Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media

by Eric Klinenberg, Tom Weiner

A groundbreaking investigative work by a critically acclaimed sociologist on the corporate takeover of local news and what it means for all Americans
For the residents of Minot, North Dakota, Clear Channel Communications is synonymous with disaster. Early in the morning of January 18, 2002, a train derailment sent a cloud of poisonous gas drifting toward the small town. Minot's fire and rescue departments attempted to reach Clear Channel, which owned and operated all six local commercial radio stations, to warn residents of the approaching threat. But in the age of canned programming and virtual DJs, there was no one in the conglomerate's studio to take the call. The people of Minot were taken unawares. The one death and more than a thousand injuries.
Opening with the story of the Minot tragedy, Eric Klinenberg's Fighting for Air takes us into the world of preprogrammed radio shows, empty television news stations, and copycat newspapers to show how corporate ownership and control of local media has remade American political and cultural life. Klinenberg argues that the demise of truly local media stems from the federal government's malign neglect, as the agencies charged with ensuring diversity and open competition have ceded control to the very conglomerates that consistently undermine these values and goals.
Such "big media" may not be here to stay, however. Fighting for Air delivers a call to action, revealing a rising generation of new media activists and citizen journalists--a coalition of liberals and conservatives--who are demanding and even creating the local coverage they need and deserve.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Social Science, Sociology, History

352 pages, Hardcover

First published September 5, 2000

About the author

Eric M. Klinenberg is an American sociologist and a scholar of urban studies, culture, and media. He is currently Helen Gould Shepard Professor in Social Science and Director of the Institute for Public Knowledge at New York University. Klinenberg is best known for his contributions as a public sociologist.

Reviews

[Kirk Sinclair · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book contributed mightily to one essay in my own work, Systems out of Balance. The real pioneer in this area is Robert McChesney, whose main message is the threat of corporate controlled media to democracy. Perhaps because of this context I can't quite agree with some of the criticisms I see in some of the reviews on Goodreads, and I'll use those as a foil for my own.

While I don't doubt that Klinenberg shares McChesney's sentiment, I would say the overall emphasis is on the problem of media consolidation, more than the corporate control, though he clearly is bothered by the latter as well.

The book is a more engaging read than McChesney's initial, groundbreaking work. Perhaps because I have had some background I did not find it too long or involved but rather went through it rather quickly.

Klinenberg goes out of his way to demonstrate how media consolidation bothers both liberals and conservatives. Granted, the corporate control of media would bother liberals more but, once again, that is not the main point for Klinenberg so much as the consolidation. I can't help but feel there is a little thin-skinned reaction by those who might fault Klinenberg of liberal bias. My own research might provide some enlightenment here.

There are roughly the same amount of liberal and conservative bloggers out there. Beyond that, there are more conservative think tanks, interest groups, public relation firms and lobbyists. There are more programs to breed conservative journalists than liberal ones. In other words, supply heavily favors a conservative bias in reporting.

Ah, but what about demand? Corporations tend to be more conservative than liberal, so unless you hold an image of corporations as paragons of public virtue, they would demand more conservative reporting. Perhaps the demand from the American public could override this corporate demand, but polls suggest that the public leans more towards conservatism than liberalism.

So, either corporate media is being run by a bunch of incompetent fools, unable to work supply and demand to their advantage, or overall there must be at least a slightly conservative bias, despite the anecdotal evidence that cuts both ways. To the extent that Klinenberg uncovers this his "liberal agenda" would be in the perception of the reader and not the intent of the author.

The objection that with the Internet you can turn to any kind of news source you want, thus rendering less meaningful the problem of consolidation, fails to understand the power of the echo chamber. Let me attempt a different metaphor. There is a single bell ringing out a melody within a symphony. Yet there is a 30-piece horn section blaring away their own counter melody. Which is the one that gets ingrained in your head? Think tanks are now over a billion dollar a year industry, funded substantially by corporations, blasting away on the Internet like a trumpet section. Does a billion dollars get placed into their coffers each year unless they are very, very effective with their somewhat consolidated message?

[Mitchell Szczepanczyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a history of the politics of American media in the United States since roughly 1980, but with discursions far earlier, and ramifications deep into the future. It doesn't just paint a bleak picture; it describes those citizens and activists who have been working to improve things, and inspires readers to act.

The one complaint about this book is that it doesn't delve deeply enough into the issue; as someone who has worked very deeply on these issues, and as someone who personally knows many of the players mentioned in the book, there is a lot that this book missed. But that's understandable; the book is only about 300 pages long, and that's not enough to cover everything. Nevertheless, it tells plenty, and certainly helps tells the stories that badly need telling.

