Barack and Rush

As reported by Broadcasting & Cable, last week Barack Obama's press secretary, Michael Ortiz, said in response to the trade magazine's inquiry "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters."

The Fairness Doctrine issue bubbled up recently after reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was thinking about reinstating it, but reinstating it is a sensitive topic with conservatives and Republicans, who fear that Democrats will use it to try to muzzle conservative talk radio, which bloomed after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed and the wingnuts realized they no longer had to be fair.

It's ironic that this week the King of Wingnuts, Rush Limbaugh, signed the richest contract in terrestrial radio history -- $400 million dollars. This announcement of Limbaugh's contract extension through 2016 with his syndicator, Premiere Radio, and giant radio station owner, Clear Channel, came the same week as an 8,000 word article in The New York Times Magazine. A good week for radio's biggest star.

If the Fairness Doctrine had not been repealed, Limbaugh's monster contract and enormous wealth would not exist. So one would think that Democrats and liberals would want the Fairness Doctrine reinstated in order to muzzle Rush and other conservative talkers on terrestrial radio.

However, according to Wikipedia, the Fairness Doctrine:

"...did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials."

Thus, if the doctrine were reinstated, stations would just put on liberal talk shows for a couple of hours a day and claim they were being fair and balanced by putting on opposing viewpoints. And, of course, this would not muzzle Rush at all, but give him something more to rant about. No liberal talker, with the possible exception of Al Franken on Air America, ever came close to being as entertaining as Rush, so until a Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or a cleaned up Chris Rock decides to take him on, Rush will continue to bring in the ratings and earn his $50 million or so a year.

Barack was right to dismiss the Fairness Doctrine issue. The doctrine might have been a good idea when it was imposed on broadcasters in 1949 as a result of anti-Communist hysteria, but it became outmoded and too cumbersome to implement and police, in addition to being unconstitutional. The FCC was right to abolish it in 1987, and the ascension of unregulated cable and satellite radio and television and the Internet make the Fairness Doctrine a dinosaur that need not be brought back to life for the amusement park that is the diverse media of today.

I'm sure Barack understands these realities -- he's certainly no dummy -- and he also understands that Rush is no fan of John McCain's maverick Republicanism. So Rush might be doing Barack a favor by hurting McCain. There are two ways to win a race -- run faster than your opponent or cause your opponent to run slower. Either will do for Barack.

It seems that both Barack and Rush know what's good for them -- the absence of the Fairness Doctrine.

Comments

[marye13]

It should be reinstated.

[CharlesWarner]

You make a good point, newsreader64, about AM radio being so pervasive. In the late 1920s the Federal Radio Commission (the forerunner to the FCC) allocated the electromagnetic spectrum so that every inch of the U.S. could be reached by three 50,000-watt clear channel AM stations (there were no FM stations at the time) at night, and AM radio still blankets the country. However, today there are few counties in the US that cannot receive several FM signals and at least one TV signal, and those that cannot are isolated and sparely populated.

AM stations that reach these isolated areas often carry Rush Limbaugh and other conservative opinion talk programming, but that biased point of view does not necessarily bleed over into news programming, which is typically provided on AM stations by a network or news organization such as CNN, AP, CBS, or ABC. People can get free relatively unbiased news in rural areas.

[newsreader64]

So, therefore, those listeners receive 5 minutes of "unbiased news," 10 minutes of ads and 45 minutes of Rush, Hannity, etc. dutifully parroting the RNC's talking points for the day. Every day.

The right wing takeover of the entire AM frequency spectrum is an outrage and argues loudly for the need for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.

[newsreader64]

Mr. Warner has it wrong -- he fails to recognize that access to the media amusement park he describes is not free, but AM radio is.

