Obama, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News: A Look at Media in 2009

Ask just about any public interest advocate concerned about the dismal state of media and journalism, and they will tell you that Obama's media policy platform is excellent: the beginning of what could be the most public interest friendly administration in presidential history. Part of this optimism stems from Obama's understanding that Internet and technology are the cornerstone of a 21st century economy and society. Another part comes from the competence and integrity of the media and telecom advisors working on his transition team. And another comes from his direct experience.

Obama-the-candidate commented several times that voters' false views of him -- that he's a Muslim, a socialist and unpatriotic -- were fed and spread by Fox News and their cohorts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham in the far-right media. Obama understands that they are the special sauce in Karl Rove's toxic recipe to discredit progressive policies and politicians, and divide Americans with wedge issues.

And Obama understands that pushing back against guys like Limbaugh - who this week blamed the president-elect for the financial crisis, calling it "Obama's recession" - requires a bold policy agenda that uses the Internet to pry media distribution monopolies away from the largest media companies. Though often underreported, Obama spoke frequently about his commitment to blocking further media consolidation, fostering more independent and diverse media, ensuring universal high-speed Internet access, and "taking a back seat to no one" in passing "Net Neutrality" laws to prevent Internet providers like Comcast and AT&T from creating fast and slow lanes on the Internet. (click here for a look at Obama's important media reform pledges during his campaign).

The Washington Post ombudsman and others claim that the media was too kind to Obama and hard on John McCain. This superficial analysis is both wrong and misleading. Wrong because you had a candidate that was forcefully embracing the policies of George W. Bush while the nation spiraled into one of its darkest moments in its history. The idea that the press should not exert sharp criticism of such a candidate reflects the kind of tepid pandering that has become the hallmark of mainstream corporate media.

And misleading because the real problem is not the media favoring one candidate over another, but rather its utter failure to practice critical journalism. Turn on your television or radio, and it's 24/7 horserace political coverage, partisan shouting matches, and salacious crap. There is no effort to tell voters the difference between the candidates' rhetoric and reality, how their proclamations match their voting records, and what their policy proposals would actually do. While there were a few notable moments when news outlets actually did this during the campaign, they were few and far between.

Olbermann and Maddow's increased popularity is moving the range of debate on cable from center-right to left-right, but radio is still overwhelmingly right-wing, and the changes at MSNBC fall far short of a comprehensive, long-term solution to thecrisis of journalism. Newsroom layoffs mount across television, radio and newspapers, and omission has become the greatest threat. There is virtually no in-depth coverage and analysis on television of Iraq and Afghanistan, poverty, the environment and the other critical issues facing working Americans. And despite the explosion of the Internet, 45% of American homes still have no high speed Internet, while some 65% of Americans still cite TV as their primary news source.

Charges of liberal bias continue to strike such fear in the hearts of corporate news editors and producers, that they continue obsessive contortions to present both sides of every debate -- not from a factual perspective, but from a partisan one. Even if one side of an argument is clearly true, today's Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Gibson or Brian Williams - and even NPR and PBS - dare not say it (such as the economic bailout being a corrupt boondoggle for banking fatcats) and suffer the wrath of the right wing noise machine, and pressure from their corporate bosses. In today's media environment, the truth becomes irrelevant.

Take a walk through rural Ohio as I did this Election Day, and working-class voters are watching Fox, reading empty newspapers running on a bare-bones staff, and listening to radio's right-wing hate-fest. In today's media environment, we must face the fact that if not for the financial crisis and a disastrous GOP vice-presidential pick, this election might well have been McCain's.

So the incoming president is excellent on media policy, and his election allows media reform advocates to move from defense to offense. However, as Obama inherits a severe economic crisis, two wars, and myriad other problems, it will be too easy for media issues to get pushed down the to-do list. And the well-financed lobbyists from the phone, cable and broadcasting companies who supported Obama's candidacy are expecting a return on their investment. As well they should: if you look back at the history of Democratic presidents and media policy, there have been many disappointments, and cause for us to be as cautious as we are optimistic.

