Aldous Huxley wrote: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers. But their methods are still crude and unscientific." But that was written in 1946, half a century ago ... __________________________________________________________ LEARNING TO LOVE BIG BROTHER by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman San Francisco Bay Guardian, Jan. 19, 2000 A new century calls for new thinking: More mergers, please! BRING 'EM ON. A few years --even a few weeks-- ago, we might have opposed the AOL-Time Warner merger. But now we're ready to leave 20th-century thinking behind. We recognize that this merger has "synergies that make some observers drool," as the Wall Street Journal explained. AOL will highlight "InStyle" magazine? Moviefone will pitch Warner Bros. movies? Time Warner will include AOL disks in promotional mailings? That's progress, baby! In the past we might have echoed the concerns of those who worried that the merger might interfere with open access to high-speed Internet connections. AOL has been a leading proponent of open access -- meaning those who control high-speed Internet access through cable systems or other means don't have the power to discriminate against Internet service providers that they do not control or favor. In buying Time Warner, AOL suddenly acquires one of the largest cable systems in the country, and gains a material interest in opposing open access. But that's OK. We're satisfied by AOL's verbal commitment that it will voluntarily permit open access in the cable systems it will control (though Time Warner currently has contractual obligations through 2001 to favor Roadrunner Internet service). A few months ago we might have agreed with media critics like George Gerbner, who say that Goliaths like AOL-Time Warner undermine media diversity because they are so big that they'll have a vested interest in almost any issue. Now, we say, "C'mon George." AOL Chief Steve Case says he understands and is eager to learn more about the importance of journalistic integrity. Not along ago we might have sympathized with the views of Robert McChesney, author of "Rich Media, Poor Democracy": "This is the last nail in the coffin for anyone who believed that the Internet is the last stronghold of media competition." Now we tell Bob to get over it. The Internet's still a free medium -- hey, AOL-Time Warner isn't stopping us from sending this column. And you want media democracy? Broadband CNN news content will be distributed on AOL Plus! Just a short time ago we might have noted the consensus that the AOL-Time Warner merger will spur a slew of new media and Internet consolidations ("It's what the future is," a chief executive who runs theme parks and a movie studio told the Washington Post. "It sure feels like you need to be bigger -- bigger yet"), and urged that antitrust authorities block the merger to prevent this trigger effect. Now we say, "More mergers? That means more synergy!" (As the late Walter Adams --one of the leading critics of corporate giantism-- said, no merger was ever announced without a ritual incantation of the synergistic gains to be realized.) More mergers are exactly what we need. Microsoft needs a media company to compete. It is already partnered with NBC, so we figure it should buy NBC. General Electric currently owns NBC; Microsoft might as well buy GE too. And as long as it's on a buying spree, it seems highly inefficient to have two major multinationals based in Seattle. Microsoft should purchase Boeing. And once you have planes, you might as well get cars. We recommend they then buy G.M., Ford and Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota and the rest. Meanwhile, it is obvious that with the oil companies facing a serious political challenge on the global warming issue, they need their own voice. We recommend they purchase Disney-ABC. Of course, that would be after Exxon-Mobil finishes buying B.P.-Arco and the other oil companies. With oil naturally come chemicals (DuPont, Dow, etc.), and with chemicals come pharmaceuticals. They should all gravitate to the Exxon-Mobil-Disney pole. Don't worry about competition; the oil companies still face competition from other energy sources, like the food companies. Speaking of which, with the chicken, beef, and pork processors all rapidly consolidating, the grain traders merging, the seed business quickly moving toward monopoly, supermarkets combining, and food processors growing larger, it is time to speed the process of creating a single food company. Let's call it Philip Morris -- already the largest food company in the United States. The food-tobacco company probably should consider merging with AOL-Time Warner. Just think of the synergy of ordering all your food through AOL! Among the major U.S. media companies, that leaves Viacom-CBS in need of some strategic partners. The merger with AT&T --once it has joined with MCI Worldcom-Sprint, and the already combining Baby Bells-- seems obvious: a pairing of leading cable companies to gain efficiency. Then there's Wal-Mart and the other major retailers. They need a major Internet presence. Hook them up with the AT&T-Viacom combine, and throw in Yahoo! and Amazon.com for a