The radio industry magazine Radio Ink caught wind of my recent article, “Tell the FCC: Talk Radio is NOT ‘Bonafide News'”, as published at The BRAD BLOG, (and subsequently reprinted by the Huffington Post.)
As might be expected by an industry with a long track record of willfully misinforming the public, perhaps it is not surprising that Radio Ink — which bills itself as “Radio’s Premier Management & Marketing Magazine” — would wildly mischaracterize not only the piece I wrote, but the legal underpinnings of the case which is helping to bring the question of what comprises “Bonafide News” to the forefront.
In other words, rather than challenge my actual argument or what I actually wrote or what is in our published legal filings, the unbylined Radio Ink article simply made up a straw man — she wants to “stifle” and “silence” and “censor” Talk Radio by “government mandate”! — and then knocked it handily down. That is, of course, what they do in Talk Radio.
Let’s start with Radio Ink’s first words (I wish I could tell you the author, but he/she remains anonymous): “The Huffington Post is helping the Media Action Center promote the organizations [sic] attempt to stifle the long success of Talk Radio, mainly Rush Limbaugh, and put pressure on radio stations to let them on the air via government mandate.”
What a loaded sentence. But let’s start unpacking.
Yes, Huffington Post printed my oped on their pages, (as did The BRAD BLOG). Printing well-researched stories is what online news outlets do. But Radio Ink is apparently not an online news outlet, in that sense, so they may not be familiar with how they work. Instead, they insinuate some kind of collusion between my organization, Media Action Center (MAC) and HuffPo. They do it with good cause: they are creating a meme for the entire talk radio industry — and its helpful sycophant echo chamber on the Right — to follow. First, they name a left wing bogey man (HuffPo!), then they completely misstate my organization’s objective, which is not to “silence” anyone, but rather, to fight to not allow anyone to be silenced over our public airwaves. Finally, they bring forward the oft-repeated, knee-jerk cant that we want a “government mandate” to allow the collective us onto the airwaves — the airwaves that we all own.
Absolutely none of that is accurate or true, or even close to what my article was about. But that’s “talk radio” in written form apparently. Which leads me to ask this: Why does Radio Ink and its followers hate the rule of law?…
Radio Ink has little choice but to respond the way they did; if they responded to the actual case MAC presented to them — which argues, with painstakingly documented data, compiled during the historic 2012 recall elections in Wisconsin, that WTMJ’s programming is not “bonafide” news because, according to FCC rules, news must not have political intent — they would have to explain why, for example, they are backing the argument that Rush Limbaugh is no different from Walter Cronkite. That’s the crux of the argument actually being made by Wisconsin radio station WTMJ when their attorneys argue that their Rightwing radio hosts who spend hours over our public airwaves pimping for specific candidates of one party (while disallowing all requests from opposing candidates and their surrogates to respond in any way over those same public airwaves) are allowed to do so. Their programs are not merely “talk” or “opinion”, they argue, but “bonafide news” which, according to FCC doctrine, does not require equal (or any) time for those who may have a differing viewpoint.
That argument presents a very serious problem for an industry which has too often (and illegally) used our publicly-owned airwaves to promote candidates of just one political party. So the industry mag is coming up with something, anything, to repeat repeat repeat — so that readers, listeners, and perhaps the federal regulators themselves, will believe it. Or, they surely hope, they will be cowed into taking no action, and continue to disregard the law.
Next comes Radio Ink‘s hastily-written whitewash:
“Programming disagreements.” It’s a simple term which implies that MAC is insisting it wants to hear, say, Brad Friedman on the air, rather than Rush Limbaugh. While that might be swell, it has absolutely nothing to do with our case now pending in front of the FCC or the arguments we actually offered in our legal filing or in any of the many articles we’ve written over the years in support of it. But it sure sounds insidious, doesn’t it? And notice that Radio Ink doesn’t even have the courage or decency to link to MAC’s legal petition to deny, but only to WTMJ’s response to it. Classy stuff. But when you’ve got no actual argument, the best thing to do is try to hide that fact any way you can, I guess.
