Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Threat of Fairness
As right-wing talk show hosts see their political power waning in America, they are now worried about a brand new threat to their bizarre version of democracy.
After dominating the public airwaves for two decades, right-wing radio is terrified that a new administration will be more open to attempts in Congress to require talk radio to, gulp, be fair.
I became aware of this last week when I was invited by the Marquette Law School student chapter of the conservative Federalist Society to debate two right-wing talk show hosts, Charlie Sykes from WTMJ/AM in Milwaukee and Guy Benson from WIND/AM in Chicago.
You'd never guess what has conservatives in such a tizzy. It's a rather mild requirement the Federal Communications Commission once enforced in this country requiring radio and television stations to air opposing views on public issues.
It was called the Fairness Doctrine. The basic premise was that the public airwaves, which belong to all of us, could accommodate only a limited number of broadcast stations licensed by the government.
In exchange for those lucrative licenses, the government declared broadcasters had a public responsibility to cover controversial issues of community importance and to at least make some attempt at fairness by allowing more than one side to be heard. The requirement was intentionally vague and far from any kind of onerous burden on broadcasters. It never required anything close to equal time. Broadcasters were given broad discretion about how and when alternative views would be aired.
In the mid-'80s, President Ronald Reagan's FCC killed the requirement of even that minimal gesture toward "fairness" in the name of de-regulation. That is what allowed the rise of the all-right-wing-all-the-time radio that dominates the dial today.
We now have a talk radio industry in this country that is so overwhelmingly one-sided it most resembles a government-run media in some totalitarian country rather than what citizens should have a right to expect on the public airwaves of a democracy.
Led by Rush Limbaugh, AM talk radio is dominated not merely by conservatives, but by the far-right fringes of conservatism -- true whack jobs like G. Gordon Liddy and Michael Savage who regularly cross every line of decency to promote racism and even violence.
Even the unscrupulous President Richard Nixon, who utilized Liddy's talents for black bag jobs run out of the White House, described Gordon on the Watergate tapes as mentally unbalanced. On the air, Liddy has advised gun owners on the best way to murder federal agents who attempt to take away their guns: "Head shots! Head shots!"
While this one-sided, right-wing juggernaut has been expanding, we also know from presidential elections since the Reagan era that the citizens of this country are not overwhelmingly right wing.
In fact, most of the presidential elections over the past two decades have been extremely close, indicating something close to a 50-50 political division in this country.
So you have fully half of this country whose point of view is totally shut out from our so-called public airwaves.
That's why it was so amusing to hear both Sykes and Benson argue against restoring the Fairness Doctrine by claiming it would deny free speech. It would allow the big, bad federal government to control what could be said on the radio.
It's simply amazing to hear right-wing conservatives use a free speech argument to justify shutting out the speech of anyone other than themselves -- more than half the country who don't hold right-wing views.
Conservatives explain the total dominance of right-wing opinions on talk radio by claiming that right-wing personalities are somehow inherently more interesting and entertaining than anyone expressing views on the left.
That doesn't make any sense at a time when the intelligent, hilarious news satires of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert coming from the left are among the most popular shows on television.
It seems far more likely that half of America doesn't even bother turning on commercial talk radio because they expect their intelligence to be insulted by simple-minded, right-wing rants up and down the dial.
And, for the most part, they're right unless they check out Milwaukee's 1290 WMCS/AM, where I co-host "The Morning Magazine" from 6 to 10 a.m. weekdays.
It's true some Democratic political leaders including Sens. Richard Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry and others have expressed an interest in reviving the Fairness Doctrine in some form and increasing diversity in ownership to expand the voices on the public airwaves.
Right-wing talk show hosts will scream bloody murder. But it could be very healthy for the broadcast industry, ultimately expanding both audiences and profits.
During the economic collapse of recent weeks, we've learned totally unregulated capitalism doesn't always produce the best results for either the public or for business.
It's time for totalitarian right-wing radio to tear down that wall and stop shutting half the public off the public airwaves.
Joel McNally of Milwaukee writes a regular column for The Capital Times. jmcnally@wi.rr.com
18 Comments so far
Show Allbe careful what you wish for - if fairness is enforced, then left-wing programs (those few that exist) will be forced to air the "other side" as well. What we need are more progressive programs on air, and it looks like things are trending that way. Probably the regressives see this too and will try to invoke the fairness doctrine so that their voices will not be drowned out.
This is my opinion. There are few progressive AM stations and shows because there is no demand for them. Many conservatives seem to enjoy hearing the same angry over-the-top commentary until they are driven into some kind of righteous patriotic rage. Most liberals I know don't seem to have that same need.
Besides, who listens to AM radio anyway? My grandparents might. Maybe having some competitors to NPR would be nice to promote innovation, but who would want to listen to the liberal version of talk radio?
Lastly, forcing this issue with government mandates is heavy handed and wrong. As TruthTeller said, the result would be that Rush has more ammunition and can play the victim, and no one will listen to the 'opposing view' show because no one wants to. A massive lose-lose.
