Not long ago, Reporters Without Borders downgraded the US in their Press Freedom Index by 36 spots, putting us down in the range of Uruguay and Tonga, all as the result of the imprisonment of Judith Miller for not cooperating with the Valerie Plame leak investigation. We moved from 17th place, fairly near the top of the list with the other civilized countries, down to the middle where press freedom is usually at the whim of some dictator or princeling. I wonder what they will do to our rating if Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) manages to reinstate the notorious Fairness Doctrine with his new Media Ownership Reform Act, a bill which has 17 cosponsors and strong support among the Democrats who now control Congress.
The Fairness Doctrine originated as a vague FCC policy in the 1950s intended to give competing political candidates equal access to broadcast media exposure, so that no outlet could ban the advertisements or coverage of a particular candidate. Over the years the policy went through many changes, ultimately becoming much more restrictive by the 1980s to the point where it essentially mandated second-by-second equal time for opposing editorial positions as well as opposing candidates.
Under the Reagan administration the FCC issued the Fairness Report in 1985 which suggested doing away with the doctrine because it was a violation of the First Amendment and generally contrary to the public interest. As a result the FCC began a hands-off policy supporting free debate on the airwaves, similar to the general lack of regulation of the print media. A final effort was made to restore the doctrine by passing it as the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, but Presidents Reagan and Bush both vetoed the bill.
Back in power in Congress for the first time since those vetoes, restoring the Fairness Doctrine is high on the list of many Democrats, and Hinchey is leading the way with his bill which specifically references the very broad interpretation of the doctrine found in the vetoed 1987 legislation. As defined in Hinchey's bill, the Fairness Doctrine could easily be interpreted to require radio and television stations carrying popular but politically partisan programming to provide equal airtime to programming with an opposing viewpoint regardless of its audience appeal.
Some supporters openly refer to this as the 'Hush Rush' or 'Air America Bailout' bill, because it would make it financially prohibitive for talk radio stations to carry popular conservative talk shows, because they would have to be balanced by politically left-leaning programming which would not attract enough of an audience to bring in any advertising money. For every enormously profitable hour of Rush Limbaugh and his millions of listeners which a station carries it would have to broadcast an hour of Al Franken or the equivalent, with no listeners and no appeal to advertisers.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Maurice
I am divided on this issue. On the one hand free enterprise should solve all problems. In other words let the market decide and keep the government the hell out of it.
On the other hand we have laws to prevent people from doing harm to themselves. In my mind watching Jerry Springer day in and day out qualifies as a soul destroying addiction. I am sure many people would put Rush and Michael Savage on the same shelf as Jerry Springer.
When I lived in England I was amazed at how much better their TV was than ours. Later I learned it was all owned by the government.
Should there be laws that require an answer to idiotic broadcasting? My pragmatic side says absolutely not. My wishful side that abhors the content of our most damnable medium (TV) says - maybe.
Finally, I probably don't have a dog in this fight because I got rid of my TV just before FOX News channel went on the air (10 years ago?).
2 - Dave Nalle
You do have a dog in the fight, Maurice, because they are seriously talking about extending this doctrine and campaign reform rules to the internet. You could be fined for expressing support for a candidate on your blog, for example, if this is carried to its proposed ultimate goals.
Dave
3 - Jon Sobel
I don't understand why the question of the Fairness Doctrine has to be tied in with restrictions on media ownership. Can't someone be against one and for the other? They shouldn't be included in one bill.
The deep issue at hand is, as in so many areas, the balance between what the government should do and what should be left to the market. Government is essential to the protection of freedom of speech - we wouldn't have freedom of speech if it didn't have the Constitution (the founding document of the government) explicitly protecting it. It's foolish to think that freedom of speech can be fully maintained without some government oversight. However, as you suggest, the Fairness Doctrine seemed to take it too far. (Of course, without it, we'd never have had the classic All in the Family episode where Archie demands equal time. Boy, that was a good one!)
On the other hand, your slippery slope fears seem excessive and unrealistic to me.
On the topic of media ownership, it's not so much a question of Top 40, it's a question of America getting dumber and dumber. (cf. the Fox network) Freedom of speech says Rupert Murdoch should be able to broadcast what he wants. On the other hand, it's no accident that the airwaves were declared to be owned by the public and only licensed to broadcasters. It's extremely hard to find a good balance here.