Here's a quick list of the top policy reforms to watch in 2009 for anyone who shares my disgust with news coverage, sky-high cable and phone bills, and the other maladies brought by a media system dominated by the likes of Comcast, Disney, AT&T, General Electric, Verizon, News Corporation and Time Warner:

• Getting super-fast, open/neutral, affordable Internet to every home and business in America, urban and rural, rich and poor - Internet that will allow every website to be a television or radio network... a complete game changer.

• Reversing consolidation of media ownership through tougher broadcast license requirements and incentives for more independent, diverse and local radio, television and print outlets.

• Dramatically increasing funding for public media: for PBS and NPR, as well as community radio and television, and other noncommercial outlets. This includes policies that better protect public media from undue political pressures.

Now that the champagne has been put away, it's time to realize that while disastrous members of Bush & Co. are heading towards the exits, the disastrous members of mainstream media remain firmly in place. Ignore the problem at your - and the nation's - peril.

Comments

[sepiasiren]

An Obama Recession--is he serious--the man isn't even President yet he is PE...

The sad thing is, his lemming followers will be right there, a year from now, calling it an Obama recession and those who realize that the recession occurred 8 years prior to the man taking office will be shouted down and accused of drinking kool-aid--

What a tool!

[moderatemom]

One addition to my previous comment...­.....Since only about 5 major groups (corporations) control 80% of all media news outlets-print and on air, , I would love to see a movement that would force the owners of the 5 major groups to have to make very public the monetary support they donate to candidates on each side of the political specter. Also, their support of lobbyist in the capital and exactly what is the agenda of their lobbyist in D.C. In that way, we would know , without having to research it on the web, just what to side their publications and air media are being directed to support, by those owners, even when that support is subtle. I am sick of the 'liberal bias' claims pointed at the media that we hear over and over again from the right, which upon close observation, is blatantly untrue. Maybe I am dreaming, but I would hope that this would influence those owners into a concern for all Americans in their reporting and up the standards they have to follow.

[moderatemom]

It would be such a relief to see true investigative, critical reporting again! We would be saved from having an idiot like Bush failing to have his intire background reported before he could be elected, saving this nation from more like him! As to O'Reilly and Limbaugh, I would love to see honesty and integrity become so intrenched in the news media that any, on either side of the isle, would have to have facts backing their speeches on air, and open to fines for any lies they spew or facts they contort to fit their agenda! The air waves belong first and foremost to the American public, and we should be demanding that they are used in a truthful, factual way. Newspapers are already suffering because they have not done this, have only fluff and advertising that people aren't reading them anymore-which is a real shame when the last thing we need is a public doing less reading. O'Reilly and Limbaugh have been sucessful because they are reaching, for the most part, a non-reading unaware public who will latch on to anyone that agrees with their limited view of the world. The news media, of all kinds, needs to be expanding their world, not keeping it in a comfortable bubble. That should be their objective, as about 80% of the public did not buy one single book in the past year or more. Therefore, the only information those 80% are getting is from media outlets.

[ImSwiss]

This country has become more divided because Right wing nuts listen only to radio that supports their opinions. Lefties only listen to left wing talk radio. That is what the fairness doctrine tries to address and we need it now.

[darker]

Obama needs to RESTORE The Fairness Doctrine, a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.

Republicans crashed and burned The Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
republican THINK TANKS created a campaign to destroy The Fairness Doctrine
so that honest, equitable, and balanced was NOT an option.

This republican destructive move CREATED RUSH LIMBAUGH and other extreme rightwing
mouthpieces who spout off lies, distortions and are NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE on behalf of the American People.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Republican DESTRUCTION of media MUST BE STOPPED as soon as possible.

[dfranz]

I am relieved to hear that Obama is aginst media consolidatiion. We have been forced fed fo too long by egomaniacs like Rupert Murdock. I actually believe it's time for the Anti Trust legislation to be reenacted or enforced. It's because of the mega companies going bankrupt that we are in this mess we're in now.

[wwf50s]

Maybe someone could start a webpage for conservative radio shows. People could list the advertisers on their local stations and people could decide rather or not to boycott them. I would not patronize any business that advertised on Rush's show. The downside is having to listen to that crap, although it can be quite funny. There are in my area, construction workers spouting off about Obama, I have them on a list and I will no longer use their services or recommend them either.

[steve12]

As a former retailer, I believe that this is the WRONG approach. Businesses care about listeners when advertising on radio. As much as I despise Rush, I recommended to my management to advertise on his show when he was in the Sacramento market, because of reach and demographics.