This issue is a harder call than the author and some of the posters here seem to understand the issue. Fairness and free speech are clearly both cultural values that deserve our support, yet how to reconcile them when it comes to public regulation of the "air-waves"? And increasingly, I think, as the internet grows in communication power, that issue will come to the fore as a matter with which cyber-space communication must deal. We seem to be in a fairly comfortable (for us) situation in which websites are free to choose a "side" (be it right or left) and to operate from that "side" without a mandate for equal representation to the other "side." Common Dreams, of which I am often critical (and which has never refused to publish any of my criticisms) may be a model for balancing these fairness and free speech mandates. While CD in the last election has clearly had an Obama-supporting "bias" in its main articles, it has obviously opened these comments pages to an open forum for dissenting opinions. Other websites have opinion exchange formats that are supposedly open but are more difficult to access by the less computer-savvy, have "membership" fees as a condition of posting or long periods of "moderation" before comments are posted. Much as I might rail at the "editorial" biases of Common Dreams, Alter Net or The Nation, I think much of our "fairness" complaint could be answered here, as in the "airwaves," by insisting by consumer demand if not by public regulation, that these media balance their exercise of editorial free speech by insuring an inclusive array of views expressed both in the "letters to the editors" formats and in their selection of editorial columnists. Democracy ain't easy, folks, but media democracy in all its dimensions needs to be a constant concern for all of us in that "business."
The legal principle, grounded in the congressional statute which created the FCC, remains in place: airwave broadcast channels (both radio & TV) are public property.
As such, broadcast channels are, in effect, rented by the FCC to non-profit and for-profit individuals or companies, via a license fee.
A general condition of all such airwave licenses is that the licensee must operate the station "in the public interest."
A specific sub-condition of the license (which further defines "in the public interest") is the 'Fairness Doctrine.'
Neither the "public interest" proviso or the 'Fairness Doctrine,' both of which reflect congressional intent to be promulgated thru FCC administrative law, has ever been repealed by congress or superceded by any lawful FCC regulation.
The FCC's 25yr old, Reagan-initiated, administrative non-enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine is a clearly illegal maneuver which, if ever adjudicated to finality in any federal court, would be prohibited.
While newer, non-regulated communication technologies may make the Fairness Doctrine a technonogical dinosaur, that is a speculation which is irrelevant -- and it is not the legal point at issue.
The point is that congress [still] intends, for decent and pretty damn obvious reasons, a fair balance of political opinion to be guaranteed over mass communication vectors which it defines as "public property."
Scores of millions still listen to documentedly one-sided talk-radio opinion over this public property, and likely will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
The fact that this imbalance is and has been illegal for many years, isn't disputable.
Nor is it unimportant.
Nor should it be tolerated.
Have you heard of HD Radio? That is what is going to happen if the "intolerable" situation of millions of people freely choosing to listen to Rush is "fixed". Now you will have millions listening on one HD channel of the same radio station and no one listening to Air America on another channel of the same station. Nothing will change except it will be VERY embarrassing for air America...
"While this one-sided, right-wing juggernaut has been expanding, we also know from presidential elections since the Reagan era that the citizens of this country are not overwhelmingly right wing. In fact, most of the presidential elections over the past two decades have been extremely close, indicating something close to a 50-50 political division in this country." You lost me here. American politics is dominated by a single business party with two factions, period. Journalists who don't want us to notice that are a part of the problem.
The Mad Hoosier is a very smart person!
Excellent post!
One must fully understand the ramifications of such a large group of mega corporations lining up against to public and their air waves!!!!
If any stupid lefty liberal thinks any meaningful change is going to happen(unless it is being marched off to the gulag),with Obama selection, you are lying to yourself.
HINT: If the rich can use the "peoples historic boycott tool", why the fuck can't we???
The Fairness Doctrine worked. There is no reason it won't work again.
The right is freaking out for good reason. They've had a monopoly on public opinion for too long. Having lost all others, this is their last battle for hearts and minds.
Look for them to blitz the media and Internet with attack ads on fairness.
By all means, rather than debate them, let's censor them. Because, have no doubt, that is what this is really about. Radio stations know left wing talk is a loser, so the hope is that, rather than waste valuable airtime on something no one will listen to, the station owners will just take the right wing talkers off the air.
And you call yourselves progressives???
Sioux Rose
Right on, EZY! They always invert laws to serve their own Machiavellian ends, like suing for white kids to get into universities that let in a small percentage of minorities on account of Affirmative Action. To them, these few are taking the positions more "rightfully" deserved by white kids with similar (possibly) academic scores. They cull the best old hard woods from forests stating the trees are diseased and call it "Healthy Forest Initiative," or give their own family and contacts educational inside deals over nonsensical textbooks, and call it "No Child Left Behind." There is not a law or decency this cabal cannot turn around to serve their own self-centered, bigoted, narrow-minded ends.
