Promises on the campaign trail are one thing, as are position statements posted on one’s campaign website. But positions posted at Whitehouse.gov by a President are quite another and raise the bar, as far as I’m concerned, in regard to holding feet to the fire for any particular promise, statement, or posted position.
Thus, while perusing President Barack Obama’s new White House website last night, there was much I found of interest. There was a bit, here and there, on issues of Election Reform — particularly of note to this site, of course — which I’m sure I’ll get to in a bit. But, for the moment, this comment from the “Technology” page caught my eye, as posted in the section titled “Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets” [italics mine]…
One of the reasons I was most looking forward to the likely-victory of John Kerry back in 2004, was so that I could begin to make his life a living hell in regards to Media Reform, the most important — in my opinion — reform of all at this particular point in the 21st Century. While the Supreme Court has declared many times that the right to vote is protective of all other rights, I’d suggest that the right to be informed, accurately, via our nation’s publicly owned airwaves, is the right that ensures our right to vote is ultimately protective of anything.
With our current hard right-leaning corporate media landscape, every attempted reform, including Election Reform, by any Democratic administration, must overcome a nearly impossible crucible of rightwing opposition — and more disturbingly, propaganda — across the nation’s public airwaves.
That built-in impediment — not faced by policy agenda from the Right, which, in fact, benefits from that unholy and unAmerican (yes, unAmerican) imbalance — must end, if this country is ever to find its equilibrium, and restore itself from the twenty year imbalance that has quietly decayed the nation’s sense of Reality-based policy since Ronald Reagan dismantled the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
That quiet change to 38 years of direct governmental oversight, attempting to ensure responsible corporate use of, and balance on, the publicly owned airwaves since it was first established in 1949, quickly paved the way for the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Reillys, Ingrahams, Liddys, Bennetts, Pragers, Medveds and other ditto-headed miscreants, propagandists and ideological-driven Savages to take unfettered and virtually insurmountable 24/7/365 control of the nation’s hearts and minds vis a vis the public broadcast spectrum. With that non-stop, disinformative, brainwash-wire pumped around-the-clock into virtually every rush-hour bound vehicle of the American electorate, it was only a matter of time before the same falsely-propped up beliefs and agenda were echoed in the non-regulated realm of corporate cable news.
And, to finally kick that folly into overdrive, President Bill Clinton ensured that whatever independent media voices remained on the public spectrum would soon be swallowed up by corporate behemoths via his Telecommunications Act of 1996 which would destroy any last remnants of protection against local and national media monopolies.
So, here we are, wondering — no matter who you believe actually won the Presidential Elections of 2000 and 2004 — how it could be that a failure like George W. Bush could even come close to winning a national election, and how it could be that so many Americans have been duped into voting, again and again and again, against their own best interests in the belief that they are doing the very opposite.
To paraphrase the Bill Clinton campaign of 1992: It’s the publicly-owned airwaves, stupid.
They are ours. We issue leases to the corporations — who have come to falsely believe they own them — out of the kindness of our public hearts. And with that government largesse, they have a responsibility to the public which has been, by and large, completely abandoned.
Despite the whining you’ve been hearing from the Wingnut Welfare Queens benefitting from the abandonment of oversight of our airwaves (and if you’ve yet to hear it, you will) the bar of “regulation” under the Fairness Doctrine was quite minimal. As Steve Rendell of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) wrote, “The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.”
“Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials,” he explained, before noting quite pointedly, “The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.”
That’s not much to ask, but even that much is fiercely opposed, naturally, by the wingnuts who currently monopolize virtually every available inch of the public spectrum.
But while the now-dissolved burdens of the Fairness Doctrine were quite low, the responsibility for the nation’s media, as noted in the U.S. Constitution’s very first amendment in the Bill of Rights, is quite high.
The “Press” is the only industry mentioned by name and given specific dispensation in that Bill of Rights. With that comes responsibility. And it is one that has long ago been abandoned in favor of pure profitability by the very select few who control and determine what it is that Americans will be allowed to hear on the nation’s public airwaves.
Enough is enough. Want change? It may happen, incrementally, with the mandate a Progressive agenda has finally been given Obama — at least eight years too late, but he’s finally been given it. Want real change? At the pace and breadth that this country actually requires after so many years of polluted decay through backwards, self-defeating policies falsely propped up by the endlessly disinformative propagandistic narrative courtesy of our own public airwaves?
Reform the use of those airwaves. Reform it now. Reform their use boldly and in the spirit of the responsibility spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. “Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media,” and, as Whitehouse.gov now further proposes: “clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”
And let us all say: Amen.
UPDATE 10/14/09: Hope sinks. As noted in my OpEd published at Alternet today, the above hopeful graf on media reform from the WH website’s Technology Page was quietly removed sometime before Summer. No explanation was offered for the removal, though my Alternet piece offers a few likely reasons.
Brad, this may just be the best piece you’ve ever written.
Agreed.
I well remember the 30-second 1am airings of one hapless hippie or another decrying the Vietnam War. Yes, the Fairness Doctrine seriously was not much to ask. It has to get better even than that.
It So Happens: I worked on the night shift at the Columbia Daily Spectator with Julius Genachowski, fellow alum Barack Obama’s new chairman of the FCC. This bodes well for a people’s voice, if the rosy regard of a Columbia Man for his alma mater carries more weight than White House PR.
I saw Julius a few years back at a Spectator reunion and he had not turned to the dark side, to my eyes. For those willing to lobby the man directly: julius@genachowski.com
Important, concise post!