[Nicole · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although lengthy, I thought this book provided a detailed review of what has been happening to the American mass media in the past few decades. Klinenberg offers plenty of anecdotes, which are helpful in illustrating his point about mass media. The book was long, however, and being someone who was fairly unfamiliar with this "hot topic," it was slightly hard to follow due to being so complex and full of intricate details. Once I was able to sort through all of the details, I found that I liked the message he was sending.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media by Eric Klinenberg sounds the alarm about big corporate takeovers of local news stations so that they can use their formula for cost cutting by automating broadcasts with pre-programmed news, talk, and music programs that are no longer locally sourced. They attempt to sound local and in tune with the local community but often have almost no staff on hand to take calls with questions or even for emergency reporting, to the detriment of the listeners who are thinking they are listening to a live local broadcast. This has sometimes resulted in injuries or even deaths because warnings are not able to be sent out over the programmed content. Of course this has resulted in court cases as well as government action to heavily regulate the airwaves that may result in other unintended consequences. The author does a decent job highlighting the major players, from corporate giants to billionaire ideologues and the almost monopolistic hold they have on what the public gets to hear in some markets. He also describes how our choice in programming gets restricted by these big corporate players on radio, television, and even internet content often pushing an agenda. Everyone should be made aware of what is happening and who is behind it.

[Jeremy · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's something oddly unsatisfying about this book, which critically reviews the last 30 or so years of American mass media evolution/consolidation (radio, TV, newspapers, internet) and essentially argues that the U.S. should turn back the FCC's regulatory clock to 20 or 30 years.

It's not the history Klinenberg reviews that is dissatisfying - I too despise Clear Channel, TV news, Murdoch's News Corp and fear the loss of "net neutrality," and he marshals the facts ably - it's his conclusions.

He never seriously engages with today's great American media paradox: except for those who cannot afford an internet or cable connection, all of us have more options than ever -- despite nearly unprecedented corporate consolidation. Fighting for Air looks back at the 1950s and 60s as the golden era, when civic-minded families owned newspapers and radio stations and bolstered local communities.

That may be so, but to imply that we should or could return to that era - with three TV stations and maybe 10 radio stations on the dial - is silly. Most young Americans would be depressed and confused by such a small menu, even if they were friends with their local radio station's owner.

Sure, the FCC should reinstate the limits to single-market TV and radio ownership that Michael Powell pushed to abolish. But to argue that consolidation has led directly to the destruction of local civic life is myopic -- anyone with an internet connection now has more access to more media than ever before, and it's free. The internet is as guilty as cars, suburban commutes and canned TV news for the death of small-town life.

Murdoch will keep building his empire, but the fact that I can avoid it so easily is the reason Klinenberg's dire conclusions seem so overblown.

[Tayyab Baloch · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eric Klinenberg’s Fighting for Air takes us into the world of preprogrammed radio shows, empty television news stations, and copycat newspapers to show how corporate ownership and control of local media undermines American political and cultural life.

[Crysty · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robert Moses, Jane Jacobs, the Village Voice, Prometheus Radio Project, Houston Chronicle, Cox, ClearChannel, Gannett, 1996 Telecommunications Act, FCC and Sinclair all make appearances in this excellent history of media consolidation, starting with a case study of the communications disaster that unfolded in Minot, North Dakota when a syndicated (ClearChannel) radio station prevented emergency information about poisonous gas in a small town from reaching the airwaves. Published in 2008, its take on newspapers, television, and radio stations feels timeless, while its coverage of net neutrality and internet media is already (tragically) outdated - a fascinating but bleak read given all that has transpired since its publication. Example - hard not to laugh at Myspace and Friendster as the internet monoliths of choice.

A sample of quotes I appreciate:

Hofstader, speaking of Joseph Medill, editor and co-owner of the Chicago Tribune and onetime mayor of Chicago, who "wanted his paper to provide another public service, helping migrants and immigrants acculturate to the city and nation that would become their new home":

"Hofstadter described Medill's project eloquently: [The Newspapers] found themselves undertaking the...ambitious task of creating a mental world for the uprooted farmers and villagers who were coming to live in the city. The rural migrants found themselves in a new urban world, strange, anonymous, impersonal, cruel, often corrupt and vicious, but also full of variety and fascination... The newspaper became not only the interpreter of this environment but a means of surmounting in some measure its vast human differences." (pg. 20)

"Ask radio enthusiasts what makes the medium special: Done well, radio is personal, intimate, edgy, and local. It helps build communities and supports subcultures, with each station contributing distinctive sounds to the chorus on the dial. It entertains, delivering new music and fresh ideas. It provides essential news and information. It is a lifeline when disaster strikes." (pg 79)

"They are the sort of armchair critics that life passes by." - Michael Lacey

[Bobby Desmond · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a well researched history of the consolidation of American print, radio, and television as ushered in by technological advancements, corporate raiding, and the politics of the Bush administration. Although not the author’s fault, this books fundamental flaw is that it was written in the middle of the era of media consolidation and entirely leaves out the true impacts of the internet on that phenomena. Where the author is at fault is in inaccurately portraying blogs and other bygone methods of online communication as a way that journalists and every day citizens are successfully fighting back against Big Media. Anyone with access to Google can see that most of his champions of new media have crumbled in the decade and a half since this book was published. I’d be interested in another book by this author evaluating the last 15 years of media consolidation as ushered in by social media.

[Kathleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting book to read so many years after all of these battles took place, and yet still relevant in many ways. It's important to remember, despite how the narrative has been reframed, that consolidation and the need for large profit margins was already killing local news at the dawn of the internet age. Much as we might now blame social media for our current barren landscape, it's not even a player in this book which give plenty of time to the internet and blogs.

