- BIG NEWS:
- Katie Couric
- |
- Newspapers
- |
- MSNBC
- |
- Diane Sawyer
- |
It's Time to Resuscitate the FCC
Read More:
Bernie Goldberg, Bill Clinton, Bill O'Reilly, Clear Channel Radio, Fairness Doctrine, FCC Chair Mark Fowler, Federal Communications Commission, Fox News, Lou Dobbs, Media Consolidation, Media Corporations, Media Power, President Barack Obama, Public Airwaves, Reinstating The Fairness Doctrine, Ronald Reagan, Television Licenses, The New York Times, The Washington Post,
Media News
Channel surfing the other night, I caught a glimpse of Lou Dobbs on CNN waxing indignant about something Bill Clinton had said about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) possibly revisiting the Fairness Doctrine. What got Dobbs's panties in a bunch was Clinton's suggestion that there might be needed a bit more "balance" on talk radio. Dobbs claimed that this idea was poppycock because CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the rest of the media are bastions of radical liberalism. In his view right-wing talk radio "balances" out the liberal bias of the rest of the mainstream media. But Dobbs is dead wrong. The FCC needs to take a new look at the Fairness Doctrine along with a lot of other things.
Over the past few decades there have been profound changes in how the FCC rules and regulates the public airwaves and all of these have favored corporations at the expense of the public interest. It was President Ronald Reagan's FCC Chair, Mark Fowler, a former lawyer for broadcasters, who famously said: "Television is just another appliance. It's a toaster with pictures." The Reagan administration, with Chairman Fowler leading the charge, started the ball rolling when it instituted five sweeping changes in the way the FCC had done business for decades, all of them benefiting corporations and broadcasters.
The Reagan administration and a Republican-dominated FCC took the following steps:
1) They eliminated regulations that required broadcasters to dedicate a percentage of airtime to news and public service programs, which immediately affected the quality of children's and public affairs programming.
2) They raised the ceiling on the amount of advertising a station could run each hour, which increased the number of commercials and institutionalized the fifteen-second sound bite.
3) FCC Chair Fowler and his buddies abolished the log-keeping requirement that had helped outside groups monitor the quality of programming with the option to challenge television licenses if the public service dimension was found lacking.
4) Fowler convinced the Democratic Congress to raise the limit on the number of TV stations a company could own from five to twelve, which predictably set off merger mania among media corporations.
5) The Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine, which sought to make broadcasting licenses contingent on stations fulfilling their obligations to air controversial issues and provide a balanced, factual presentation to the public. This last step was too much for a Democratic Congress to swallow and it passed legislation to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Reagan vetoed the bill. Congress then inserted the provision into a larger spending bill but after Reagan threatened another veto the Democrats capitulated.
These Reagan era regulatory "reforms," along the President Bill Clinton's signing of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which produced greater concentration of media ownership and gave us Fox News, should be revisited and modified and some form of the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. Giant corporations for far too long have dominated our political debate and news coverage skewing them to serve a narrow set of financial and class interests.
There is no way a company like Clear Channel should be allowed to own over 1,200 radio stations blaring Rush Limbaugh or one of his many imitators over the public airwaves morning, noon, and night. President Barack Obama should provide his FCC clear guidelines that will undo some of the damage that has been done to our media system since the time Reagan and his "supply-siders" took over the country.
Why do Lou Dobbs, Bernie Goldberg, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of those overpaid, paranoid television personalities fear the Fairness Doctrine so much? Could it be because if it were reinstated they would have to put aside the propaganda and enter into a real public debate?