But this is not about “programming disagreements,” this is about the subversion of democracy. The case they work so hard to mischaracterize, rather than refute, is based on a study which proved that WTMJ’s talk shows provided nearly 80 minutes a day — every day — to guests who were supporters of Gov. Scott Walker during his contentious recall election in the Badger State one year ago. At the same time, station management refused to allow any supporters of his opponent, Tom Barrett, on the air to be heard at all.
The only way Barrett supporters could be heard over those publicly-owned airwaves in the weeks prior to one of the most important elections of last year, would be to buy time. That would have cost them about $36,000 per day, if they hoped to equal the amount of free time afforded Walker’s supporters by WTMJ.
In other words, WTMJ, using the license granted to them by our federal government in exchange for their promise to serve “the public interest” over our limited public airwaves, provided GOP surrogates of Walker about $720,000 worth of free air time over those airwaves. At the same time, as Barrett supporters very politely requested time to respond (not to “stifle” or “silence” anyone, but simply to respond) they were met with emails like this, from WTMJ station manager Steve Wexler:
We understand that not all listeners will agree with every opinion or statement made on the station. However, we are neither able, nor is it legally required, to provide each listener who disagrees with a statement made on the station the opportunity to appear on the station and express his or her opinion.
Thank you again for providing us with your thoughts.
Steve Wexler
Executive Vice President
Journal Broadcast Group
720 E. Capitol Dr.
Milwaukee, WI
53212
Direct Line: [redacted] Direct Fax: (414) 967-5596
[email redacted] Twitter: @wextmjIn other words, Wexler told Barrett supporters to shut up and go away, and made a precarious legal argument in doing so. So, really, who is “stifling” and “silencing” whom in this matter?
Radio Ink then goes on to cite Radio Ink contributor, attorney John Garziglia to agree with them — dishonestly and hyperbolically. They report that Garziglia believes “The Media Action Center Petition to Deny, and its blog posting, is a misinformed hyperbolic attempt to have the government use its licensing processes to silence a speaker with whom MAC disagrees.”
Then they bring in the big guns, the “C”-word!: “Thankfully,” Garziglia is quoted, “the FCC has not shown the propensity to engage in such censorship, at least for political speech.”
Did Garziglia — an attorney, after all — even bother to take the time to read the background material he is commenting on? Or is he just pulling out his scariest big words in hopes of trumping up an argument to avoid having to make a legal one?
Of course, MAC is not trying to “silence” or “censor” anyone. Nowhere in either our formal complaint or the Petition to Deny can anyone find ANY reference to such intent. Instead, MAC is working to give voice to all of those who WTMJ has provably silenced. What they are doing, demonstrably, IS censorship, according to none other than the Supreme Court of these United States, which found in Red Lion Broadcasting v FCC, 1969: “The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others.”
Surely, an attorney who works in the radio industry — even in a radio industry trade magazine — is familiar with a case as notable as that one, right?
The Media Action Center is fighting for the First Amendment rights of ALL of us, not just the favored few of WTMJ. That station (and WISN, also under challenge) and all radio talk shows may, of course, continue using our public airwaves to carry out their political advocacy, just as they do now, so long as others are allowed to do THEIRS as well over the same publicly-owned airwaves. It’s both fair and — if the FCC bothers to enforce it — the law.
Finally, Radio Ink write this:
At last, we agree! Incredibly, Garziglia is making almost the exact argument we are! Had he bothered to read it, he might have learned as much. Instead, he seems to have been misled by the anonymous person who penned Radio Ink’s response and decided to play John Garziglia for a sucker in the bargain. Equal opportunities are afforded by law to candidates, and also by FCC rule to surrogates of candidates. Garziglia knows that, but the Radio Ink readers do not.
