Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
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.
- Posted in
47 Comments so far
Show AllWow. Talk about hitting the nail on the head!
Silver has precisely and articulately identified what I have been calling the number one obstacle to progress for more than a year.
I want to hear the major media corporations squeal like Ned Beatty in "Deliverance."
Great job, Josh.
q
Great ideas guy, except for one small problem. After Obama cancels the right wing media outlets and media through the Fairness doctrine, who will be watching anything? Fox is over and knows it; nix the hate radio and what's left? ABC/NBC and CBS are done, you can stick a fork in them; their ratings are falling each and every year, but more importantly, each year they reach fewer households. Same is the case for CNN/MSNBC, etc. The only network recently posting higher viewership is CNBC. As fewer people turn on the t.v. for news, even fewer are listening to radio. And as for the internet? You've got a major problem, i.e. it's a closed loop. The Lefties go to Lefty sights and the Right Wingnuts go to Newswithviews and Worldnutdaily and Townhull. No change there in terms of peoples views. The real truth about the MSM for 2009 and the foreseable future is it's demise. When MSM becomes nothing more than a pitch master propaganda machine, no one watches because, they know what they are going to hear before they hear it.
Right on the money Ringo!
The FD is not the answer. We have, even the people without the internet, a range of stations and outlets to listen to but we don't listen to what they say to form an opinion, we listen to what they say to CONFIRM our own opinion. The outlets only give us what we pay for. Literally pay for through commercials and ratings.
If there were 1 hour balancing of shows on the radio, you'd simply have half of America listening to opinion and half to music and it would rotate every hour. No leftie is going to sit through an hour of Rush anymore than a Republican is going to listen to Ralph Nader for an hour. All the FD would do is give lefties the ability to hear confirmations of their beliefs on Clearchannel instead of NPR or Pacifica.
There is a long term fault on the left that imagines that "if only the beknighted in on the right could be educated..."
Buddy that aint going to happen any more than for Ditto Heads believing that if only all the lefties could try hunting, they'd all support the right to own guns.
This is hubris. It is blindness. Its silly, petty, devisive, arrogant, beligerant and just plain stupid.
Make the airwaves available to all, by all means cut down consolidation, but never never never think that you should control content or you are going to get your head handed to you on a platter.
The far right attempted to destroy Bill Clinton because he got a hummer from a woman who first dissolved an Altoid on her tongue. Now imagine what they'll try to do to Obama just because he's black. In a way, the far right loves failure because it stokes their profound anger, resentment and paranoia. Once again, a conspiracy of Jews and Mud People will be attempting to bring the nation down from within. Each succeeding day of the Obama administration will make people like Sean Hannity want to bring out the black uniform, the jack boots and high peaked cap with the silver Death's Head hidden under his bed and put it on during prime time. Sieg Heil, you MoFo's!
From Jack London's IRON HEEL:“You have forgotten the editors. They draw their salaries for the policy they maintain. Their policy is to print nothing that is a vital menace to the established. The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it.”
"WAR IS A RACKET" by General Smedley Butler.
Hoa binh
I thought the three recommendations he made were excellent.
His claim that the media didn't give Obama a pass is absurd. Any fair minded person that watched media coverage knows its true. I say so what. It was the other way last time.
The "Fairness Doctrine" is simply censorship. And it doesbn't smell any better coming from the left than it does the right.
Censorship is 18 hours a day of neo-con propaganda on the only 50,000 watt politcal-talk radio station in "blue" Chicago (which is in "blue" Illinois).
Recently, said station, WLS AM 890 let punk right-winger Jerry Adar go. They immediately replaced him with another right-wing hack named Mancow.
If Chicago's only 50,000 watt politcal-talk radio station cannot find three hours during the day for ONE PROGRESSIVE voice it can only be called CENSORSHIP.
This same format can be found all over the country, in blue states and red states.
The airwaves belong to the public and MUST serve the public. Period. They do NOT exist for corporations to make money. Period.
End Censorship. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine TODAY!
