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

[wendynyc]

This article is exactly right on - rural communities are totally under served.

Very shocking considering we are the richest and most powerful nation on earth!!

[MrJoyboy]

Almost 50% of the country supports what Hannity and Limbaugh have to say because that's how they feel to their core. The real question is what do we do with all those millions of people? How big is Alaska?

[RaiHoney]

Not so sure about that- I think 50% of the country supports what Hannity and Limbaugh have to say because they have no viable alternatives!

The fear machine has also had 20 years to perfect their techniques in attracting, keeping and indoctrinating their audiences since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Check out this interview with a former program director for a right wing radio show- he's got all the secrets!

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046&pf=yes

[steve12]

Most people who watch Hannity and listen to Limbaugh are old, (over 60). Young people generally don't listen to that crap. In time, the Hannities and Limbaughs of the world will find that they no longer have a market.

You won't have to move their listeners to Alaska. They'll just die of old age.

[fussygorilla]

I have been in Turkey now for a few months and we enjoy the best of Tv news from all over the world because we have SATELLITE DISH. We watch news (in English) from Germany, France, China, Russia, Iran, BBC, Al jazeera, the Arab world, as well as CNN( which we don't ever watch) up to 800 channels.
Why not have satellite dish there and dump all the networks and calble televisions? Satelltie dishes with receiver, and installation cost about $300.00 and no other fees at all. Can this be done back home in U.S.?

[killmenow]

This is a brilliant post and one of the most important ever on HuffPost. The best line:

"The real problem is not the media favoring one candidate over another, but rather its utter failure to practice critical journalism."

I am still furious that throughout the entire campaign, the mainstream, unbiased media did not point out clear evidence of John McCain's continuing history of extraordinarily bad judgment. "Joe the Plumber" was the final, culminating example of that to top off his career up until its final days or, perhaps, years.

[tomas0808]

The problem with the MSM is that too many people watch it, and those that do buy the products that are advertised during the shows. This is the fault of our education system. It took me a while (until I was 35) but I finally realized that the MSM can't be trusted for news and that products and services that advertise are inferior to products and services that don't. I don't listen to any of those talking heads, I don't care what side they're on. Olbermann has no more credibility that Billo.

[Beachrunner]

When President Obama is sworn in, the time to silence the opposition once and for all will be here.

It must be done is a quiet manner to avoid a public outcry. But the day will soon be here when the airwaves will be void of Rush, Fox, etc.

[steve12]

And that will be the day that democracy dies in America. The best way to fight the right wing speech machine is more speech from the progressive side. The solution is not to silence speech, but to have more speech.

[OldLeatherNeck]

Rather than reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, I think every relevant Senate & House Committee should subpeona Limbaugh, Hannity and others on a regular basis. Confront them in public and ask them to justify their lies and smear campaigns. If nothing else, it will keep them from broadcasting live a few days each month.

And if GM wants a bail-out, have them cease a desist on any advertising for Sean Hannity.

[brodon]

This sounds like Government control of the media, i.e., censorship.

Just try it and see what happens.

[pjburke]

We have corporate control and censorship now... and we already know what happens. People are deliberately disinformed and miseducated into supporting an agenda which profits corporate America but does direct and lasting harm to themselves.

[drgrph]

And we observed what happens when the government controls the media, too. Unless you think that the USSR/Russia and China are successful at providing truth to the people, I doubt anyone would accept government control.

I'm not trying to suggest that corporate control is necessarily better. But it does seem as though President-elect Obama was able to successful utilize all forms of media to benefit his candidacy. Having watch his interview by Fox's O'Reilly, I think that he was even able to utilize that forum to spread his cause.

It's time for free speech in a free market system. Censorship never has nor ever will have a place in America.

[krocklin]

The chasing after sensationalism, the increase in ads, the decline of General Education, the intimidation of the media by Limbaugh and other bullies, the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, FCC relaxing laws of corporate ownership in the Media, rightwing Texas oil billionaires in charge of radio stations (and elections, Media coverage (e.g. Paula Jones) and voting machines) - all these things have brought about the lack of any real analysis of Policy and Current Events and the complete dumbing down of America.
Sarah Palin is the ultimate Absurdity and product of this trend.