[Debra · Rating 4 out of 5]

As relevant today as it was in 2007. Kudos to Klinenberg for his continuing work in narrative sociological studies.

[Todd Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fighting for Air outlines the concentration of media ownership that has occurred in the US over the past half century. The government initially considered newspaper and later radio and television to be part of the public trust and intended that they be regulated in the public interest. Laws were passed that restricted monopoly ownership, ensuring that the media represented a diversity of views. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) formed by the Communications Act of 1934 has been actively seeking to weaken these rules ever since. For example, as early as 1995 a single company was prohibited from owning more than 40 radio stations. The 1996 Telecommunications Act removed restrictions on the number of stations that one company could own, and today Clear Channel owns more than 1,200. By way of another example, in the early-1980s 90% of the media was controlled by 50 companies. Today 90% of all media is owned by just six corporations. It should come as no surprise that this selling out of the public trust to corporate interests mirrors the larger sociological trend taking place at the same time … that of increasing corporate control of the US political process.

There are reasons to be concerned about this trend. Democracy can only be effective in the presence of an informed electorate through a vibrant exchange of ideas. Meaningful debate cannot occur in the absence of information or when information is presented that only reflects the interests of those who control the media (i.e. the wealthy and powerful). The subject of ‘media consolidation’ itself provides a perfect example of the blind eye that media casts on subjects it finds disagreeable. You would be hard pressed find any substantive news coverage outside of PBS in which this subject and its implications are critically examined.

Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture.
- Allen Ginsberg

Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.
- Noam Chomsky

Many, who acknowledge how poorly we are served by corporate media will look to the web as the true bastion of free speech. But, I would point out that:
1. Nearly 15 percent of U.S. adults don't use the Internet (roughly 45 million people, many of them elderly, poor and minorities).
2. People self-select information and views they already agree with when surfing the web. They are not exposed to differing opinions or consensus views that are contrary to those they already hold.
3. The media would like nothing better than to eliminate net neutrality and will certainly pursue aggressive measures to do so should a republican once again take control of the White House.

Klinenberg, an American sociologist and a scholar of urban studies, documents the alarming trend of media consolidation, its implications, as well as a few hopeful stories of grassroots activism that are attempting to empower citizen journalists. He concentrates, in particular, on radio broadcasting, which I found a bit weird since I haven’t listened to the radio since Howard Stern moved to satellite in 2006 (although I do podcast several NPR shows). I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that no one listens to radio anymore except old people and ditto-heads.

At any rate, Klinenberg focuses on the minute details of specific radio, newsprint and television mergers that have occurred over the years, and less on the social and democratic implications of said mergers. As a result I thought the text became bogged down in specifics and glossed over the bigger picture (i.e. too many trees not enough forest). I also became bored with Klinenbergs extended treatment of minutia. Here’s a little tip for reporters: just because you spent time researching something, doesn’t mean it’s worth reporting. In fact, sometimes it results in your larger point being buried beneath a mountain of trivial details. The book could have benefited enormously from the skills of a heavy-handed editor.

[Brayden · Rating 3 out of 5]

Klinenberg is a muckraker of the 21st Century. In this book he takes on the media industry, looking at how increased ownership concentration (largely a product of the 1996 Telecom Act) has affected the practices of local media. I was aware of some of the problems (e.g., non-local broadcasts faked as local, video news clips), but the evidence here is overwhelming. Even if you've never thought much about how the media business is negatively influencing the information and culture you consume, you will likely be outraged by something in this book. Klinenberg writes in a very accessible way and so you shouldn't fear that this is the voice of an elitist. Just the opposite, in my view.

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Engagingly written; tears apart my personal favorite whipping boy, corporations - in this case, big media of the likes of Clear Channel and the Murdoch empire - while offering some cause for optimism about ordinary people's ability to curtail their hegemony. Lots of things we should all know about media consolidation and its enormous effect on society.

[Corinne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has an incredible array of information. Fighting for Air covers the basics of why media is important for a healthy democracy and gives a ton of background on Low Power FM, the FCC, and media consolidation.

To get involved, check out:
http://www.stopbigmedia.com
http://www.freepress.net

[Mavis Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

At best books make me question why it is I do what I do. This book did tons of that. I seriously hate Comcast and Clear Channel now. Media conglomeration is the devil.

I knew that media conglomeration made me ill since it's been the death of local radio, etc. but the fact that it can so negatively effect democracy is frightening.

Loved this book. Going to meet the guy in less than a month.

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of super-important information here, but a pretty dry reportorial style mixed in with boilerplate rhetoric and too many extended quotes -- sort of like reading a dozen features in The Nation end-to-end, or an extended treatise on why you should eat your vegetables.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/Detail...

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone needs to read this book 2.

[Kristina Gibson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the most eye-opening book I've read all year. I suspected the harm that media conglomeration was doing, but had no idea of the extent. Pretty shocking.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well researched, but rather dry. Unlike the other two of Klinenberg's works I've read, this book had far less enthnographic research.

[Martha]

little local coverage; more prepackaged programming, including news; less emergency warning/action communications