Businesses are interested in selling stuff. They should not be in the business of approving or disapproving a program's political speech. If advertisers get into the business of having to approve the political speech of every program that they advertise on, I fear for our democracy.

[dc2nm]

As a current owner of an ad agency, advertisers often do boycott media outlets that they perceive as hateful. It is the right approach to boycott these shows. Without advertising dollars, they would not last long. There are other, more profitable ways to get your company's message to the masses.

[anonimost]

it is amazing that rush can pull "facts" out of his very ample tuckus. obama is not even president and he says that about him. anyone with a shred of common sense could see that this is not fact. but i do realize he appeals to people who are flat out against obama regardless. it is up to us, the people, to spread the word of what is flat out lies by fox. why? because no matter how many of us imagine that GOP or Faux news are on the decline, the numbers do not validate that. they have a very strong following and we must stay vigilant. the memory is all too soft and before you know it, an obama voter will actually believe this is an obama recession.

[BatedBreath]

I just finished driving across Kansas to Colorado on I70. You can't get anything on the radio in central and western Kansas and eastern Colorado except music (much of it religious), conservative talk, and religious talk stations. It's no wonder that the rural areas of the U.S. are so deeply red. They don't have access to a variety of information like urban areas do. What's needed there is choice. You have to be aware that there's another side to an argument if you want to keep sufficiently informed to make decisions like whom to vote for.

[jwo123]

I have found the same thing driving from Minnesota to Florida. Once you get to southern Illinois the stations are all conservative and religious talk the rest of the way.

[steve12]

Have you heard of iPods or XM radio? Progressives are acting like conservatives did in the 80s. If people want to know both sides, they can easily access various views on the major networks, cable, and the internet. I don't think it is the job of government to decide on what speech should be on any particular station. However, I am fearful of media consolidation and the government does have a role in ensuring competition in the marketplace.

[csharppoet]

Are you quite serious about this? Do you really picture the center of the united states as somehow being cut off from ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS and all the other news shows and channels... please this is a ridiculously naive post if you are at all serious. No one in America is cut off from any amount of discussion or debate whether left or right unless they cant get TV, radio, magazines, or newspapers... all this talk that there needs to be some kind of balance in the media is just plain silly... anyone can get any side of any issue at any time... lets at least not degenerate into the kind of caricatures and superficial arguments that dominate water cooler politics in this country...

[Democrab]

The Limbaughs and OReillys made their bones griping about the left in power. For the past few years they've been somewhat silenced by republican control and their role has become more apologetic or damage controlling via reverse psychology. (Obama's recession) But now they're back in the saddle again, and will be leading the right wing cavalry bitching out anything "librul." A dem house, senate and white house are the feast these barracudas have been waiting for. That's the stuff that fat wallets are made from and dittoheads drool over. They don't care about a bipartisan America, they are the ticks and fleas Obama would like to shampoo from the shining coat of unification.

[anonimost]

agreed. just like the parasites of wall street fed off of us, so do these numb n uts. for those who need an example" "folks" that buy Oreilly's book. as long as there is an audience for them to feed off of, they will keep at it and it will get more outrageous. we are all susceptible to being gullible.

[aka-ub]

While I agree that it would appear that there are far more pressing matters for our new president to deal with than issues like media consolidation, net neutrality, etc, I would argue that media issues should be a huge priority. We cannot expect to win on the issues unless we can win the battle to get the message out.

[RealityBaseCamp]

The big-money monopoly of the media, especially radio stations, has to be addressed as soon as possible. I can see some of the free-speech issues with the Fairness Doctrine, but "stations taking off talk to avoid controversy" is not limitation of free speech, it's an option of the owners. But ownership itself is what's gotten us into this situation. Rush and the rest of the talking points repeaters did not saturate the market until big corporate ownership took away the choice of programming from local broadcasters. As soon as the law was changed, media companies bought as many of the most powerful stations they could, and made sure everybody with an A M radio could hear the message they wanted them to hear. Remember, it's free, it's everywhere, and people can listen all the time, so if there's only one message being transmitted, it's going to sound like nobody else even has a leg to stand on. Re-regulation is not the free speech violation; monopoly is.