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
VWo82O0TzfsVLLvg5c1bQFrsIP2Pxhg5WrHraH5jhpkft5JxxOq0aP4C32K1u5zqJjWVYiXLLKL12lHH1UgB7w%3D%3D
Yf39ZUQNxAHO9mY0ocKp4U10dG8kudGKDd4VKau%2FxnZSUfO%2BkKzCHWd7fbxEtlbx3kZv0zTs8U4w4JWj7j7gKw%3D%3D
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 2
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thanks, the subtle bias of corporate owned media is polluting our politics in a profound way, this should be a much bigger discussion.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
There could be an Anti-Trust solution to the media conglomerate problem that doesn't interfere with the Right's precious model for radio -- let's have capitalist competition for licenses and break up the oligopolies -- surely people who value "competitiveness" would approve -- first target: Clear Channel with its 1,200 right-wing stations.
In this, we agree. Monopolies and Oligopolies have long been a problem. The main reason I do not listen to Rush, aside from his general unpleasant attitude, is that he is on the local Clear Channel station. I listen to a local station with local talk mixed with some nationally recognised names, Beck, Ingraham, etc.
Any time the TRUE market forces win out, I am happy.
"Seldom do people of the same profession come together, even for merriment, that their talk does not turn against the public good" -- Adam Smith
1,200 "right wing" stations?
Go to http://www
Type in California. Result, 67 stations.
10 talk radio (inc. 1 in Spanish)
8 Spanish/Hispanic (not inc. the talk station above)
5 country
22 rock, adult contemporary of various stripes (hot, soft, classic, smooth, etc)
7 Christian/religious
6 sports
The remaining station formats include:
Disney - I understand Scrooge McDuck has 3 hours daily on that to rail against taxes, welfare, soft-on-crime judges (how do those Beagle Boys keep getting released to bother him and his money vault?), minimum wage (a shiny nickel is just right for an hour's wage!), and the good old days when you could dig for gold in the Klondike without the EPA sniffing around.
Urban - the conservative nature of urban radio is well documented and requires no snark
and other miscelanous formats.
right-wing stations all!
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://cam
campaignfr
Just what is your concern with the Fairness Doctrine?
Also, in this blog post: http://www
4 of the 14 are Clear Channel stations: WPEK (Asheville, NC), KPOJ (Portland, OR), KKGN (San Francisco, CA), and KPTQ (Spokane, WA). Note that KPOJ, probably the most successful progressive talk station in the country, is on that list.
And two of the remaining 10 are CBS Radio and Entercom, major conglomerates as well.
All these facts are easily available, but for some reason don't seem to have made an impression on this blogger.
It doesn't matter is there are 10 or 100 companies that lease a portion of our airwaves. No station, unless subsidized to do so by the government or an external NGO, will broadcast programming that is not profitable.
Liberal or progressive radio, for reasons that we can argue, has not shown itself to be profitable in most, if not all, markets. Thus, it will not be broadcast unless subsidized or until it becomes profitable.
This about this idea too: Talk radio's product, unlike that of many other industries, does not depend on technological superiority or large systems of production or distribution in order to be viable. A single person can start on a local station and he needs nothing but a good voice, an engaging style, and interesting and provoking ideas Radio is the ultimate leveler. So if liberals find themselves unable to compete in this format (requiring government intervention and/or subsidization), they should look at both their ideas and their presentation and be a little more self-critical, instead of trying to bully stations into taking the substandard product that they offer.
If the political left of our country really had the same amount of airtime and publicity as the right wing, maybe this discussion would not be necessary. But it is very important that we have many voices of the political spectrum given the same weight in order to function as a republic.
News used to be considered more of a public service and a department that lost money for a company, but it was there for prestige, as well as for fulfilling a station's public service requirement. Now, news is expected to be a profit center, which has corrupted it and leaves us woefully uninformed.
There used to be more responsible children's programming, journalists used to actually put together thoughtful and balanced news stories to explain and show national and international events. Now, all we have are pundits interviewing other pundits and, amid an economic meltdown, for example, very few economic experts being interviewed. And tell me the last time you've seen a top level union representative on any of the talk shows.