(Let's also not forget that INDPENDENTS get ZERO airtime, and they are quite possibly the LARGEST political group in the country.
Then shouldn't a liberal show buy time on the station , sell advertising and put forth another view?
"Censorship is 18 hours a day of neo-con propaganda on the only 50,000 watt politcal-talk radio station in "blue" Chicago (which is in "blue" Illinois)."
Are you suggesting that the station gives free air time to the neo cons? If so then I would agree, equal time should be offered to opposing views. If its a commercial station, selling advertising for the show, once again get an opposing show on. My mother was in Radio and TV for 40+ years and she would tell you stations are there to make money, not for political purposes.
I am not in favor of having government run radio and TV stations. They need to stay out of it.
Start another station, buy time on the station and put on whatever talk you want.
Censorship is censorship no matter who advocates it.
Liberals and Independents are supposed to buy time to compete with 18 hours of neo-con talk?? Do you mean buy 30 seconds of commercial time? Or buy an entire 3 hours (which is unavailable) for a show? This makes no sense to me?
I advocate if Rush Limbaugh gets 3 hours of time then 3 hours should be given for Progressives and another 3 hours for Independents.
If you're not in favor of government mandates then you should buy a station on PRIVATE satellite radio which doesn't use the public airwaves.
There are a limited number of radio stations (signals) available in each city. They must be shared for the common good. It's no different than sharing the other "commons" that belong to the public: air, water, utilities, highways etc.
Please remember, a company may own the radio station, but the community own the broadcast signal.
It's not my concern whether the company that owns the station makes a small profit, big profit or loses money. They have to work within the rule of serving the community. Period.
There used to be stringent requirements to obtain/keep the license for a signal. In the last 10 years (or so) these requirements have been relaxed. A company used to have to reapply for their license every 2 years, now it is 7. Licenses are almost never denied.
The FCC needs to tighten up and enforce regulations once again.
Sioux Rose
CYGNUS: Right on! Without TRUE information democracy is a farce. It's a wonder Obama won given the campaign of disinformation so rapidly/rabidly flowing!
"I advocate if Rush Limbaugh gets 3 hours of time then 3 hours should be given for Progressives and another 3 hours for Independents."
Who will be the arbiter of what is "Progressive" or "Independent"? And should stations be *forced* to broadcast these shows even if they lose tons of money on it? You can't force businesses to operate at a loss, they can just quit.
I would like nothing better than to be able to listen to a left talk show on the radio from time to time, but the vast majority have been utter and miserable failures in the commercial sense.
First of all, thank you Sioux.
-----------------
To Jake: Shows such as Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann beat the neo-conservative propagandists in MANY of the markets where they compete on equal footing. (I'm a big fan of Thom Hartmann!)
What do I mean by equal footing? In MOST of the major markets the "liberal" shows are operating on low-wattage stations, while the neo-cons are on popular high-wattage stations. For example, in Chicago, Rush is on WLS AM 890 a historic radio station that almost assures ratings of at least 5.0 for any show. Thom Hartmann is on a low-wattage unknown station that only operates during daylight hours. Its impossible to get ratings on this station. If Rush were forced to be on the low wattage station his ratings would shrink to nothing. If Thom was on WLS he'd have big numbers. It's my understanding that this is the case in LA and NY as well (please correct me if I am wrong).
Please also realize that neo-con radio has a 15 year lead. It takes time to develop an audience. If I'm not mistaken many of the neo-con shows were "subsidized" too during the early rough years.
Jake: every business has rules they must operate under. The FACT that the airwaves are owned by the public and therefore must be operated in the public's interest is THE primary rule for broadcast companies. If they cannot profit satisfactorily within this framework then they should find a new business...or else take their business to a private delivery vehicle like satellite radio.
We may have debate about who is a "progressive" radio host or an independent. But I can assure you that if the debate was allowed to take place fairly we wouldn't end up with a lineup of Limbaugh, Hannity, Mancow, Don Wade and Savage.
There are a limited number of radio station signals allowed in each city. They must be shared.
I would still point out that these are commercial shows. People buy advertising to support them. If no one buys advertising, they go off the air. Simple as that.
