publisher put it, "The media's unquestioning endorsement of Powell's assertions made invasion inevitable." Only in August did a mainstream U.S. journalist dissect Powell's contentions, and when Associated Press correspondent Charles J. Hanley completed his work, he "utterly demolished" Powell's presentation, according to Editor & Publisher editor Greg Mitchell

Precisely as the news media trumpeted reports of the successful invasion of Iraq, the Jayson Blair scandal hit at the New York Times, and media attention turned in that direction. How fitting that the "sin that led the list of his trespasses," according to a retired Times reporter, "was a fictitious description of the farm where Pfc. Jessica Lynch lived." The Blair scandal centered on transgressions around a trivial point. The much more important point that Jessica Lynch's capture and rescue had been greatly exaggerated by the military for the folks at home received only passing mention and never came close to scandal status. Lynch, to her credit, complained repeatedly that the military and the Bush administration were lying about her experience and turning her into a hero to generate popular support for the war, but no journalistic heads had to roll for letting that whopper spread far and wide. Even more striking was that another Times correspondent, Judith Miller, had relentlessly hyped the notion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-based on flimsy allegations and ignoring all evidence and logic to the contrary-in the months leading up to the invasion (and after). Yet her mistakes were not considered nearly as serious as Blair's crimes against journalism. No editors, nor Miller herself, feared losing their jobs over her dubious and overhyped reporting. The episode calls to mind C. Wright Mills's famous dictum about "crackpot realism." Small and trivial matters are ruthlessly and publicly monitored while high crimes built into the logic of the system are ignored.

p122
As early as the fall of 2003 it was obvious that news coverage of the Iraq war buildup, invasion, and occupation rank among the very darkest moments in U.S. journalism history. In November BBC Director General Greg Dyke denounced the U.S. news media coverage as "banging the drum" for war, in a manner that was intolerable for credible journalism." In September the Washington Post released a poll showing that 69 percent of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9/11 attacks. The administration had been linking Hussein to al-Qaeda and 9/11 in its efforts to generate support for the war, and the media had done a miserable job of correcting the record .12 One can only imagine what people would have thought about the news media and the government if, two years after Pearl Harbor, a majority of the American people believed that the Chinese had attacked the United States in December 1941. In what was not necessarily unusual, MSNBC contributed to the confusion. When airing a live news conference by Tom Ridge, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, about new al-Qaeda threats to the United States, a banner across the bottom of the screen read "Showdown with Saddam." In September, when the president finally admitted that there was no known link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, only three of the nation's twelve largest newspapers made the confession a front page story, and two of them (the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch's New York Post) did not cover it at all.

In October 2003 the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) released its study of Americans' attitudes toward the war in Iraq, their knowledge of the issues, and what media they consumed. It revealed that the more that Americans consumed commercial TV news coverage of the war, the less they knew about the subject and the more likely they were to support the Bush administration's position. This was especially true of viewers of Murdoch's Fox News Channel, but it applied across the board to commercial TV viewers .8 One can quibble with the accuracy of such a survey, but it was conducted by a reputable and mainstream organization. Even allowing for a significant margin of error, a more damning comment on the U.S. news media would be difficult to imagine, as it goes directly against what a free press is supposed to do in a democratic society Instead, it seems to follow the dictum Josef Goebbels had for the Nazi media: the more people consume, the less capable they are of being critical, and the more they will support the Nazi Party.

p124
As Paul Krugman noted in 2002;
In 1970 the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers had 0.7 percent of total income-that is, they earned "only" 70 times as much as the average .... But in 1998, the top 0.01 percent received more than 3 percent of all income. That meant the richest 13,000 families in America had almost as much income as the 20 million poorest households: those 13,000 families had incomes 300 times that of average families.

p125
In 2001, the International Labor Organization confirmed ... distressing long-term trend: workers in the United States were working more hours than they had for generations, and more than workers in any other industrialized nation, save the Czech Republic and South Korea. German workers, to give some sense of comparison, work on average 500 hours less per year-some three months' worth of 40-hour weeks!-than their American counterparts. All of this IS hardly conducive to civic participation.

p125
The political culture has shriveled as inequality has mushroomed. Some three-quarters of the U.S. House wins reelection by landslides, and no more than a fraction of the seats are seriously contested. One of seven members of the House runs for reelection without any challenger from a major political party. State and local elections are even worse. Nearly half of all state legislature candidates run without serious opposition. But elections are only part of the story. Political ignorance and uninvolvement have reached epidemic levels. Survey after survey shows an astounding-and growing-degree of public ignorance and apathy about the political system. A 1998 survey found that two in five Americans could not identify the vice president of the United States, while two-thirds could not identify their representatives in Congress.