The concentration of media is troubling not only for diversity of ideas, but for diversity of music. We're also losing our regional differences, the things that make us interesting, as well as losing a venue to learn what's going on in the world and in our neighborhoods in a truly balanced way so we can form our own opinions.
Why are people on this board completely ignoring the fact that radio is a business?
When it comes down to it, left or right, if there were millions to be made in progressive radio, then there would be all sorts of people lining up to expand it. But right now there isn't, look at Air America or MSNBC and see there they rank compared to their competition . . . it isn't close.
Just because you don't like someone's opinion doesn't mean you need to make a law to stop them . . . change the channel and if enough people change the channel then Rush doesn't make $50 million a year.
.
Towards the end of the general election, people attending McCain-Palin rallies were whipped into a nasty fury and making inaccurate, scary comments. Some of what they were saying was repeated from what they heard on the radio and watched on television as well as what was being said during the rallies. So much chaotic thinking arises from poor or incorrect analysis of current events. Adding insult to injury, a network like Fox News has been proved to be a publica relations outlet for the Bush administration's propaganda. There was nothing to balance that disinformation.
An individual's basic instincts are encouraged by their access to like thinking groups. Limbaugh thinks about how he molds the thinking of his listeners when he useds the term "sheeple". "Sheeple" reflects the herd mentality of his ditto heads. The Fairness Doctgrine can't fix this.
.
Who cares about the Fairness Doctrine. What would it give you other than lying from both sides? I would prefer a "Truth" Doctrine or a "Proof" Doctrine. Prove what you are saying is true. With facts, not BS.
And who would decide what the "truth" and what the "facts" are?
True scenario: the Democrat-F
Is this the sort of thing you're advocating, throwing people in jail if you don't agree with their analysis and criticism of a candidate or public policy? Because that's the sort of thing we typically think of happening in North Korea.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
www.campai
campaignfr
Huh? Your example is moot. They "tried". Are you suggesting that political wrangling is evidence that responsible censure of provable lies is impossible? Come on. You're not an idiot, so stop acting like one. Don't tell me that the libertarian Right is now appropriating moral relativism as the cornerstone of their arguments!
No such thing as truth? Reality? There's a big difference between "Obama will destroy our free market system" (allowed political advocacy) and "Obama wants to teach your 5 year old all about sex" (an outright lie that should not be protected speech).
If, indeed, Al Franken did not support card check -- YES, ban ads that say he does & sue them if they continue to spread false statements!
It's not the "balance" or "analysis"- it's the LYING - that needs to be stopped.
I don't understand. What is the Democrat-F
Sorry but opinions are opinions and you should not be able to make laws silencing those opinions.
It will really be great when Carters speech writer Chris Matthews has to allow debate on his show (that nobody watches) on MSNBC. His leftist dribble even annoys the liberals.
He's not a leftist. He's just a waste of time. Frat boy journalism.
meh, i turned off the radio years ago. the music is crap, you get a commercial every 10 minutes, and i think most dj's today are really bad howard stern impersonators.
i don't care if rush is on 10,000 am radio stations, the people who only go to am radio for their opinions usually aren't capable of using the google on the internets.
i have my online machine and my ipod, so why would i need am radio?
During the Reagan Era, Corporations got their hooks into the Country. Reagan was a figurehead. An actor who repeated talking points. His puppeteers are the same people who were behind Bush/Cheney for the last 8 years.
People need realize that their enemies are not Conservatives OR Liberals. Their enemies are Big Global Corporations. Weak-willed Politicians who'd sell their own mothers, not to mention their constituents, for an extra dollar.
Unfortunately people in this country idolize products as much as they idolize celebritie
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Do you people who are defending Right-wing control of radio think it is "market forces" or coincidence that give us: Alan Nathan, Ollie North, Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Scott Hennen, Janet Parshall, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, Greg Corombus, G. Gordon Liddy, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Reagan, Neal Bortz, Rusty Humphries, Bob Grant, the Dolans, Jim Bohannon, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Mike Gallagher, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and the rest? -- Can you name this many "liberal" talk show hosts on AM Radio? Of course you can't and that's the real problem Rightwingers!