If a progressive show can't compete commercially, then it won't be on that 50,000 watt station. People listen to what they want to listen to. You cannot, nor should you attempt to force people to listen to what you think the should listen to. Do you listen to Rush?
Dress it up anyway you like, but censorship is no harder to recognize than racism. And censorship is what the fairness doctrine is if it forces a private business to furnish free time to give an opposite view of a commercial program.
We are going to have to let go of some the closely held myths from the past if we are going to succeed in the future.
"In MOST of the major markets the "liberal" shows are operating on low-wattage stations, while the neo-cons are on popular high-wattage stations."
Whose fault is that? Evidently the "liberal" shows aren't popular enough to be able to buy higher wattage transmitters.
"Please also realize that neo-con radio has a 15 year lead. It takes time to develop an audience."
Nothing prevented liberal radio shows from doing what you call "neo-con" (which I wonder if people around here even know what this term means) stations did, that is, build a competing audience over the same period.
"If I'm not mistaken many of the neo-con shows were "subsidized" too during the early rough years."
I think you are, if you can provide an example when you think of one.
"We may have debate about who is a "progressive" radio host or an independent."
It won't be you and I having that debate, it will be politicians doing so, along with the debate about what exactly constitutes the "public interest" or even if there is such a thing outside the agregate of the interests of individuals. These polititians don't lose if they make the wrong decisions.
If Rush and Co. don't support the President then they are un-patriotic tear-wrists.
Turn about is fair play.
Sorry, this does not apply to Republicans. They can oppose wars waged by Democratic presidents and still be seen as patriotic, cheat on their wives and still be holier-than-thou, suggest that 75% of the country are communists and still keep their jobs and be consistently wrong about everything and still maintain a following.
True, but how do the Republicans get away with it?
The Fairness Doctrine could still be put into practice. Clear Channel would just have to follow Rush Limbaugh with "The Noam Chomsky Show."
That thought just made my day.
The Fairness Doctrine allowed the public to regulate their own airwaves. Take a look at the fact that without the Fairness Doctrine, the right wing media has taken monopolistic control over AM radio and since 1988 when Rush Limpballs hit the AM scene, the country has been driven into the toilet. With the rise of Internet news sources (like this one), it will not be as critical to reinstitute FD. People are now more informed, less misinformed, but as the story indicates, rural Ohio still tunes in Fox and Rush Bimbo as their main view of the world. Let's get them high speed service and put the bimbo out of business.
Barry Clemson
IMHO the real problem is that we are becoming a nation of non-literates, i.e., most of us can still read (sort of) but don't. We are increasingly anti-intellectual and averse to logic and facts. Most of us rely on slogans and images. And the slogans and images are discounted unless they reinforce our existing prejudices.
Given that we are increasingly non-literate, the old media forms are rapidly dying and it is not clear what will take their place. As one of the comments above points out, the internet tends to be used in a way that reinforces what we already believed rather than as a way to learn and grow.
I am an eternal optimist, but it is hard to see how current trends are ever going to morph into anything beneficial to freedom and democracy.
LeeAnnG
What's really absurd is to say that the media gave Obama a "pass." Obama didn't engage in the kind of ugliness and lies the McCain campaign did, so there wasn't so much to report there. Anyone who watched the clips of Rev. Wright over and over and over and over and over and over again and listened to the accusations of socialism and heard the repeats of Michelle Obama's "proud for the first time" comment or any of the other nastiness can't possibly think he got a "pass." Even the ACORN "scandal" was pinned to Obama, and McCain's connection - or at least his speech to them - was largely ignored.
Where were the huge outcries over McCain's ties to the G. Gordon Liddy or the anti-American rhetoric of his religious affiliates? Did anyone see much about Palin's association with the Alaskan Independence Party? Very, very little. But as soon as Obama or his people said any little thing that didn't jive with the rightwing jingoism of the corporate media, it was blasted at us 24/7.
Give me a break!
Couldn't agree more, and you even left out Ayers.
