Fairness Doctrine Debate – Part II –updated below–
cross-posted on Firedoglake
It’s been my week to awaken the wingnuts. But I love starting these types of fights, especially when the wingnuts don’t have
a leg on which to stand. We got a good dose of how dangerous right-wing radio
can be, when Spocko
made news and took on The
Mouse. But this is about something else.
Well, the Democrats are in charge and the Fairness Doctrine is back in the
discussion.
Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis,
TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich
(D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would
be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding
the Federal Communications Commission.The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding “hearings
to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic
Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially
announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news
public early.In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention
on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also
in consideration is the “Fairness Doctrine,” which required broadcasters
to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced
until it was eliminated in 1987.Kucinich said in his speech that “We know the media has become the servant
of a very narrow corporate agenda” and added “we are now in a position
to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible.”
The conservatives are freaked out about the Fairness
Doctrine becoming a reality again. I received a serious and unintelligible
troll attack over my post on the
Fairness Doctrine because I dared to link to the freaked out anti-fairness
conservatives, which included Red State, Captains Quarters, that unhinged Jeff
guy (yeah, him), Right Wing News and others (links are here
if you must). I just can’t help offering entertainment to my readers. But seriously,
the wingnuts just don’t get it. The short story on the Fairness Doctrine is
that Reagan got it nuked and shortly after that Rush entered the picture, which
opened out on a conservative monopoly on radio, because the Democrats were still
trying to figure out direct mail. Anyway…
Unfortunately, when wingnut trolls attack, they only prove my points. One of
them offers: “…MSNBC, CNN are losing their audience in greater numbers,
while Fox, Hannity or Rush Limbaugh numbers are increasing. …” Unfortunately,
the argument is not only lacking in facts, but illustrates why the Fairness
Doctrine is important. For instance, Fox “News” ranted on, as did
Rush and Ken doll Sean, about WMDs in Iraq, as well as every other lie put forth
by the Bush administration, reaching millions of listeners and viewers, while
also slandering the U.N. weapons inspectors, who just happened to be right.
If you add political Christian broadcasting to this toxic mix, you get a monopoly
that is dangerous. Progressives didn’t get on Armed Forces radio until late
in 2005, but even then Ed
Schultz was threatened
with cancellation before he even debuted, because he criticized someone
in the Bush administration. This isn’t championing free speech. It is patently
unfair practice. It also illustrates the tilted news our military is getting.
That, too, is dangerous.
It’s not enough to offer editorial comment, when the truth is missing from
the debate. Right-wing radio offers propaganda, not facts, with the intent to
play on the listeners emotions, without offering content that is based in reality.
The ratings prove that FNC, Fox
“News” channel is losing out in the ratings. Of course, if you
want to talk Fox’s basic network, with football and “24,” the ratings
are different, but that’s not political content, which is the subject here.
In addition, the ignorance of conservatives about media and radio is further
shown when they say the Fairness Doctrine is about “…demanding that the
government implement further control or regulation over an entire industry,
it might be simpler to look in the mirror, at the rating points & ad revenues
& realize that the market for the “progressive” or liberal slant
isn’t as popular or pervasive as you assume it to be. … Again, they
miss the point. Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, as well as the leader in progressive
talk, Randi Rhodes, are making
it in the commercial market, as are others. Progressive radio programming
is not only popular, but growing. The issue is to allow more progressive hosts
on local am/fm radio to see if we can also make it. Unless you’ve been in the
battle for radio you don’t know what it’s like, with conservative corporations
not even giving progressives a chance to get on air, or cancelling good hosts
before they have the time to prove themselves. You have to give progressive
hosts a chance to build an audience, which takes time. But conservatives do
not want fairness, which can be seen through their trade policy, as well as
their anti-union rhetoric, which has decimated the middle class, by selling
out workers for outsourcing all in the name of profit. They want a one-way talking
machine on radio, paid by and benefiting only their political partners in business,
as well.
