Guest Blogged by Sue Wilson
In the October issue of O magazine, Democratic consultant and commentator Donna Brazile did the unthinkable: she used the “F” word — in Oprah Winfrey’s publication, no less! Eyebrows are being raised across the political spectrum.
Okay, not that “F” word, a different one which is, apparently, far more controversial these days: Brazile says that if she “were in charge” her first priority would be to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.” She says that that would require “holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in an honest, equitable, and balanced fashion.”
To the uninitiated, bringing Fairness to the public airwaves — broadcast radio and TV — is a no-brainer. But to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and an army of 550,000 amassed to keep the nation’s radio airwaves under “conservative” control, Brazile’s declaration of priorities could be a call to arms. Is it possible that the Democratic establishment is finally ready for a fight to take control of their message? While no longer with the DNC, Brazile is still closely aligned with the Democratic power establishment after all.
Okay, time for a bit of history.
Our elders will remember a time when radio was America’s number one source of news and information. And they remember being horrified at how Tokyo Rose and our enemies used the radio airwaves to promote hate and propaganda against the U.S.
So they watched as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and radio station owners worked together to prevent propaganda from ever being broadcast over the public airwaves in these United States of America. This coalition of government and business put the “Fairness Doctrine” in place to ensure a healthy, reasoned discourse so critical to our democracy.
The thing is — and a point important for those who believe much more information is now available on cable and the Internet — radio is still America’s number one source of news and information. More people listen to radio than watch television, read newspapers, or go online. Nearly fifty million people in the U.S. listen to talk radio.
But Fairness? Equal Time? Reasoned discourse? Those went out the window in 1987 with – drumroll, please – President Ronald Reagan…
Reagan was, of course, a consummate media man. Not simply the star of B movies like Bedtime for Bonzo, Reagan also hosted television’s General Electric Theater. The so-called “Great Communicator” then went on to become President of the Screen Actors Guild.
More than any president before or since, Reagan understood the power of TV and radio. So it’s no coincidence that President Ronald Reagan, by fiat, eliminated fairness in broadcasting by instructing his FCC to no longer enforce the doctrine. He knew what would happen if one side — his side — could control the message.
It’s interesting to note that after Reagan’s action, both houses of Congress immediately passed legislation – co-sponsored by Newt Gingrich – to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. But both Reagan and George Bush the First vetoed those bills. For the 2009 documentary film I made on this topic, Broadcast Blues, Gingrich refused to answer questions about why he’s changed his tune. No great surprise: put simply, Gingrich must understand that Republicans can win elections only if they can control the airwaves — specifically, the radio airwaves.
And control it they do, and not just by promoting unfair one-sided propaganda and messages of hate to the exclusion of all other ideas (and facts.) In 1996, a Republican-controlled Congress passed (and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed) the Telecommunications Act allowing for a very few, mostly pro-GOP corporations, to purchase up all the nation’s radio station bandwidth. According to a 2007 Free Press/Center for American Progress study [PDF], 90% of talk radio was “conservative”; that study was done prior the downfall of the left-leaning Air America Radio, so it’s likely that today 95% of the country has no opportunity to hear a progressive or liberal or Democratic Party message on our own public airwaves.
Think about that. Just five percent of the nation can hear the Democratic message on the most dominant form of media in the country. Small wonder that Democrats have been complaining they can’t get their message out; they don’t have access to the microphones.
This paradigm is not about ratings. I’ve debunked that theory [PDF] both in Broadcast Blues and in McClatchy’s Sacramento Bee, only to draw the ire of Rush Limbaugh in response. (Wish I had his microphone to reply!) And it is not accidental. According to former right wing author turned critic of right wing misinformation, David Brock of Media Matters, the “Conservative Movement” is lying to the country intentionally.
It’s created a culture shift, especially in midwestern and Blue Dog states. For example, in what was once Gephardt country, former Missouri Democrats turned Republican are hushing progressive views in local meetings from AA to the PTA. The fictional oral history promoted by Talk Radio has turned into group think; now group think has turned into Tea Parties.
So why is Brazile starting to talk about the Fairness Doctrine?
Perhaps because there are only three ways to restore true fairness and balance to the publicly owned radio airwaves.
First, local communities could challenge stations’ licenses through the FCC. There is a movement going on to do just that, but it’s not likely to work on issues of talk radio, at least not yet.
Congress could rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act so persons – corporate or real – can own only 40 stations nationwide, as they did in 1995, rather than 1200, as they can today. Any bets on that happening, especially if Republicans take control of Congress this November?
Or President Obama could take a cue from the Reagan administration and bring back elements of the Fairness Doctrine: Equal Time, no personal attacks, free airtime for political candidates, local community programming. Imagine what that would do for democracy.