What’s most interesting to me is that this piece comes from an industry magazine, read by station managers and owners, among others. Were I a station manager or owner, I would want to know the facts of the case and the law so I could direct my staff and programming accordingly. But this piece just warms over old Rightwing talking points without bothering to address the main point of my original article: that WTMJ is trying to wriggle out of its responsibility to the community and to the law by claiming its talk radio shows are “bonafide news.”
Given their response — and the disinformed Rightwing knee-jerkery it has now inspired across the web, from the likes of Brian Sikma at Media Trackers (“Liberals Pressure Obama Admin to Muzzle Wisconsin Talk Radio”) and Marshall Keith at People’s Republic of Madison (“The Queen of Censorship is Back”!) — it’s no surprise that these folks would have no clue about what “bonafide news” actually is.
• Sign the petition to Tell the FCC: Talk Radio is NOT Bonafide News!
Sue Wilson is a media activist, director of Public Interest Pictures’ Broadcast Blues, and a 22 year veteran of broadcast journalism. Her numerous awards include Emmy, AP, RTNDA, and PRNDI for work at CBS, PBS, FOX, and NPR. She is the editor of the media criticism blog, Sue Wilson Reports and founder of the Media Action Center.
Sue: Given that the purpose of right wing “talk radio” is to misinform, does it really come as a surprise that their response to a well-written article would come in the form of a red herring?
Ernest, I guess it goes with the territory, doesn’t it? Still, you’d think the stations would want the facts.
How sad that Radio Ink magazine can only regurgutate the tired old misinfo & alarmist talking points to downplay Sue Wilson’s well- thought caampaign to pressure the FCC to do its job and expect licensed talk radio ststions to better serve the public interest.
Dear Aunt Sally aka Sue Wilson, the misrepresentation actually comes from you. You misrepresent the constitution namely the “first amendment”. The first amendment was designed to keep the government from regulating speech not dictate what is appropriate speech in the name of what you deem fair. You also misrepresent the FCC rules as it pertains to Equal Opportunities, but then Sue you knew this didn’t you.
http://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/the-queen-of-strawman-is-back/
Of course Sue cites, Red Lion ignoring the fact that the bulk of Red Lion was overturned in the FCC vs The League of Women Voters.
“Yes. Even though the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the broadcast medium, “since broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity,†Congress must use the First Amendment to “inform and give shape†to its regulation. Justice Brennan argued that no legitimate government interest was served by the law which broadly banned all editorializing, a form of speech which “lies at the heart of First Amendment protection.—
The entire audio of the oral arguments can be heard here.
http://tinyurl.com/lloh3td
Marshall Keith said @ 4:
Calling people names is always a very convincing technique. Nonetheless, as to the substance of your claim, why are you making up arguments that she didn’t make? And, therefore, why are you calling her argument a “straw man”? Is that the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” defense?
When did Sue argue that the FCC should “dictate what is appropriate speech”?
And why do you hate the fact that our (very limited) public airwaves belong to we, the people? And why are you so angry that corporations which enjoy massive taxpayer subsidized government largesse in the form of free licenses agree to perform in the public interest in exchange for it?
To Marshall – what is your understanding of requirements for an FCC-licensed station that engages in electioneering on air?
As users of the limited public-owned airwaves, I thought they have to serve the public interest over their own interest, meaning they have a to make reasonable efforts to allow an open clash of ideas in order to allow listeners to make informed decisions.
Otherwise, what would prevent listeners from being subject to corporate whims, to charismatic leaders, to snake oil salesmen or propagandists? If I announced that I banged your mom, should she have any recourse to say it’s not true?
After you have answered the policy question above, can you answer separately WHY you think WTMJ simply does not put some of these libs on the air in order to expose them and show the audience that Charlie Sykes has the better argument>
It would satisfy the Zapple controversy at the same time, demonstrating that WTMJ hosts are fine debaters and not cowardly pansies. But you seem to support the idea of letting these pundits broadcast in a tightly controlled bubble, and suppress the greater community from sharing their perspective, even if only to refute misinformation.
We all know a former WTMJ staffer blew the whistle, admitting the station would not let sitting Sen. Feingold refute claims made on air!