Voter turnout rates in presidential years have plummeted over the past forty years-from nearly 70 percent of eligible voters in 1960 to just over 50 percent in 2000-and the figures fall precipitously in nonpresidential election years and among poor people and young people. It is not unusual today to have elections decided by fewer than 20 percent of the adult population. Whether one votes is best determined by one's income level; the richer one is, the more likely one is to vote As Thomas Patterson puts it, "When you compare the low turnout rates in the United States and Europe, most of the explanation for the difference comes in looking at how it works across class lines ." Young people, too, barely evince any interest in electoral politics; in 1998 and 2002 only around 12 percent of those 18-24 voted.

p126
... press coverage strongly emphasizes the "spin" politicians deploy, endless analyses of polls, and predictions of winners rather than issues. This inexpensive journalism is easy to fashion into both serious and entertaining reports .97 A 2000 study by the Project for Excellence in journalism of forty-nine major television news stations concluded that 93 percent of the presidential campaign stories "were about the horse race or tactics of the campaign, as opposed to what the candidates stood for [or] how their proposals might affect people locally. 1198 Television news, fed by sound bites and video clips, is not the sole culprit. The venerable New York Times, for example, in a lengthy profile of Senator John Edwards following the announcement of his presidential bid, focused on how Edwards packaged himself, not on his platform. Aside from ignoring the issues, the emphasis on spin and tactics also encourages a certain cynicism about politicians and politics.

Every bit as damaging to the body politic has been the paucity of electoral coverage. In our depoliticized culture, journalism simply devotes far fewer resources to campaigns and elections than it has historically. A 2002 study of television news in the fifty largest media markets found that only 37 percent of the stations studied carried any electoral coverage. Nearly half the stories dealt with governors' races, while only 5 percent focused on races for the House. In the week before the 2002 election there was scarcely a word about it on the local TV news in Columbus, Ohio; instead, viewers were regaled with news stories on "a topless car wash, shopping bargains, and senior citizens who don't understand safe sex. 11102 Even formal candidate debates are not routinely televised. A study of the 2000 election by Curtis Gans found that 60 percent of candidate debates were not televised at all, and almost one-half of those that were televised appeared on public broadcasting stations. Accordingly, candidates tend to obsess on fundraising for paid ads. As "the ability to attract so-called free media has pretty much disappeared," one scholar observed in 2002, "candidates spend next to no time doing public events. They don't go talking to people. They don't do the kinds of visits to public fora that they used to, because they know it's a total waste of time."

This is what one would expect when the broader operations of government get less coverage as well. "In my thirty-five years in politics," Representative Barney Frank commented in 2003, "one of the things that makes me saddest is that I've seen a deterioration of the coverage of government in the media." "What we have now is an increasingly uneducated public-especially in what used to be called civics-dealing with ever more complex issues with which they are unequipped to knowledgeably deal," scholar Gary Brechin warned. "We have a population ripe for manipulation by powerful public relations firms and political consultants who are expert in sound bites and seductive imagery.

It is in this context that paid TV political advertising has become the lingua franca of the electoral culture, and a massive industry in its own right. Funds spent on TV political advertising increased from around $210 million in 1982 to $410 million in 1994 and to more than $1 billion in 2002 b07 Adjusting for inflation, the amount spent on TV political spots increased 600 percent from 1972 to 2000.108 Over the past decade the rate of increase in TV political ad spending every four years has been on the order of 40 or 50 percent. It more than doubled from 1998 to 2002.

p128
This juggernaut of TV political advertising has significantly molded U.S. electoral politics. For starters, political advertising has replaced press coverage as the main vehicle by which candidates are exposed to the citizenry. In 2002, for example, a viewer was four times more likely to see a political ad during a TV newscast than to see an election-related story, and this does not even factor in the torrent of political ads during all other programs.", "The picture of politics has become all ads, all the time," Paul Taylor observed in 2000. TV political advertising has become a cash cow for commercial broadcasters; an election can be the difference between making a profit or going into the red. The average commercial television station earned 3.8 percent of its ad revenues from political ads in 1992; by 2002 that figure approached lo percent. Cable system operators (e.g. Comcast, Time Warner and Cox) want to get in on the gravy train, too. They aimed to have political advertising account for 12 percent of their advertising revenues in 2004.119 This means that commercial broadcasters and cable companies have little incentive to provide free coverage of candidates during their newscasts or debates; they certainly don't offer free publicity to beer or soft drink manufacturers.