The diverse media he describes is out of reach for those who can not afford cable TV. Millions of Americans depend SOLELY on AM radio for their news. They may live in rural areas unserved by newspapers where very often a single AM station is their only way to access news. They cannot plug into the Internet or satellites or turn on CNN, they can't afford it. But even the poorest Americans have AM radios.
The owners of AM stations were once obligated under the Fairness Doctrine to provide those listeners with balanced views as a public service. As the result of the doctrine's repeal, millions of these Americans have for two decades been exposed to a steady stream of relentlessly partisan broadcasting. Entire AM stations are devoted solely to parroting the Republican National Committee's Democrat-bashing talking points for the day . Little wonder the party does well where significant portions of the population are served by exclusively conservative, Republican broadcast outlets.

Reinstating the Doctrine would expose millions of Americans to more balanced political views by requiring that time be provided to rebut the false, hateful and partisan ideology spewed on nearly all for-profit AM stations. How Obama could oppose this troubles and confuses me.

[MaryT63]

I don't believe it is the Fair Doctrine issue that have given rise to Rush and his ilk. I read somewhere that it was the deregulation of ownership of our airwaves where the Sinclair's and Clear Channel's can buy up many, many radio stations thru the country and piped in the Rushes from one central location. Many, many local radio stations have no community programming at all.
I hope someone speaks to that issue. That's where the truth lies - big corporations owning what message gets broadcast to the masses.

[CharlesWarner]

Conservative talk radio did blossom after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine -- that 's a matter of record. However, you are correct that conservative talk radio spread much more rapidly tha nit would have otherwise because of large corporate owners, such as Clear Channel, carrying Rush Limbaugh. Radio deregulation occurred in 1996 when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act that completely eliminated the previous cap on radio station ownership and increased the cap on television station ownership. Rush Limbaugh's program is syndicated by Premiere Radio and is distributed (sold) to any station that will pay for it -- and the price is high.

Clear Channel has not done a good job of serving local communities, as you point out, but I believe that is a Clear Channel's fault, not the fault of deregulation. Some large group owners serve their local markets well. Cox Radio stations come to mind, as do many CBS stations.

There are some locally owned stations that do an excellent job of serving the community and some that do a terrible job. It's more a case of who the owner of a station, not a blanket good-bad, either-or case of local vs. corporate ownership.

[not one of the sheep]

Station owners are going to slate show that are listened to and produce a profit. It is not the fault of the consevative talk shows that there are no interesting or entertaining progressive talk show hosts that can compete them. People would listen is there were some but bellyaching and crying about it and trying to regulate what the people must listen to is too much like pravda, comrades. To insinuate that LImbaughs opinions are all lies and inuendo is childish reveals the lack of integrity on left to reinforce their stances. Obama is totally correct in not backing a position of government subversion of our constitutional rights. Nice move to the center O.

[Boris]

The definition of the Fairness Doctrine: It was designed to prevent Public Airwaves from being used to spread lies and propaganda about other Americans. The only thing the Doctrine says is, theoretically, 'if you lie about another person on the PUBLIC airwaves, that person has the right to answer your lies.' They can now tell people you are a child molester, a secret terrorist, a wife beater, a public urinator... and unless you own your own media outlet, you have little recourse besides a lawsuit and you know how long those take to get settled.

So long as you use the broadcast spectrum, you have an obligation to use it 'fairly.'

There is a 1980 copy of the FCC rules in which the basis for recourse are laid out, including conditions for equal time. I doubt if Codeine boy has read them or Rupert, for that matter. The law, I think, was designed to rein in lunatics like Father Coughlin who made outright deceptive statements about public figures and ordinary citizens.

By the way, the entire case for ending tobacco advertising in the electronic media was based on a lawsuit that would have required tobacco companies to allow 'equal time' to tell the truth about emphysema, lung cancer, addiction, etc. It makes me wonder how much money RJ Reynolds gave the idiot prince, Reagan, to dump this provision.