Exactly Brad! If the media had not been sooo compromised, more Americans would know about this excellent post at Larrissa’s blog:
http://www.atlargely.com/2009/01/political-proseuctions-documentary.html
Clear Channel just canned 1,800 on Tuesday in a move that will result in less local content and more “satellite radio”. As a former broadcaster I can tell you this does NOT serve the public trust; these broadcast monopolies must be rolled-back with diverse ownership the goal. Broadcast stations should be awarded to those seeking to actually serve their community of license, rather than to those with the most money. Open up the FM band to individual ownership & make spreading lies and deceit a violation. It’s time for the FCC to take a stand on programming issues.
I wrote on some blog (TPM or HuffPo) my number one REFORMS needed….and Media was at the top.
Media perverts all the others. Election reform, lobby reform, enviro, energy, etc…
Think folks, the Corporations who have USURPED our airwaves drive the discussion on all these topics. And not one of these Corporations has ANY of our top goals in mind. They want to further the use of oil, coal, lobbyists. They want to cram MORE commercials and infomercials down your throats. They want to fill your kids heads with MORE desires for more junk, junk food, and cool stuff (as they [the corps] determine what is cool).
They have stolen our airwaves, and since mass communication is the most POTENT tool ever devised by man, they have turned it’s firehose effect AGAINST us. They are using it to brainwash us constantly and dictate even when we get up and go to the bathroom.
The best thing ANYONE can do is stop listening to them. And never tune in to rightwing talk radio. I am not saying throw your TV or radio away, but severely restrict and filter how you and your family uses it. It is like a drug, like mainlining Corporate Ideology. Beware, and fight against them. The Fairness Doctrine is not going to come close to stemming what is going on.
Very nicely done, Brad!!
Want to hear a Republican bleat and squeal? Just mention reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine and they go nuts! It’s high time the public airwaves started serving all of the public instead of just the right side of it and it’s high time conglomerates were restricted from gobbling up one media outlet after another.
APPLAUSE. Very well said. Thank you.
Typical liberal B.S. Air Amerika, Stewart Smalley, Randi Rhodes-all given a shot at talk radio and failed. If people want to hear how crappy their country is, all they have to do is turn on msnbc. Talk radio gives an alternate view to leftwing media such as Katie Couric and the current “Meet the Press”.
It is really ironic that the “pro-choice” dems, which are really big government control socialists want to deny people a choice in what they listen to yet force us to fund crap like Tavis Smiley and Charlie Rose on PBS and NPR, yet a company in the business of making profits is not allowed to run Rush Limbaugh because it might offend the sensibilities of some pansy liberal who doesn’t like being told how wrong they are.
Liberals are free to fund their own shows as long as they don’t steal money from the Boy Scouts again like Air Amerika did, but left wingism fails.
That’s Senator Stewart Smalley to you!
I think a firm commitment to net neutrality probably obviates the need for the Fairness Doctrine in this digital age.
Nevertheless, if Limbaugh, Hannity, Craig Lowell, and their ilk are so desperately hiding in a puddle of fear in the corner under the bed squawking about how horrible the Fairness Doctrine is, there must be something to it. Let’s push the hell out of it just to keep them on their toes.
1. Support Net Neutrality
2. Support PEG Programming and Public Access
3. Public File should be online and accessible by the public
4. No more media consolidation, it’s already compressed too much. The folks at the top have too much power to control American’s thought.
5. Some kind of fairness
perhaps the fairness doctrine should be replaced with a LOTTERY.
In other words you DRAW for your timeslot.
That way everyone has a chance.
(Just an idea, I ain’t saying this needs to be like I did in the post above)
How about a bit of freedom to solve this problem?
Could return the EM spectrum back to the people it was stolen from when the spectrum was nationalized in 1927? (e.g Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station plaintiff of Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station (Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, 1926.
Imagine the EM spectrum resembling the internet instead of the phone company. We don’t have to care. We’re the FCC licensed MSM.
Pity we Americans generally prefer the immediate, coercive, and stultifying “order” of government rather than the slower, peaceful, but spontaneous order of Liberty.
With a free, privately owned EM spectrum the “fairness doctrine” would necessary as the the current “resolution doctrine” required for computer monitors.
Imagine on a private EM there would be room for BradTV 🙂
Perhaps media ownership should NOT be diversified. Perhaps media outlets should not have ANY other company owning them. Perhaps they should own themselves period and not be beholden to any other corporate interests, or as Mr. Washburn said, we could own it.
Any media outlet that is owned by a company that makes war supplies is going to be pro-war.
Thank you for this! If I had one message to give to the FCC chairman, and every Democrat and Independent in D.C., it would be “Go back to your district and TURN ON YOUR RADIO….AND LISTEN.”
We are like an occupied nation, with “occupation radio” spewing hate and lies, 24/7.
A few examples: Michael Savage telling a gay caller to “get AIDS and die,” calling black kids “ghetto slime,” calling Mexicans “leaf blowers” who are “making war on the white race.”
And it resonates. the so-called main stream media picks up the right wing frames and repeats them: Such as Stephanopolis spending 45 minutes grilling Obamam on his lapel jewelry.
We want better, we deserve better, and we demand better.
Now we’re talkin’. The american public is not dumb, it is disgustingly uninformed! If our nation was informed there would be many changes. If you don’t know what is being done to you or your surroundings, how can you participate? We need facts, not lies or spin.
To me, there’s no difference in the hate and misinformation spun on tv from the liberal media like Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Maher, and Stewart, among others. I’m proud to be a Republican, but I don’t agree with everything I hear on radio. And I watch the liberal tv shows because I like to understand other views, even if I don’t agree always with them either. Reviving the Fairness Doctrine is not something I will ever support.
In a civil case, a judge can allow the jury to question a document-destroying party’s intentions. For example, judges in certain cases will tell jurors they should assume missing documents are harmful simply because they were destroyed–even if they never see the contents.