A truly probing media would have mentioned the Keating 5, McCain dumping his injured first wife and maybe have taken a good, hard look at McCain's mythical military record.
The corporate media made John McCain, and without the inertia & ignorance of people who still believed in the "maverick" myth created by the cozy crowd, he wouldn't have gotten over 40%.
McCain has gotten away with pretending that his Keating Five "mistakes" caused him to be politically reborn as a reformer. Utter nonsense, but the viewing public has an excessively brief attention span, and since no story on the major networks can run over 2 1/2 minutes, it was a good strategy not to try to make something stick which never stuck in the first place.
I must disagree.
The "media" gave both candidates a "pass".
The corporate media refused to discuss Obama's or McCain's position on FISA, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, a Unitary Executive, Media Ownership, the Constitution, Food/Water Policy and many other critical issues.
What we got from the media was pure GARBAGE.
If the "media" had probed these topics as thoroughly as Rev. Wright and Palin's shopping habits we'd be eagerly anticipating President elect Kucinich's Jan. 20th inauguration.
Actually those are good points. Nor one question about illegal aliens.
On second thought, I'd say its fair to say they gave a pass to everyone but poor old Palin.
Palin might not be the brightest person in the world, but the MSM excoriated her.
LeeAnnG
Very good points. Passes in some areas, but not in others. I guess I was simply noting that Obama was not given preferential treatment to the detriment of McCain, whose history, including his treatment of both of his wives at the very least, was not subjected to the extreme scrutiny Obama's past was. Imagine if Obama had left his first wife for a younger, richer, undamaged one! Or if he had insulted Michelle in public. It would have been on a never-ending loop on the corporate media.
Wait a minute!!!!
Now Sean Hannity said that John McCain deserved a pass for the way he treated his wife because John had just come back from being a POW. John had many challenges to overcome due to his long captivity and could not be held accountable for some bad decisions.
Hannity reasoning...LOL!!!
It is to be hoped that more and more people — especially if Obama manages to make significant progress in addressing the nations problems — will turn their backs on the Limbaughs, Pragers, Hannitys and O'Reillys, finally seeing them as the ignorant, famously wrong-headed and anti-American asshats they truly are.
Thats something we can truly hope for. Thanks for the image.
Obama isn't black, isn't a commie, isn't a Moslem.
Some folks tracked his ancestry to Ireland! His great...great grandfather... (on his Mom's side, of course).
So he's Irish! They're singing songs about it over there. President O'Bama!
Could he be one of them heathen idol wurshippin' Rum, Romanism and Rebellion Catholics?
Damn, I hope so!
The reason the radio is full of right wing dribble, is because the only people who listen to the radio are older people, who as the polls showed, are Republican voters. Just listen to the commercials the mainstream radio station plays. In Australia, the right wing commentators are accompanied by adverts for retirement homes, insurance for the elderly and superannuation funds.
It's the advertisers who pay the bills, so why would the radio stations hire hosts who will drive away the only people who listen to the radio anymore.
I'd still get my news from the internet rather than the radio regardless of what was on the radio.
In the car i've got a CD player. The radio is largely becoming redundant and traditional radio will only last as long as the baby-boomer generation. The newspapers are much the same, as shown by their dwindling sales and shrinking payrolls. Avid readers are dying off and the younger generation aren't picking it up.
You probably don't have a progressive radio station near you. You should check out Air America and their local progressive affiliates. it's certainly not a majority, but it IS working, as Ed Schultz will tell you. Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, etc. all progressive radio show hosts.
"but it IS working,"
Really? Are they able to make a profit based on ad revenue? Or aren't they subsidized? Air America did go through a bankruptcy reorginization, as you may recall.
Rachel Maddow now has a show in prime time on MSNBC so you could say yes it is, some inroads are being made. And without Air America it wouldn't have happened.
*excerpts from NYT
Rush Limbaugh signed a deal July 2 to stay on for at least eight more years, a deal worth more than $400 million, including a $100 million signing bonus, as reported by the Washington Post.