There are both rightwing and leftwing stations and even sites on the internet which forbid dissension so the issue of fairness is moot at this point. In any case, both sides are hell bent on winning at all costs which is why both sides joined Raygun in tearing down the fairness doctrine in the first place. If you don't like their hate talk, don't listen to them and don't buy from their sponsors. You'll be glad you stood up for something better and it will be possible that more people will follow suit and that will force them to change their tone. I can't imagine a more moderated Rush Limbaugh but it's still possible.
I would not do anything and my gut tells me that they will pass like the wind (joke).the election was to onesided and they will not have the material they have had before.People will tune them out.It will be their turn to speak from second place.Tony
In many markets Air America gets ratings comparable to right wing talk radio yet their advertising sales are weak, I think the corporate boycott listed below has something to do with that.
That corporations choose to spend their advertising dollars to promote right wing fringe politics instead of attempting to maximize the profits is an affront to the stockholders of those corporations...but then again there has to be some reason why the stock markets have lost nearly 40% of their value recently.
From Source Watch; A Project of the Center for Media and Democracy
“In October 2006, ABC Radio Networks, then under Disney's ABC, told its stations to black out all ads from about 90 companies that did not want to have their ads on radio stations that carried Air America Radio. The internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates was headlined "Air America Blackout" and was addressed to the Traffic Director who handles advertising for the affiliates. The memo states, "Please be advised that Hewlett Packard has purchased schedules with ABC Radio Networks between October 30th and December 24th, 2006. Please make sure you blackout this advertiser on your station, as they do not wish it to air on any Air America affiliate."
The memo then goes on to say, "Please see below for a complete list of all advertisers requesting that NONE of their commercials air within Air America programming." The list includes large corporations such as Wal-Mart, General Electric, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony, and Johnson & Johnson. Also on the list of advertisers that did not want their commercials to be on Air America Radio were the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Postal Service.
The complete list follows: (I'm Sorry about the odd format below)
Allstate | American Heart Association | Aventis | Avon | Bank of America | Bayer | BMW Motorcycles | Chattem products such as Capzasin penetrating rub, Gold Bond for skin care, and Gold Bond Foot Spray | Cigna | Cingular (now AT&T Mobility) | Clorox | Coke | Coty | Dean's Morningstar Food's | Dell | Denny's | Discovery Channel | Eharmony.com | Epson| Expedia.com | Exxon Mobil | Farmers Insurance | FedEx | Foot Action (under Foot Locker) | Frito-Lay (under PepsiCo) | General Electric | Gillette Venus (under Procter & Gamble | Goodyear | Heineken/Amstel Light | Hershey | Hewlett Packard | Home Depot | Hormel | Hyatt | Interstate Batteries | J. C. Penney| Johnson & Johnson Kohl's | Levi's | Masterfoods USA (under Mars | McDonald's Men's Frontline | MGM Michelin | Microsoft Morningstar National Cattleman's Beef Nestle Nissan NYSE Office Depot Outdoor Life Network| Procter & Gamble products Bounty, Charmin, Febreeze, Iams Dog/Cat Foods, and Pepto-Bismol Paramount under Viacom Pepsi Philip Morris Pier 1 Imports Red Lobster Darden Restaurants Re/Max REI Sporting Goods | Rent-way Robert Half Schering-Plough Sherwin Williams Sony State Farm | Toys R Us | Travelocity.com True Value United Healthcare U.S. Navy USPS (U.S. Postal Service Visa Walgreens| Wal-Mart Welch's Wrigley Wyeth.”
While attempting to clean up the last paragraph I could not help but notice how many of these corporations were also big-time sponsors of NASCAR
One that I noticed on the list kinda surprized me. REI Outdoor Equipment? How strange.
Democrats are going to get bitten in the @ss on this one. IF the courts uphold the "fairness" doctrine, which is a very big if, several things are going to happen.
ONE) Rush will join Hannity on Satellite radio (Hannity is on XM right now at the same time as his terrestrial radio program.) No fairness doctrine there, as XM already gives Air America their own channel, which no one listens to. Satellite sales will explode.
TWO) Rush et al will be listened to over the internet.
THREE) "HD RADIO", where ONE terrestrial radio station can air TWO (or more) programs at the same time will get very big very fast. So, the station that formally only carried Rush will now carry Rush on one channel and Air America on another.
What will the result be? Everyone will still listen to Rush, just like now, NO ONE will listen to Air America, just like now, but now there will be no way to disguise how thouroughly the public rejects left wing radio programs...And Rush will present himself as the victim of fascistic intolerant thought police.
Be careful what you wish for...
I completely agree.
As near as I can tell the radio shows that are on, including Limbaugh, sell advertising to keep the show on the air. Its not free political comment like NPR.
If thats the case, then opposing views should be more than welcome to compete. This is an issue of free speech and I don't see any loss of free speech here.