Robert McChesney, a professor of communication at the University of Illinois, has written the book that details the machinations of the oft cited “media conspiracy” and how it came to be.  However, this conspiracy is not “liberal” and I’m afraid that many of the people who believe in such a conspiracy are too dull-witted to read this book.  The bottom line is that “The media in the United States effectively represent the interests of corporate America” (29).
    McChesney incisively debunks many of the myths that Americans live by, myths that maintain the hegemony of the media “oligopoly.”  One of these myths is that the media itself—particularly journalism—serves a “watch dog” function in American society.  Through several lucid examples, McChesney demonstrates that the opposite is actually closer to the truth: in the last few decades journalism has been co-opted by a handful of billion-dollar media cartels (Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, News Corp.) and now, with few exceptions, does little more than aid and abet the dissemination of  “carpetbombing” advertisement and propaganda (49-63).  One of the goals of contemporary journalism is, in fact, to stifle intelligent public debate of meaningful issues.  McChesney even shows that politicians are at the beck-and-call of these media giants (the example of Prime Minister Tony Blair lobbying for Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. in Italy is illuminating).
     Another debunked myth is the oft-heard response of movie makers when they are told that their hit films are unoriginal and have little artistic merit: ie, “We’re only giving people what they want.” McChesney demonstrates that this was hardly the case even a few years ago, and uses the example of foreign films to underscore his claim.  By the late 1980s, “multiscreen cinemas [megaplexes] drove nearly all the one-screen theaters out of business, the very theaters that had specialized in foreign fare” (33).  Commercial carpetbombing and cross-market advertisement—especially those which are aimed at children—was crucial in this gradual market takeover, with the end result being that most young people neither appreciate nor know of many foreign films.  “The logic of the corporate media system is to draw everything into the commercial web and to use marketing principles to maximize profit” (36).  Considering the movie blockbusters of the past few years and their basic content, surfeit with product advertisement, the movie itself becomes “almost incidental” (39).  I truly believe that any person with any concern for real democracy in this country should (turn off the television and) read at least the first seventy-seven pages of McChesney’s book.
     In the second part of Rich Media, Poor Democracy, McChesney treats the influence of the corporate media in the world.  Here he debunks another notion that we hear all too frequently—that the free market or neoliberal model is the best, most egalitarian system for facilitating democracy and healthy competition.  In this light, we can better appreciate the ominous implications of the billion-dollar mergers we learn about on almost a weekly basis.  Very directly, McChesney points out the understated goal of the corporations which participate in the neoliberal market system: to, in fact, eliminate meaningful political participation and all competition.  “…the global media system plays a[n]…explicit role in generating a passive, depoliticized populace that prefers personal consumption to social understanding and activity, a mass more likely to take orders than to make waves” (113).  (This sorry state of affairs is illustrated perfectly by the current “gasoline crisis” we are experiencing in the Mid West.)
    And the Internet, often touted as a new, egalitarian “superhighway of information,” has already been co-opted by corporate media and will soon serve as another medium to relay advertisement.  Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a fundamental victory for corporate America, the(ir) media heralded it as a means of increasing competition and benefiting the consumer.  (When one takes a few seconds to think critically about it, Why would corporate America give their blessing to legislation that would create more competition between them?!)
    Perhaps the fundamental argument of McChesney’s book is that all channels of media—radio, television, the internet—were originally intended to be of, by and for the people, as Public Radio and Television are imagined to be.  Yes, believe it or not, the American people legally own the public airways.  (An interesting side-note is that, according to McChesney, the federal government actually gives more “corporate welfare” to media giants like Seagram, Disney, Time Warner than they do to PBS, and Congress often complains that the 15% funding which PBS receives from the feds is exorbitant.)  In the last part of McChesney’s book, he works from earlier research into what became the corporate takeover of the media in the 1930s.  This is the dirty little secret that the Rupert Murdochs, Ted Turners, Micheal Eisners and Sumner Redwoods of the world do not want people to learn of.  McChesney's book shows how perceptive the 1976 film Network ("I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!") was.  Indeed, we can no longer call that film a satire of big media—it's become an exposé.    In short, this is an extremely well researched, well-written and important book.  As Ralph Nader has said, “Rich Media, Poor Democracy is more than a prolonged wake-up call; it shames those who do nothing and motivates those who are trying to build a more democratic media that reflects the all-important non-commercial values which forge a just society.”

                            Tom Diaz.  Making a Killing:  The Business of Guns in America (New Press, 1998).