4 - Dave Nalle
Jon, when dealing with 'slippery slope' type issues when there is a vocal minority who want to push policy in the direction of oppression, it's generally a good rule to lay back and let the marketplace set the course, rather than meddling in with something like this MORA bill and creating an artificial and potentially volatile environment which could lead to a degradation of 1st amendment rights throughout the nation.
Dave
5 - Clavos
On the other hand, it's no accident that the airwaves were declared to be owned by the public and only licensed to broadcasters.
FOX News is not "on the airwaves," it's on cable, and therefore, not subject to the same FCC regulation.
6 - Nancy
I vote we ban ALL politically-oriented talk shows & replace them with "Car Talk" instead. Those two brothers fracture me.
7 - moonraven
FYI:
Press freedom ended in April of 1986--right after Reagan bombed Tripoli and killed one of Ghadaffi's children.
He then santimoniously went on t.v. and said how great it was that we had bombed Libya.
All the US reporters (the usual suspects that had been rounded up to applaud) said what a great idea it was.
A reporter from the BBC stepped forward and Said, "Let me tell you what a BAD idea it was, and why there will be repercussions in the Arab World for many years to come..."
He was immediately given the hook.
Prescient bastard, that guy from the BBC.
8 - Jon Sobel
FOX News is not "on the airwaves," it's on cable, and therefore, not subject to the same FCC regulation.
Yes, but my point is that when "the airwaves" were all there were, the powers that be saw fit to declare them publicly owned, in the interests of national discourse and the public good. Cable (and other means of information delivery) have now become primary, hence the "airwaves belonging to the public" doctrine has fallen by the wayside. This is a bad thing.
9 - Matthew
I consult for the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and they’re concerned about media consolidation because the public needs to understand what really is at stake here. This isn’t about corporate giants buying up all local broadcast outlets " it is about having fair rules to allow broadcasters to compete against cable, satellite and the Internet. If broadcasters are going to keep providing the kind of free programming that Americans rely on for local news and info " the FCC rules need to reflect reality and need to be modernized to reflect today's environment, not the 1970s. I agree with the last paragraph of the original post; government interference seems to often come with unintended consequences that hinder freedom of speech more than promote it.
10 - Clavos
Jon
Cable (and other means of information delivery) have now become primary, hence the "airwaves belonging to the public" doctrine has fallen by the wayside.
The delivery of cable content is entirely a private endeavour, and as such, it's a GOOD thing that the government has no say in what goes out over privately owned transmitters, satellites and cables. It's a private enterprise, pure and simple, not a public service.
If, as you say, cable has become the primary means of information delivery, and I think NBC, ABC, and CBS would argue that strenuously, it's because the public chooses freely to tune it in, not because there is no other option.
I'm all in favor of the government staying out of information delivery, especially.
11 - moonraven
If the government stayed out of the communications media morass, the airwaves would be dominated by mafias even more than it is now.
A few years back Colin Powell's son tried to pull a fast one and institute monopolies in the media.
Monopolies are not what are needed. The anti-monopoly laws were passed because monopolies were abusive.
Monopolies do not promote freedom of the media. They strangle it.
That
12 - Jon Sobel
I'm all in favor of the government staying out of information delivery, especially.
Agreed in principle. The problem, though, is how to re-draw the line between news and opinion that existed, if imperfectly, in the days when Walter Cronkite ruled the evening news? I don't see the market doing that very well.
13 - Dave Nalle
Mathew, I hope I was clear enough in the article that I don't think the attempt to break up media monopolies is the real threat here. I think it's a misguided policy, but not really dangerous.
In the radio business, the monopolization problem is largely a fiction. There is nothing keeping independents out of markets where Clearchannel or other conglomerates operate. Frequencies are more available now than ever before because of improved technology and the cost of starting up and operating a radio station is microscopic compared to most businesses.
If Hinchey really wanted diversity he'd find a way to make broadcast licenses cheaper - they're the single largest expense radio stations face, so that some of the people now operating pirate stations could enter the marketplace more easily. That's the way to add diversity.