little bit of Internet spice. Sadly, for now we have to leave out perhaps the most synergistically minded industries: finance (including banks), insurance, and securities firms. There are endless potential benefits from getting these operations merged with Internet firms -- but current law blocks combinations between financial companies and those in the real economy. Maybe Congress can tend to that problem this year. Until then, our major concern will be this: can the economy really survive with the inefficiency of four competing companies? Aren't there synergies to be gained from combinations among the four corporate groups? Steve Case, Bill Gates, take us to the future! _________________________________________________________ "And so it was written: One will stand alone; And it convinced all it was good." by Norman Solomon San Francisco Bay Guardian, Jan. 19, 2000 ... And so, early in the year 2000, it came to pass that visions of a seamless media web enraptured the keepers of pecuniary faith as never before. A grand new structure, AOL Time Warner, emerged, while a few men proclaimed themselves trustees of a holy endeavor. They told the people about a wondrous New Media world to come. Lo, they explained, changes of celestial magnitude were not far off. A miraculous future, swiftly approaching, would bring cornucopias of bandwidth and market share. A pair of prominent clerics named Steve Case and Gerald Levin gained ascendancy. Under bright lights, how majestic they looked! And how they could preach! Announcing unification, they seemed to make the media world stand still. Reporters and editors gasped. Some were fearful, their smiles of fascination tight. Others bowed and scraped without hesitation. In keeping with the dominant creeds of the era, believers in the divine right of capital asserted that separation of corporate church and state was an anachronism. A torch had been passed to a new generation. Media monarchs would rule with unabashed fervor, while taking care to help regulate mere governments. The power of the new theocracy promised to be unparalleled. On Jan. 2, 2000 --just one week before the portentous announcement-- the chief prelate of Time Warner alluded to transcendent horizons. Global media "will be and is fast becoming the predominant business of the 21st century, and we're in a new economic age, and what may happen, assuming that's true, is it's more important than government," Levin said on CNN. "It's more important than educational institutions and nonprofits." He went on: "So what's going to be necessary is that we're going to need to have these corporations redefined as instruments of public service because they have the resources, they have the reach, they have the skill base -- and maybe there's a new generation coming up that wants to achieve meaning in that context and have an impact, and that may be a more efficient way to deal with society's problems than bureaucratic governments." The next sentence from the moneyed prince underscored the sovereign right of cash: "It's going to be forced anyhow, because when you have a system that is instantly available everywhere in the world immediately, then the old-fashioned regulatory system has to give way." To discuss an imposed progression of events as some kind of natural occurrence was a convenient form of mysticism -- long popular among the corporately pious, who were often eager to wear mantles of royalty and divinity. Tacit beliefs deemed the accumulation of wealth redemptive. Inside many temples, monetary standards gauged worth. A little more than half a century earlier, Aldous Huxley had predicted, "The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored inquiries into ... the problem of making people love their servitude." To a lot of ears, that sounded like quite an exaggeration. "There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old," Huxley foresaw. He observed that "in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers. But their methods are still crude and unscientific." That was in 1946. In 2000 there wasn't much crude about the methods of Steve Case, Gerald Levin, and others at the top of large corporate denominations, heralding joy to the world via an inescapable media presence. Two days after disclosing plans for unification, Case assured a national PBS television audience, "Nobody's going to control anything." Seated next to him, Levin declared, "This company is going to operate in the public interest." Such pledges, invariably uttered in benevolent tones, were the classic vows of scamsters claiming to have the most significant gods on their side. In this way a hallowed duo, Case and Levin, moved ahead to gain more billions for themselves and maximum profits for some other incredibly wealthy people. By happy coincidence, they insisted, the media course that would make them richest was the same one that held the most fulfilling promise for everyone on the planet. [A transcript with audio of Norman Solomon on a "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" panel, discussing the AOL-Time Warner merger, is posted on the PBS Web site, at www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/ jan-june00/aol_01-10.html]