I can not name many left-wing talk show hosts for 1 primary reason. I listen primarily to right-wing talk or country music. This is by my choice. I would rather not have a government agency tell me what I should listen to and when. The left-leaning friends I have listen to NPR, or internet radio stations that air their views. This is, again, their choice. Fairness Doctrine, and by association, Equal time rules, imply that there are 2 sides to every issue. I would posit that the number of opinions that are held are limited only by the number of people who hold them, meaning that there are a little over 6bbn different opinions on any issue. I do, however welcome open debate, as evidenced by my preference for this site for my debate as opposed to forums and blogs hosted by the right-leaning hosts.
When 2 people agree on everything, AT LEAST 1 of them is unnecessary.
BilCon: I think you undercount the number of potential different opinions - don't forget cognitive dissonance! ;->
"That's the real problem Rightwingers"
Great, namecalling (I am assuming you use that term pejoratively). Well, here's a few names of my own:
Randy Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Sam Sedar, Ed Schultz, Bill Press, Jim Hightower, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartman, Jenine Garofalo, Stephanie Miller, Lionel, Ron Kuby, John Elliot, Michael Kinsley, Alan Colmes, and Al Franken.
Alan Colms doesn't count. He's a shill and token.
Thank You for recognizing the up and coming return to JOURNALISM and all of the the new, Principaled talent that is showing up on the NON-CONSERVATIVE side of talk radio. What is unique is they seem to have NO AVERSION to the truth like the the right wing total lie machine. The DNC is not about to give the lefty talkers the DNC playbook like the gop feeds their shills typos and all. Thanks for noticing Sean!
KKGN IN THE SF BAY AREA, 960 AM AND ALL THE FOLKS Sean can't stand. I highly recommend STEPHANIE MILLER IN THE AM DRIVE. Miller is the daughter of Barry Golwaters VP/running mate. She is a political comedianne extraudinaire. She takes those blowhards to the woodshed with facts, everyday. VERY ENTERTAINING.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Thanks for the comments -- I live in a Democratic state that never once voted for George W. Bush, in a Democratic Congressional district, with a Democratic Mayor and a Democratic State Senator and a Democratic Assembly person and a Democratic City Council -- but on the local AM radio, in the capitol of the Bluest of Blue States, California, there are NO "liberal" or "progressive" radio stations but TWO loud and powerful full-on Right-Wing stations -- including 1530 AM, the station that gave its start to a shock jock named Rush Limbaugh -- How does that happen? Is it because us "liberals" don't buy cars and insurance and see local sporting events? In my area the liberals have more consumer buying power than the conservatives do -- so how does Right-wing radio become so pervasive in Democratic markets? There's only one reason: The corporations who own the licenses for the public airwaves are ramming Right-wing Republican propaganda down people's throats because it's the only way they can control the political discourse.
So they don't sell the licenses to liberals?
Give me a break and stop whining, if you don't like something change the channel and don't ask government to make a law against it.
Rush & Hannity are hacks, so what, don't listen to them then. MSNBC is on the air but they don't cut it in the ratings when it comes to Fox News.
We just want the fairness doctrine back so we could have a chance to buy the radio station in our market. The people own the "AIRWAVES" so the owners were supposed to repay the people for the use by providing community service. They took away Americans payment and replaced it with a monopoly intent on spewing propaganda, and we got nada, zip, goose eggs in return.
I see that you are a professor of History. Let me explain a little Economics.
Let us say that you are a liberal with a high degree of purchasing power. If you and enough of your liberal friends don't listen to liberal talk radio for whatever reason (maybe the hosts don't interest you or talk radio just isn't your thing), ratings of programs will reflect that fact. Let us say that I am the owner of a local radio station. I will not carry what your liberal friends DON'T listen to. I will carry what your Rightwinger enemies DO listen to. Why? Because I want to make money.