Dave
14 - moonraven
Okay, I get it:
Dave wants cheap radio licenses so that he can have his own radio station and circulate more of the hate he promotes in Internet.
Redneck megalomania is not in short supply.
15 - Dave Nalle
Good lord no. I did my time on the radio and I'm too old to get up that early in the morning anymore.
Dave
16 - moonraven
What radio station was that, Dave: Survivalists for the Protection of Colored People?
17 - Dave Nalle
Just college radio, Marthe. Nothing too serious. I had a saturday morning show on punk music back in the 80s.
Dave
18 - moonraven
So now he wants to "get serious" with his own station?
19 - Jon Sobel
Ironically, NPR, which is the closest thing we have to a nationalized and unbiased radio network, has been instrumental in preventing the proliferation of low power FM stations.
20 - moonraven
Nationalized doesn't mean unbiased.
The Bush Gang honcho that was head of the Public Broadcasting board of trustees tried to gut everything the least bit critical on PBS and NPR.
21 - gregrocker
The issue would probably not be brought up if the right hadn't taken over the entire AM radio dial 24/7 and were allowed to lie nonstop, duping an estimated 50 million Americans in order to successfully swing elections. So pernicious was this that the prestigious Annenberg School of Communication at UPenn (funded by the conservative TV Guide fortune) studied for 12 years the beliefs of talk radio listeners and found that on most every issue, they had absorbed demonstrably false facts from talk radio - dubbed "false certainty" - simply because they refuse to believe the radio would be allowed to lie to them so blatantly. This of course is the very definition of the Big Lie theory.
Left media activists even ignored this for 15 years such that pleas that the right was poised using talk radio to take over the government, were regularly derided and AM radio was disparaged as "K Mart." This allowed major corporations like ABC to hand over its entire station network to right wing extremists, in return for waivers for same-market ownership dealt by Bush's FCC before the 02 and 04 election.
The Dems have no choice if they wish to hold onto Congressional majority to immediately begin pressure on station ownership, by holding hearings where for example the chair of ABC, Dem statesman George Mitchell, is placed under oath and asked why he turned over this radio entire station network 24/7 for 15 years to right wing exremists who were allowed to lie without challenge, took over and wrecked the US Government. Mitchell needs to be exposed on this at the total expense of his reputation, while FOX liars should be similary brought in and asked to repeat some of their bigger lies under oath, to see if they can finally tell the truth to save themselves from Federal prison.
Clear Channel likewise needs to put on record why it smothered fledgling Air America affiliates right after the last election, claiming they were not economically viable when no ad sales staff was ever hired and calls to place advertising were never returned. On at least half of Clear Channels 50 progressive Air America affiliates, stars like Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes regularly beat the top rightist talkers. in fact, right wing dirty tricks activists have entire websites dedicated to proffering phony ratings in an effort to topple Air America, which if it had the start-up funding of Fox or The Washington Times ($2 billion from murky Moonie sources) would be beating right wing talk radio already.
This is a Congressional issue because the radio airwaves are owned by the public and given for free to US corporations with only the understanding that they will practice basic fairness. They have done anything BUT, and if Dems don't tackle this head on and as ruthlessly as the right lies, then they will be streamrolled by the GOP's radio juggernaut shortly.
22 - moonraven
Damn right it's a congressional issue.
23 - Maurice
Wow Greg...uh rocker. You have a different view than me. Did you read the article? Can you give me a link with a quote from one of the 'liars'? You think the corporations were 'given' the licenses (please read #14)? Did it ever occur to you that the 'GOP's radio juggernaut' became strong because a lot of people listen to it?
24 - Dave Nalle
Gregrocker is spreading a great deal of misinformation here. I'll see if I can clear some of it up.
The issue would probably not be brought up if the right hadn't taken over the entire AM radio dial 24/7 and were allowed to lie nonstop, duping an estimated 50 million Americans in order to successfully swing elections. So pernicious was this that the prestigious Annenberg School of Communication at UPenn (funded by the conservative TV Guide fortune) studied for 12 years the beliefs of talk radio listeners and found that on most every issue, they had absorbed demonstrably false facts from talk radio - dubbed "false certainty" - simply because they refuse to believe the radio would be allowed to lie to them so blatantly. This of course is the very definition of the Big Lie theory.