[gtalkspolitics]

i WANTED TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND BEFORE FORMING AN OPINION SO I LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH FOR 2 DAYS WITH AN OPEN MIND JUST AS I SUSPECTED RUSH HAS VERY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY AND LIES, HE IS JUST AS LIMITED AS A LOT OF THE FOX NEWS TALKING HEADS, IF RUSH LIMBAUGH WAS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN DRUG USER WOULD HE HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN AND OFFERED AN $400MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT... WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND WOULD LISTEN TO ANYONE SUPPORTING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AFTER 8 YEARS OF THIS MESS.
RUSH AND THE GANG SCARED RURAL AMERICA BLUE COLLAR WORKERS HILLARY SUPPORTERS ETC.., INTO VOTING FOR GEORGE BUSH TWICE . AND NOW WE SHOULD TAKE THE ADVISE OF THIS DRUG USER AGAIN..?

[eden4barack08]

I agree with you, but without caps please.

Rush is there for the uninformed, bigot listeners. The sad thing is there are too many of them for a supposedly "civilized", 1st world country!

[CharlesWarner]

Of course Rush is not fair. Of course he lies. He does these things because he can get away with it. But don't worry. He's an entertainer that has a lot less clout with the voting public than you think.

[ohiomark]

Your first mistake was using WikiPedia for a definition or explanation of the so called "Fairness Doctrine".

WikiPedia can't be trusted for accuracy because anyone can edit it, but I'm sure you already knew that.

I don't believe for one minute that Obama wouldn't reinstate the Fairness Doctrine if he is elected. He has been known to change his mind alot lately. All it would take is the right appointment to the FCC.

[eden4barack08]

Your first mistake is in assuming only Wikipedia defines the "Fairness Doctrine". Try google, see how many define it the same way.

2nd mistake is assuming Obama is not smart enough to come up with a much better "doctrine", if need be, since: "All it would take is the right appointment to the FCC."

3rd mistake is lying about him "changing his mind a lot lately".

[ohiomark]

WikiPedia is the source that Charles Warner used for this post when he could have used other, more reliable sources.

I have no doubt that Obama will, if elected, find some way to silence opposition in the name of "fairness".

[CharlesWarner]

I checked six or seven definitions of the Fairness Doctrine and I felt the Wikipedia one was the best summary of it. I am familiar with the Fairness Doctrine because I was a V.P. and general manager at CBS Radio and of two NBC-owned radio stations when the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect, so these companies' lawyers made sure I understood the doctrine well. The Wikipedia description is correct. Interestingly, some of the links that resulted from a Google search had it wrong.

I don't think a President Obama would push his Democratic majority FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine either. I also believe that he is softening his liberal positions on a few things now and moving to the center, just like Bill Clinton did when he was the nominee.

[MajorKong]

Wow. And you're always saying WE'RE paranoid.

"But! But! If Obama gets elected he'll silence Rush and I won't be able to hear my opinions echoed back to me 24/7! Waaaaaah!"

I'll loan you my tinfoil hat, size medium, if you think it would help.

[AnotherHuddy]

"With the possible exception of Al Franken on Air America, ever came close to being as entertaining as Rush"

Not from where I'm sitting, dude. From time to time I sample Rush's show to see if he says something incredibly stupid; but for the few times that he's incurred serious outrage, he's incredibly boring. Meanwhile, there are plenty of progressive hosts with rising stars like Mike Malloy, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Cenk Uygur.

Though the conventional wisdom has been that since Mario Cuomo's show fared poorly, only right-wing talkers grab ratings, KO's enormous success is beginning to change that perception.

Besides, history has shown us that the longer Rush is around, the harder he falls. My guess is that like Fox News, a great number of Rush's listeners are looking for something to mock him with.

~s~

[CharlesWarner]

You make an excellent point about Rush falling. I think the conservative media is having less influence and will continue to have less. I also think progressive personalities like Olbermann and Maddow are on the rise, but I worry that Olbermann is becoming a Rush of the left -- over the top.

[pfc1369]

Nothing else is fair in the former Land of the Free, why should some Doctrine be?

[CharlesWarner]

Do you mean that fairness cannot be legislated? If so, I agree.

[afgail]

You are right . Fairness can not be legislated, but equal access to the public's air ways can be. And that is the intent of the Fairness Doctrine.