“I’m not retiring until every American agrees with me,” Mr. Limbaugh, 57, said on his radio program
Hannity also signed a deal to continue hosting his number two radio program on ABC Radio Networks, for a reported $100 million over five years.
Glenn Beck, another popular host, signed a new contract with Premiere last year that will pay him $10 million a year through 2012.
Excuse me......... I have to vomit now
Sioux Rose
Hate sells when it's the military industrial complex and its need to churn out enemies that runs the US economy. It's all tied together in a twisted moral and media set of knots. Imagine if that kind of $ was used to finance ENLIGHTENED television, shows about healthy cooking, Yoga, spiritual Q & A with different perspectives articulated, programs that sponsored Green initiatives in technology and sponsored science fair contests to get young intelligent minds geared to solving tomorrow's problems sooner than later. Enter the wasteland... with these purveyors of animosity, the radio version of weapons of mass destruction, so well paid for efforts that lay so much to waste.
Bust the trusts.
I'm glad Josh Silver mentions heavy funding again for PBS and NPR, which were targets of the Newt the Grinch's Contract on America. They always want any educational & informational powerhouses shut down, whether it be public schools, public libraries, or public broadcasting. The Reptiles are nothing but mercenaries in the pay of murderous fuedal lords whose favorite pasttime is bilking, impoverishing and murdering the peasantry.
As long as the electorate listens to and watches those shenanigans, the sky's the limit as far as their money earning capacity is concerned. Just flip them off and make a note of their sponsors and don't buy from them. And to make it better, be prepared to give alternative competitors to those sponsors and give them a run for their money. Capitalism works only if you make it work. And quite frankly, I'm so sick and tired of the negativity from both sides. Neither one of those sides, more so the rightwing, have fewer positives to lighten us all up and help us get our groove back. Thank god for the internet.
As long as the electorate listens to and watches those shenanigans, the sky's the limit as far as their money earning capacity is concerned. Just flip them off and make a note of their sponsors and don't buy from them. And to make it better, be prepared to give alternative competitors to those sponsors and give them a run for their money. Capitalism works only if you make it work. And quite frankly, I'm so sick and tired of the negativity from both sides. Neither one of those sides, more so the rightwing, have fewer positives to lighten us all up and help us get our groove back. Thank god for the internet.
I can't believe that MSM owners who control the content have changed.
I can't believe that they are really praising Obama.
Neo-cons are acting sooo civil.
What the hell are they up to!
They are trying to regain your trust, so that when they pounce you have already forgiven them.
It seems to me that the right wing is the right wing because they believe in capitalist consumer models and therefore their audience spends money without thinking. Their shows sell more advertising because advertising works best on people who don't feel the need to consider aquisition - After all isn't their mantra "He with the most - Is the winner" ? Conversely it is more difficult to market to an audience that asks - "Is this advertisement truthful?, ...where does the product comes from?, ...does it add or subtract from quality of life - not only in my life but in whatever place it comes from?,... are it's business ethics worth my dime?, ...and do I really need this?"
As someone who worked in advertising a decade or so ago - Radio advertising was not a good choice if you didn't have the market cornered... it prompted people to get an item/service - but wan't all that effective necessarily for the specific advertiser - it gave the consumer the urge... but if some other provider was closer or had more visual ads, they gained from radio ads by others in the same business.
In a nutshell - Heavy duty capitalists tend to be right wing and tend to use the most advertising, so if selling advertising is the criteria that is allowed to decide - they are the guys who will get the access
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
"Dramatically increasing funding for public media: for PBS and NPR"
Both organizations are in reality masterpiece theatres for oil-igarchs and friends.
They merely put a pseudo-liberal face on psyops.
Tune them out and use unbiased journalism, instead.
"optimism stems from Obama's understanding that Internet and technology are the cornerstone"
Who shall we thank when our new benevolent dictator understands something? Can't thank ourselves cuz we didn't select him. We suppose we'll just have to create a god and thank HIM. Oh we already have a god to thank - the hebrews created one for us! Thank you Dear God for our new benevolent dictator's great understanding of internet technology, etc!