[johnnyybgood]

Excellent well written article and I agree with all of it, especially the "high speed internet available to everyone" idea. It is ridiculous that someone two miles from town can have home access to high speed internet but someone three or more miles from town does not get that option. Its like back in the 1930's (???) when only towns had electricity. This is 2008. How hard would it be for telephone companies to run compatible wiring to all their customers not just the fortunate ones who live in or near towns? But it will probably take an act of Congress to get it done, just like it did with electricity. And we better get it done now while we have a Democratic Congress and Prez because as Josh points out this is probably NOT going to appease the right wing who would like everyone to get their politics from the nut jobs on the radio dial.

[rem]

Rural Internetification. I like the sound of it.

[SangZe]

Go into your average gym and you will find rows of treadmills and orbitals filled with ordinary, albeit sweating, citizens eyes glued to rows of TV sets spewing Fox "news" and similar fare. Ask the management to change a channel and you will inevitably be told "the customers want it this way." Gregrocker offers a way to deal with the problem that might work.

[isadora]

I love you for informing some of us who don't frequent gyms of what goes on. I stayed in an inn late last year where that infernal station that Olberman calls Fixed News was on in the morning in the communal breakfast area. Every day that I was there I either changed the channels on the three TV sets or turned them off. Those who go to gyms should do a petition drive, perhaps online, to keep this grossly offensive, and often false, rubbish from being forced on those who are exercising. Do it for all of us!

[AZBunny]

I was in Egypt this summer for 14 days. Imagine my surprise when I turned on the TV to discover the English news channel was FAUX Noise!!!!

I was disgusted I couldn't even speak.

[Vandenbroek]

With the emergence of Internet everywhere and a new mobile Internet environment, Josh has hit upon an extreme game changer for the traditional media. This upcoming shift in how we will use the Web has the potential of revolutionizing content delivery as much as the Internet helped give birth of citizen journalism.

I'm referring to Web Radio and TV. Becoming a media mogul is now as easy as instant cake.

An Internet radio station that streamed live content, costs about $1000, monthly cost around $100. Set up takes a few hours and no Federal Communications Commission strings.

Taking the traditional route I’d either have to buy an existing station (a few million bucks) or start one from scratch (a few million bucks). And I’d have to satisfy the FCC before the transaction could take place (months, maybe years).

Starting an Internet TV station is about the same, a few thousand bucks more, but same principle. Save money, drop the live stream. “On demand” works just fine.

The new administration is sparking up as MSM continues to fade-to-black. That includes radio scars like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. They’ve yet to get their new paradigm together. Sure they’ve got websites, web cams and Web 1.0 but they’re unpositioned for Web 2.1.

One other thing that could hasten the wind: Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Just make it simpler this time around – Be fair and define fairness as complete and unobstructed from bias.

[BillMelater]

Internet content is also under assault by the corporate right neocons as well. I have observed them in action the past few years.

Yahoo used to allow commenting on all of the articles they posted with relative ease - much like Huff Post does now but Yahoo did not moderate. Then they were taken over by AT&T. Just after the '06 elections or around there anyway (maybe before even), AT&T/Yahoo completely removed commenting by readers on articles. Shortly after, I saw a marked increase in right wing article sources. Now they did keep left wing article sources as well, but the right wing lies were now given equal time. To their credit, they still kept left wing sources like Huff Post.

Merely 10 days after election 2008 is over, I notice commenting on articles on AT&T/Yahoo is once again allowed. It is not as easy as it used to be. And it seems only available through their Yahoo!buzz. Now maybe I just haven't fully explored it yet and it is available to everything - but I don't think so.

This situation over there at AT&T/Yahoo is very suspect. The discourse environment there was much like Huff Post too. Righties spewed the RNC talking ponts and lefties beating them up at every turn. I believe AT&T/Yahoo intentionally intended to silence discourse of the electorate here on the internet and thus influence the past 2 national elections.

http://billmel8er.wordpress.com

[MJinCanada]

I think I'm going to have to spend more time thanking the powers that be and appreciating our CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) radio and television. In both news and entertainment, the CBC is directed at people who use their brains, keep open minds and enjoy diversity. One of the hit Canadian comedies is called (and I kid you not) "LIttle Mosque on the Prairies."

[evekendall]

Milwaukee Magazine: "Secrets of Talk Radio" 11/13/08

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046&pf=yes