False certainty is not the same thing as false 'facts', and if you've ever listened to Air America, their version of facts is about as accurate as what you find on right wing talk radio. Plus, this characterization of a right-wing takeover is pretty questionable. Most talk radio remains either locally programmed or non-political in nature. There just happen to be a few big figures in syndication who are politically right. They didn't become successful because someone forced people to listen to them. They became popular because people listened to them and kept listening in larger and larger numbers and that attracted advertisers, so that format became popular for purely commercial reasons.
Left media activists even ignored this for 15 years such that pleas that the right was poised using talk radio to take over the government, were regularly derided and AM radio was disparaged as "K Mart." This allowed major corporations like ABC to hand over its entire station network to right wing extremists, in return for waivers for same-market ownership dealt by Bush's FCC before the 02 and 04 election.
Come again? ABC has one of the most left-leaning managements in any media conglomerate and their news department is notoriously slanted to the left.
The Dems have no choice if they wish to hold onto Congressional majority to immediately begin pressure on station ownership, by holding hearings where for example the chair of ABC, Dem statesman George Mitchell, is placed under oath and asked why he turned over this radio entire station network 24/7 for 15 years to right wing exremists
Most radio talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, are relatively moderate. And the reason they took over was 100% commercial. They're what the audience wanted to listen to.
who were allowed to lie without challenge,
When was your right to challenge them taken away, exactly? And what's your definition of a 'lie'? Anything you don't agree with?
took over and wrecked the US Government.
Ah, so Rush Limbaugh runs our country now? Last I checked all he could do was influence the public, and clearly the GOP pays zero attention to public opinion, at least in the Bush administration. So your argument makes no sense at all.
Mitchell needs to be exposed on this at the total expense of his reputation, while FOX liars should be similary brought in and asked to repeat some of their bigger lies under oath, to see if they can finally tell the truth to save themselves from Federal prison.
I wonder, can you come up with ANY examples of these 'lies'?
Clear Channel likewise needs to put on record why it smothered fledgling Air America affiliates right after the last election, claiming they were not economically viable when no ad sales staff was ever hired and calls to place advertising were never returned
Nice conspiracy theory. Let's see some evidence to back it up. Clearchannel is in business to make money, so your argument makes no sense at all. All of their stations have advertising staff. From what I've heard the problem was that Air America had no idea how to sell ads on their syndicated shows and offended so many listeners that no advertisers wanted to buy local space either.
On at least half of Clear Channels 50 progressive Air America affiliates, stars like Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes regularly beat the top rightist talkers.
I've seen these claims before. Someone called Cerulean used to post them here on BC. Invariably there would be clever little deceptions to produce these 'great' ratings for Air America - like comparing an Air America station with just one station carrying Rush Limbaugh when 3 stations in the market were actually carrying his show.
in fact, right wing dirty tricks activists have entire websites dedicated to proffering phony ratings in an effort to topple Air America,
How could that possibly work when anyone can go to Arbitron and get the real figures?
which if it had the start-up funding of Fox or The Washington Times ($2 billion from murky Moonie sources) would be beating right wing talk radio already.
How much money does it take to make Randi Rhodes not be annoying anymore?
This is a Congressional issue because the radio airwaves are owned by the public and given for free to US corporations with only the understanding that they will practice basic fairness.
Actually, they aren't given for free. There's a hefty application fee, plus expenses associated with getting your frequency cleared by the FCC, then there's a yearly fee based on the size of the market you're broadcasting in which can be up to $10,000 a year. You can get the specifics at www.fcc.gov.
They have done anything BUT, and if Dems don't tackle this head on and as ruthlessly as the right lies, then they will be streamrolled by the GOP's radio juggernaut shortly.
So what you're saying is that the Democrats cannot function in an environment of free and open speech and must silence criticism by force? That's not the kind of party I want running our country, sorry.
Dave
25 - SonnyD
#7 Nancy, that was funny. By golly, you do have a sense of humor. But, I worry what would become of you if someone could limit political speech on the internet. I mean, if you couldn't recommend killing some politician at least once a day, wouldn't you go into withdrawal or something?