    Tom Diaz’s book is a chilling and convincing indictment of the gun industry and the pro-gun press that acts as their mouthpiece.  I read it in a single afternoon.  Making a Killing is a must-read for those who think that there are alternatives to concealed weapon (CCW) liberalization and that some industries will do anything to increase their profit margin, even at the expense of public safety.
     First of all, I thought that Diaz’s section explaining the difference in caliber and types of weaponry was very helpful (32-35).  Many gun advocates like confusing these definitions, in the public sphere and in legislative committees, to try and discredit those who oppose them.  Diaz’s explanation of how the semantics of “assault rifle” changed from the early 1980s to the early 1990s was illuminating (126-128).
    I was unaware of the ways that gun manufacturers exploit ties to law enforcement agencies.  After much lobbying to insure the criminals have access to high-power, compact weapons, they then go to the police to get them to trade in their six-shooters for pistols.  Gun manufacturers then buy the old guns and re-sell them, where they often wind-up in the wrong hands (146-148).  The conclusion is clear:  the gun industry intends to make its money by selling to both sides of the domestic arms race that they have largely created.  For anyone who ever wondered why the NRA and other groups have advocated the most illogical and ineffective gun laws imaginable, it is because they have a stake in making sure criminals are armed.
    Diaz’s analysis of the recent push to liberalize CCW (carried concealed weapon) legislation nationwide confirmed a lot of my suspicions.  After making sure there were too many guns in our society, they gun industry and their lobbyists tell us we need to arm ourselves from criminals.  The also stand to make more $$ by selling CCW accessories and by training classes.  The quote by Tanya Metaksa, a high-ranking NRA official, was particularly revealing:  “The gun industry should send me a basket of fruit—our efforts have created a new market” (168).  I often hear that CCW holders are “responsible law-abiders” who will make us feel much safer, but after reading Diaz’s descriptions of new buyers with absolutely no knowledge of firearms, and of “slob shooters” drinking beer as they fire their high-power weapons at the range, I’m not reassured (180-183).
    Finally, Diaz deserves a lot of credit for his in-depth research of the many gun magazines and the way in which they suck-up to the industry.  (And what reasonable person would even want to read such doggerel??)   His random analysis of 175 reviews of new firearms—where there was not a single negative review—was actually funny (55).  It seems that someone could cut a bar of soap into the form of gun, put some boot black on it (á la Woody Allen), and it would get an enthusiastic review in the shooting press.  Even when readers complain that they want an objective review, gun reviewers respond by saying “it’s fun to write a positive, up-beat piece about a product and pure drudgery to write a negative piece” (56).   I can hardly think of a better way to waste hard-earned money than to subscribe to these magazines.

I first saw Alfie Kohn during a debate on the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour.  I was very impressed by the conviction of his arguments, all of which flew in the face of current demands for “standardized testing” and “teaching the basics” that we hear so often in the public discourse on education.  These demands are described by Kohn as “top down coercion,” which makes a great deal of sense to me since the people we usually hear praising these pedagogical approaches are politicians, few of whom know a damn thing about teaching.  If they knew anything they wouldn’t be so obsessed with achievement and the administration of poorly conceived tests; these are the only measures of classroom activity that they can appreciate.  Kohn cites the former Wisconsin Governor (and now Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services) Tommy Thompson as saying that more and more testing is necessary or else “we don’t know what went into their heads” (62). Spoken like a true expert.  Not content to challenge just the politicians who would like to determine how and what children learn, Kohn also critiques researchers such as E. D. Hirsch (65-66).  Kohn also marshals an impressive array of new research to support his arguments.
    According to the contemporary education system, when a particular school demonstrates high test scores they are rewarded with more public education funding.  The other part of the equation—the schools who for a myriad of curricular, extracurricular and administrative factors have low scores—are penalized by receiving less funding.  Such a merit system, I believe Kohn would argue, is reflected on the level of the students themselves, who often make their way through their public school system and enter college without ever considering if they are actually learning anything (instead of simply attaining high scores).  Kohn writes, “…even when [students] are not being evaluated, they may have gotten in the habit of picking easy things to do…The pressure to perform has left its mark.  If they’ve internalized the imperative to get good grades, they’ll still be looking for the easiest possible courses when they get to college” (31).  Kohn also delves into the student’s psychology coming from an achievement-obsessed educational system: to explain his or her failure in a particularly class, a student may deliberately not study before an exam so that they have an excuse afterward.  Previously, when they were breezing through a class (probably with a lot of bland multiple choice testing), the student may have felt that they didn’t have to study before an exam because they were so “smart” (36).  Does this sound familiar?
    One of the most compelling sections of the book is where Kohn, for years a public school teacher, depicts the current state of public education.  “We are now living through what will surely be classified as a particularly conservative, even reactionary, era in American education” (6).  He sees the current era as a resurgence of “traditional” education models that invoke a “good ol’ days” vision of school that parents can more easily appreciate.  However, according to Kohn, while the traditional model has been prevalent throughout the twentieth century, it is never blamed for shortcomings in American education:  “if students aren’t learning effectively, it may be because of the persistence of traditional beliefs and practices…” (11).  The daunting challenges that face nontraditional models are the fact that the “tried-and-true” practices have a loyal constituency that thwarts reforms; and nontraditional education is very difficult to do and sustain (11).  Not content to simply describe the problems, Kohn dedicates the second half of his book describing in detail his vision of a productive nontraditional approach.  The brief appendix, “What to Look For in a Classroom”, should be Xeroxed and send to every educator in this country.  I must also say that Kohn writes with a lively, at times mordant, wit.  The Schools Our Children Deserve is more than a lot of facts (a “bunch o’ facts”), it is really quite funny in places.  For example, Kohn attacks the phonics approach to reading:  “Hooked on phonics is a joke.  Who gets hooked on the cr sound?” (71).  He characterizes the traditional manner in which teachers conduct class as “chalk ‘n talk”, “stand and deliver”, “the sage on the stage” (or, from the student’s point of view, “sit ‘n git”) (61).  My favorite Kohnism is found on page 55:  “In the Old School classroom, six-year-olds are handed worksheets and told to fill in the missing letters in one word after another (as in: w_ste of t_me).”
    Based on the philosophy of John Dewey, the great American educator, Kohn’s book is an energetic and convincing argument against the contemporary overemphasis on achievement, excessive standardized testing and the many traditional practices that have in fact led to many of the deficiencies in American education.  Yes, this book is vehemently against the contemporary "push for standards" and traditional education, but it also offers a viable (albeit labor intensive) solution.