Is that the proper moral stance? Is that the proper intellectual stance? Is this how we want to teach our children to communicate and resolve disputes?
I once called Sykes live on the air during the OWS controversy and I began to eat his lunch, before he hustled me off the air. He was calling OWS names and avoiding the main point – that Wall St. colludes with the government to fleece the consumer and avoid accountability for the 2008 crisis.
Sykes was not mentioning that there were tens of thousands of orderly protesters there, including a professional and diverse make up. I pointed out that he was deceitfully concentrating on a minority of anarchists, homeless and druggies to paint a false picture. He lowered my volume and cut me off mid sentence.
So WTMJ listeners had little ability to decide for themselves, what was OWS truly about? What did their actual published statements say? The listeners could only learn if they tune to another station, but when they do, they are not permitted back on to WTMJ to correct ongoing deception. The same goes for the wars, fiscal policy, gun control, labor battles, the healthcare debate, the latest scandals and of course, the elections.
Thanks for engaging here, but you aren’t convincing anyone that WTMJ is complying with FCC rules because you aren’t talking about the legal and moral requirement that stations serve the public interest, you aren’t addressing the on-air electioneering, and aren’t addressing the qualifications of the bonafide news exemption. I await your reply.
@ Gus, You obviously didn’t read my blogpost. Your complaint that I didn’t address the qualifications of the bonafide news exemption was clearly addressed. That exemption only pertains to the amount of time the candidates themselves are on the air. It does not include the time that the talk show hosts themselves editorialize. I have been a broadcaster from the early 80s on and am well versed in FCC rules and regulations. Your red herring “If I announced that I banged your mom, should she have any recourse to say it’s not true?” That would be grounds for a liable suit. Of course again it would be the candidate that would be harmed by such liable and since it was them that was harmed, they would have to file suit. Of course only a leftist or leftist talk show host would come up with such vulgarity as Teabaggers or suggesting that our Lieutenant Governor pulled a train in order to get the job.
http://youtu.be/bp-DFsUvYn0
Marshall Keith @ 8 said:
First known use…
(If you have troubling reading the attribution on the bottom, it’s from those “leftists” at FreeRepublic.com.)
But, whatevs. Clearly, you have a partisan relationship with the truth and rule of law and stuff.
@ Brad Friedman It was started by leftist, I have no problem with the truth or the constitution. I am a Libertarian who would like nothing more then more Libertarian Media out there. I was against the Patriot act when Bush enacted it and Obama proved why it was an abuse of power. Which is why the federal government should have no say so as to the content of any media outlet. PERIOD. The government can’t be trusted to make the media fair! The government can’t be trusted period!
Almost all politicians suffer from “libido dominandi”.
http://youtu.be/GMkvpnLh5IU
@ Gus Wynn I also would like to add to your comment “As users of the limited public-owned airwaves” The government does not own the Airwaves as you and Sue claim, Radio stations are privately owned businesses that are regulated as most businesses are. I challenge both you and Sue to show ownership papers or what act of congress committed the socialist act of seizing ownership? In the FCC vs the League of Women voters pertained to Public Radio which at the time were for the most part owned by taxpayers and the FCC ruled that the stations ruled that the stations had the right to editorialize and they had control over the content. The equal time rules only apply to the candidates. From the ruling.
“Court upheld the right of access for federal candidates imposed by 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act both because that provision “makes a significant contribution of freedom of expression by enhancing the ability of candidates to present, and the public to receive, information necessary for the effective operation of the democratic process,” id., at 396, and because it defined a sufficiently “limited right of `reasonable’ access” so that “the discretion of broadcasters to present their views on any issue or to carry any particular type of programming” was not impaired. Id., at 396-397 (emphasis in original). Finally, in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, the Court affirmed the FCC’s refusal to require broadcast licensees to accept all paid political advertisements. Although it was argued that such a requirement would serve the public’s First Amendment interest in receiving additional views on public issues, the Court rejected this approach, finding that such a requirement would tend to transform broadcasters into common carriers and would intrude unnecessarily upon the editorial discretion of broadcasters. Id., at 123-125. The FCC’s ruling, therefore, helped to advance the important purposes of the Communications Act, grounded in the First Amendment, of preserving the right of broadcasters to exercise “the widest journalistic freedom consistent with [their] public obligations,” and of guarding against “the risk of an enlargement [468 U.S. 364, 380] of Government control over the content of broadcast discussion of public issues.” Id., at 110, 126. 13 “
Yay! More straw man and unsupported arguments — and inaccurate ones, again, at that — from Marshall!