In addition, the hate speech spreading from right-wing hosts is real. KSFO
and its callers have been called out recently, as has Melanie Morgan. Read
Spoko’s
story, if you haven’t already, which reveals it all. There’s more from Mike
Stark. … and to add, Spocko is back.
Right-wing is on the air and getting advertisers because they’re the only game
in town in many instances, except for a few progressive hosts like Schultz,
Miller, Rhodes and a few lucky others, including those on Air America. The Fairness
Doctrine will not keep a bad show on, but it will allow entry to good hosts
who are now being shut out by conservative conglomerates.
UPDATE (5:49 p.m.): I missed the White House briefing today, but luckily Randy did not and emailed me about it. He also found a very interesting article by Tony Snow from 1993. Thanks Randy.
Q Yes, Tony, thank you. Two questions. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Congressman Maurice Hinchy of New York have just introduced companion bills called the “Media Ownership Reform Act,” which are an attempt to revive the “fairness doctrine” for TV and radio with no such government control proposed for newspapers, magazines or wire services. My question, does the President believe that we should revive the so-called “fairness doctrine” which was repealed during the Reagan administration?
MR. SNOW: You know, Les, we’ll take that up if it becomes a real issue.
Q Okay. President Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Bill Ruder, said, “We had a massive strategy to use the ‘fairness doctrine’ to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hoped the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue. And my question, do you remember that statement reported by The Washington Times on September 5, 1993?
MR. SNOW: No. Although I do have some memories of the Kennedy administration, that particular utterance does not rise to thought.
Q That was from an article headlined, “Return of the Fairness Demon,” and the byline was, Tony Snow.
MR. SNOW: All right, thank you. (Laughter.)
Randy also found an interesting article by none other than Tony Snow, a future right-wing talk radio guy turned press puppet for Mr. Bush, who couldn’t say enough bad things about the Fairness Doctrine. In 1993, it was called the “Crush Rush Bill,” which I remember well. Again, the right-wing is scared to death progressives will get on the air, but it’s certainly not about crushing Rush. If being caught with a huge stash of drugs and a mug shot, not to mention with a pile of pills after a men’s holiday to an underage sex tourism capital of the world won’t do it, the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t have a chance. Now to a snippet of Tony Snow’s 1993 anti-fairness musings:
… Washington never has abstained from abusing its power to abuse power, and a revived Fairness Doctrine would be no exception. Although Democrats have been plumping to restore the doctrine since 1987, industry lobbyists claim that the present revival seeks in part to put the kibosh on talk-radio stations, which have proved a nuisance by catching Congress in the act of acting like Congress. Hence the nickname for the Hefner-Hollings bill: the Crush Rush Bill.
But the fact is, we have no fairness problem. The doctrine has applied to cable networks since 1987, and nobody has complained. Moreover, many of the reviled conservative talk-show hosts have striven for fairness, only to be rebuffed by liberals who refuse to appear on the air with them. Under the Crush Rush Bill, these cowardly nemeses could demand coverage of their views without having to face their foes in a fair debate – or having to pay their way.
Advocates of the doctrine argue that it wouldn’t impose huge burdens on stations, and that any minor nuisances would serve the noble cause of vigorous public debate. But this argument, like the Fairness Doctrine itself, rests upon the mistaken notion that the conduits of our common culture have a constitutional obligation to be “fair” – to hear out every poor soul with an opinion.
They do not. The Fairness Doctrine should not entitle members of fringe organizations to free publicity. If somebody from a conservative or liberal interest group wants an audience these days, he has a simple solution. He can start his own channel.
I haven’t been able to verify this source, but the above reportedly comes from: “CONGRESS PONDERS A CRUSH RUSH BILL; [FINAL/ALL Edition] TONY SNOW. The Plain Dealer. Cleveland, Ohio: Sep 7, 1993. pg. 5.B.”
Comments are closed.