[csharppoet]

Do you really think there is only one message out there... or are you being alarmist and extreme simply to make a point... ? The left and right are tearing each other apart... if you want to hear the lefts views, there are plenty of magazines, radio stations, newspapers, and news shows to satisfy the most ardent lefty... if you are right of center, you have a smorgasbord of red meat to sink your teeth into... again, its just plain silly to say that AM radio is somehow smothering all other media outlets and voices in America... not according to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN they aren't, CNN touts itself as Americas most trusted news source. Please stop with the alarmist distortions and start discussing real topics like the one you hinted at in the closing sentences of your post, monopoly vs. free speech... that's where the most interesting and important issues are found... screaming that the sky is falling doesn't help the debate in the slightest...

[TheOldSchool]

Josh,

I agree with an earlier commenter who said this was one of the best pieces ever on the Huffington Post.

The commentary about your piece has made for interesting reading, too.

It is astounding to me that the people of this country have such limited access to media sources that are available to people in other countries.

FussyGorilla, who lives in Turkey, has access to stations that are unavailble in the US, even if one has a satellite dish.

When Al Jazeera set up its English language channel, none of the major US cable providers (to my knowledge) carried it.

Another poster commented on broadband speeds in other countries being 10 times faster than in the US.

And the fact that right-wing radio is the only available option for listeners in many areas of the country is a disgrace.

I'm hoping the Obama administration will address these problems. Thank you for writing this brilliant article.

[propitiousmoment]

Newspapers clearly distinguish between their op-ed pages and their news pages (generally speaking). Often there are news items embedded in the opinion pieces that do not appear in other parts of the paper. But the news pages still make an effort to report more than one side of a story, thus making them slightly more objective. Why should live journalists not label their stories opinion if that's what they are? Calling Fox a "news" station is a farce, and it's a shame that its viewers are not able to tell the difference. If television stations want to offer opinions on the story, or tell the story as part of articulating their opinions, they should make it clear that that is what they are doing, and not try to disguise it as a purely factual account. Then if the audience wants to get its news from an opinion page, fine, but if it wants a more objective account of the news of the day, it is clearly notified that it needs to look elsewhere. If that's the fairness doctrine, then bring it back!!

[Lionsden]

Republicans are far more tolerant about free political speech, even on the internet. They will publish just about anything from a democrat or left-winger (except obscenities) at most conservative websites.

It is very difficult for a republican or conservative to publish at leftwing websites. The censorship is that bbad. I think that leftwing elites don't want their rank and file to examine truth.

It would nice for leftists to admit that they are just as intolerant as they claim rightists to be.

[BatedBreath]

Links?

[slytot7]

Lionsden; Will you tell me what a rightwinger is and believes?....and a leftwinger? All I know is that logic and rationality are objective facts....not subject to any "winging".

[sepiasiren]

Are you kidding me--I have gone to those sites-- suuure they let a leftist speak--then proceed to ridicule them and tear them a new one--the few that do this that is...

This is hardly a magnanimous gesture...

Besides, Dems won't allow hate speech on their pages hence the so called censorship...

[sepiasiren]

Also--everything I have ever tried to publish was banned On Fox news forums and blogs so spare me...

[barbarossa89]

I don't think bringing back the fairness doctrine is good right away. The cat's out of the bag, and it would be hard to stuff it back in. And the amount of effort required to reinstate it would distract from real problems, such as the economic crisis.

You can bet that Republicans will stall all efforts of the new government, trying to wait until 2010 when they hope they can make some gains. The fairness doctrine can wait until we have solved the other problems. And once democrats show they can solve real problems, people will be more willing to reelect them.

I bet you the Republicans will make debates on the fairness doctrine take as long as possible, and it doesn't look as if Democrats will be having a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. If the senate gets bogged down with the fairness doctrine, then real problems go unsolved, and the party in control gets the blame.

Fix the economy, fix the foreign policy, show voters what we're made of. Then people will see through any lies to the truth of the matter, regardless of how much opposition is faced. And then, when people see how democrats govern, they will put pressure on their elected officials to give fairness a chance.

But first, we must prove ourselves. It's been over a decade since democrats have been in control, and I find that people have remarkably short and selective memories. Gain their trust first, then they will follow anywhere.