First, in reply to the comment @ 10:
Really? What “leftist”? Where and when? Be careful now. Accuracy counts, and you haven’t done well on that score so far, even as I showed you the first known citing of a “Tea Bag” sign.
As to your straw man @ 11 that “the federal government should have no say so as to the content of any media outlet,” you are, of course, wrong again. They regulate that content every day. Use an obsenity, for example, and you may have to cough up $250k for each such incident. As to the straw man argument that MAC is calling on the goverment to dictate “content”, where have they said that? They said that federal law (Zapple Doctrine) requires equal time for candidates and their supporters, when requested. There is nothing, in their complaint, about the government requiring certain “content”.
Finally, you claim, without offering a shred of evidence, that “The government does not own the Airwaves”. Really? Who does then? If the government (we, the people) do not own them, why do stations agree to license them from us? Seems kinda stupid of them, no?
I’m working on a number of stories at once, on deadline, so don’t have time to go plowing through legal rulings for you. But I’m sure, since you’ve made such a strong point of saying that “the government does not own the Airwaves”, you’ve got even a shred of evidence to back that up, right? Because the quotes from the rulings you cited above certainly do no such thing.
Oh, and P.S., your claim to being a “Libertarian”. Just a guess, but you’re fairly new to the whole Libertarian thing, right? Maybe since Republicanism went so far South during the Bush Admin perhaps?
@ Brad Friedman the Teabagger references, they started with leftist talk show hosts and comedians, the sign you showed was a response to those vile words. On becoming a Libertarian, nope long before that but Bush just solidified my positions. I have even written several pieces critical of Government Walker who was the subject of the recall that started this. Again Brad I was in Broadcasting when all of these changes took place and have sat through numerous seminars on the topic. As to your strawman claims again it is Sue that is misrepresenting the facts, both about the constitution and the FCC rules. First she claims that the First Amendment allows the Government the right to compel her and her followers the right to equal time to the talk show hosts “editorializing” On the ownership again it is on Sue and her followers to prove ownership, regulation is not ownership, even the Supreme Court makes that distinction. From the same ruling.
“Finally, although the Government’s interest in ensuring balanced coverage of public issues is plainly both important and substantial, we have, at the same time, made clear that broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity. As a result, the First Amendment must uniform and give shape to the manner in which Congress exercises its regulatory power in this area. Unlike common carriers, broadcasters are “entitled under the First Amendment to exercise `the widest journalistic freedom consistent with their public [duties].‘
Man oh man, I leave for a week’s vacation, and look what happens.
Marshall, as I have posted on YOUR own website, the public does owned the airwaves. From the FCC’s “The Public and Broadcasting“:
By the way, I also have worked in broadcasting since the 1980’s. And I also have libertarian leanings. Business cannot take away first amendment rights of the people. Simple.
Question, Marshall Keith @13: Is the persistent use of corporate propaganda and deception by entities like Fox “News” “consistent with [its] public [duties]?”
You seem not the recognize why the press was protected by the First Amendment.
Here’s a primer from New York Times vs. United States (the 1971 “Pentagon Papers” case) [emphasis added]:
The purpose of the First Amendment is not fulfilled when powerful corporate interests abuse the licenses they are granted to operate on “our” public airwaves so as to completely control the message (often a deceptive message) and prevent a fair airing of those who can offer facts that expose that deceptive, corporate-controlled message.