In short, money explains the decline in TV news election coverage. A survey of late-night local TV news coverage in Los Angeles in the fifteen days prior to the 1997 mayoral election found almost no time devoted to the election (although there was time for coverage of skateboarding dogs and Easter egg-hunting chimpanzees). The NBC and CBS stations devoted a combined 5 minutes to the election, while campaign ads during their newscasts totaled 23 minutes-four times as much advertising as reporting. A study of the candidate coverage on 122 TV stations for the seven weeks prior to the 2002 election found that just about half of them "contained no campaign coverage at all." Half of the coverage that did exist came in the last two weeks and focused on strategy and polls." Money also explains why commercial broadcasters are the most important lobby that opposes campaign finance reform. Moreover, in TV news coverage of campaign finance issues, the corporate media lobby's role in torpedoing campaign finance reform is rarely, if ever, mentioned. That this cash windfall comes to networks over the publicly owned airwaves for which they ' pay the public not one penny is another matter rarely mentioned.

Even the print media, which do not benefit directly from political advertising all that much, find their coverage hinged to what candidates are proclaiming in their TV ads . As considerable research (and almost any sober anecdotal observation) concludes, the veracity of the information in these political ads tends to be low. Many candidate ads would not be permissible by law if the candidates were instead hawking commercial products. So misleading are the ads that a considerable disconnect has emerged between what candidates proclaim in their ads and what policies they pursue once in office.

p130
The turn to TV advertising also dramatically raises the cost of political campaigns. The average cost of a successful campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives increased from $87,000 in 1976 to $840,000 in 2000, a dramatic increase even after accounting for inflation. The better-funded candidate won the House race in 2000 95 percent of the time.

p130
In 2000, TV political advertising accounted for 52 percent of all the money spent on Senate campaigns, and if the largely uncontested races are removed ...the figure would shoot up closer to 60 or 65 percent .

p131
This massive increase in campaign costs has only magnified the degree of corruption in U.S. governance. Politicians are now obsessed with fund-raising, and it serves as the main prerequisite for success.

p131
In the election cycle ending in 2002, a mere one-tenth of one percent of Americans provided 83 percent of all itemized campaign contributions, and the vast majority of these individuals came from the very wealthiest sliver of Americans.

p131
In this "wealth" primary ...96 percent of Americans ... never give a campaign contribution ...

p132
In the 1950s, corporations paid 25 percent of federal tax dollars; by 2001 the figure was down to 7 percent. Similarly, the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans has fallen from 91 percent in the Eisenhower years to 38 percent by 2002.

p133
"There's no longer any countervailing power in Washington," former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote in 2001. "Business is in complete control of the machinery of government." Bill Moyers concurs: "In no small part, because they coveted the same corporate money, Democrats practically walked away from the politics of struggle, leaving millions of working people with no one to fight for them. "

p135
The Supreme Court decision in December ... handed the election to Bush. This was an extraordinary decision and mostly incomprehensible by constitutional standards.

*****
Hypercommericalism

p166
Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy over forty years ago ...

It is sometimes argued that advertising really does little harm because - no one believes it anymore anyway. We consider this view to be erroneous. The greatest damage done by advertising is precisely that it incessantly demonstrates the prostitution of men and women who lend their intellects, their voices, their artistic skills to purposes in which they themselves do not believe...

p167
The type of "democracy" that grows out of our current commercially drenched culture-at its best-is one with little room for participatory governance. In it people have the "freedom" to pick from commercial options provided to them by marketers. A 2002 newspaper advertisement extolling the status quo by the advertising industry PR group, the Advertising Council, stated it clearly:

By deciding to continue reading, you've just demonstrated a key American freedom-choice. And, should you choose to turn the page, take a nap or go dye your hair blue, that's cool too.

Because while rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press get all the attention in the Constitution, the smaller liberties you can enjoy every day in America are no less important or worthy of celebration.

Your right to backyard barbecues, sleeping in on Sundays and listening to any darned music you please can be just as fulfilling as your right to vote for the president. Maybe even more so because you can enjoy these freedoms personally and often .

The Ad Council's view of freedom could serve as the Magna Carta for Madison Avenue's new world order.

The Problem of the Media

Index of Website

Home Page