Let me explain. Advertisers look at the ratings too. They see that Program X gets 1% market share and Program Y gets 5% market share in a particular region. Perhaps for Program X they will pay $1000 for a 30-second ad run. However, for Program Y they might pay $3000 to run the same ad. Why? Because Program Y will reach a larger amount of people. Larger amounts of people being reached generates larger profits to the advertisers, which is reflected in the larger premium paid to run the ad with more popular programs. If I want to make money as the owner of a station, I will choose to run Program Y. Thus the market dictates the programming.
Oh, vis-a-vis your tirade against KFBK a few posts above, but also having to do with this issue of economics:
A few years ago KFBK replaced Rightwinger Mark Williams with Bruce Maiman, a middle-left guy. Maybe they thought it would work. Ratings immediately plummetted.
http://www
They just recently dumped him in favor of -rerunning- the popular KSTE middle-right morning show Armstrong and Getty. I guess they were tired of losing all the advert revenue.
In my town there are three radio stations, one of which is all talk. They are owned by an avowed right winger. There is absolutely no possibility of ever hearing progressive radio here and NO I don't have the money to start my own station...
Sounds pretty fair to me, a guy wants to make some money so he decides to start a radio business.
Are you saying that if there was a liberal host that could make him millions he would ignore them? LOL.
One of the claims made by advocates of a return of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is that progressive talkers are kept off the air by corporate conglomerates, and when they do allow them on the air they are relegated to low-wattage stations.
Consider this another myth that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As I write here, http://www
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
www.campai
campaignfr
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
So Sean the 60 million people who voted for Obama don't buy stuff that advertisers might want to advertise?
Seriously, that's your comeback?
For whatever reason, people aren't listening to progressive talk in the numbers required to keep it on the air in most stations. As I've demonstrated and you've failed to even attempt to address, there's plenty of watts behind progressive talkers. Just not enough listeners.
Perhaps the current crop of talkers aren't very good? Perhaps the 60 million Obama voters are less interested in listening to talk radio, for whatever reason? Maybe, they're all spending time at HuffPo and DailyKos?
Seriously, if that's your "proof" that there's some sort of vast conspiracy to keep progressives off the air, that lots of people voted for Obama, you've got a pretty weak case ('bout 2 watts, I'd say)
It would totally depend on the recession, and we do not have any idea about how much long this recession will go on. Obama should do something to get USA out of recession as many other countries are also linked with USA.
FCC needs to be completely overhauled. Number one on my hit list for new regulation is cable companies. It infuriates me that I have to pay for 150 stations to get the 10 that I want.
As far as fairness doctrine, the FCC needs to take a stand against "hate" radio, not necessarily whether it is left or right. Let's spend a little less time on monitoring whether someone says f**k and more on whether someone is promoting racism or religious or cultural intolerance.
And who exactly is going to be determining what is "hate," "racism," and "religious or cultural intolerance"? Has it occurred to you that in a nation of 300 million, what is one person's reasoned dialogue on, say, whether affirmative action is good policy, is another person's "hate speech"?
That's the problem with allowing the government to monitor political talk and decide what "fairness" or "balance" or "hate speech" is - very few can agree on what these terms mean, which means that the political preferences of bureaucrats and political appointees are used to punish and suppress those voices they dislike.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
www.campai
campaignfr
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Sean you should read some of the work by McChesney on Media ownership -- I wish we lived in the perfect free market society you picture in your mind.
And who exactly is going to be determining what is "hate," "racism," and "religious or cultural intolerance"?- No one!!! If the FCC moves to Ala cart pricing for cable and satellite then economics will dictate. I won't have to buy "bundled" crap which by the way , I always beat, the telecoms, with my filed positions as an expert witness, before admin PSC's back in the 80's before the alleged "deregulation"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