As Brad Friedman reported at The BRAD BLOG in the days immediately following Obama’s inauguration, the following was posted as a goal of the new administration in the technology section of their brand new White House website:
But somehow, as Friedman followed up later at Alternet, after Right Wing noise makers like Sean Hannity screamed to his 14 million listeners that ‘liberals were trying to destroy free speech’, that paragraph quietly disappeared from the President’s website.
Sources in Washington tell me that the Democratic leadership does not have the guts to stand up to talk radio, and they could be right. Donna Brazile has not responded to my question as to whether her comments in O signal that Democrats might wish to at least debate this issue.
One thing is certain: “We the People” are ready to do battle on this issue.
Democrats, are you?
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.
Shameless plug: Let’s hold the FCC accountable for reckless broadcasters who commit murder by radio. Vote now!
“Shameless plug: Let’s hold the FCC accountable for reckless broadcasters who commit murder by radio. Vote now!”
Interesting suggestion. Who and what are people supposed to vote for to hold the FCC accountable? A political party that may not be ready to take on that issue?
Candidates of that party who may or may not have mentioned the FCC in their campaign lies?
You just let me know when the Democrats say that they’re ready. Either a majority of individual Democratic incumbents and candidates, or the party leadership would be fine, as long as there are sufficient numbers committed to change.
Being a senior citizen, I don’t expect to live that long, but maybe I could put a small bequest in my will for the Democratic Party as soon as they prove that they’re ready. It shouldn’t take them more than fifty to a hundred years, if there’s sufficient pressure on them. Of course if people continue to vote for them anyway, they’ll continue not to care about what their base wants, and continue to care more about what their big corporate donors want (yes, THOSE big corporate donors–the ones who own the corporate media and donate almost equal amounts to Republican candidates to hedge their bets so that no matter who wins, the people lose).
Fairness is an excellent idea. But it isn’t going to bring in any big corporate donors, so it isn’t going to happen. In a democracy, the will of the people would determine policy. In a plutocracy like our capitalist society, big money calls the shots.
It is amazing how far desperate people will go to look for hope and change where neither exists. No, a hint from somebody out of power does not indicate a possible change in policy. But with nothing else to point to, I can understand why you’d need to think it might.
Sorry, brad, I’m thinking I’m with @Mr. Smith. When are we gonna stop saying ‘pretty please’ and begin demanding our RIGHTS! There are way more of us than them, and I can’t believe we aren’t freaking out yet, publicly! The French, the Greeks, they know how to freak out. Us? Not so much. My goddess, some rent-a-cops (now THERE’S a story for you, Brad!) ARRESTED a journalist in Alaska. For asking a question. And there’s just so little reaction. At least there’s a decent Green Party candidate for governor-Laura Wells. I’ve heard her several times on the radio-even mainstream. She is articulate. Now we’re talkin! Ciao-back to my nap…
November 30th Could Be the Day the Government Seizes Control of the Internet
November 30th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could potentially engage in one of the largest federal power grabs we have ever seen.
After two years of this Presidential Administration and this Congress, that is saying an awful lot about an awful lot.
And what’s worse, the FCC would be doing it without Congress weighing in. At the FCC’s November meeting – note the coincidental date of choice, AFTER the impending election – three unelected bureaucrats (of five) could simply vote themselves rulers of 1/6th of our entire economy – the information and technology sector.
Meaning the Internet that you currently enjoy – that has been a marvel of economic and information innovation and success – will be subject to vast new governmental regulations. You didn’t elect these people – but they are on the verge of electing themselves Internet overlords.
The Internet is the future – and increasingly the present – of news and information delivery. With each passing day, we move a little further away from the old media models – print, broadcast and cable television, radio – and towards an all-Web world. Eventually, most or all of the news and information we get – written, and spoken into microphones and cameras – will be on and for the Internet.
And we are on the verge of having this new world – the all-encompassing future of First Amendment free speech in America – swallowed up by three unelected D.C. bureaucrats and their Commission.
This is one of the most important battles ever waged in Washington – and precious little is known about it outside the Beltway.
What we are talking about is Internet reclassification. What that means is the FCC – which by its own admission doesn’t have authority over the Web – would just vote itself said authority. By reclassifying the Internet – so that it would be subject to the same rules as landline telephones.
The FCC has long had tremendous power over landline telephones, which is why there has been so much incredible innovation with them these last 70+ years. (Note: tremendous sarcasm here.)
The FCC has no power over the Internet because the FCC doesn’t have power over anything until Congress writes a law saying they do. And Congress has never done this for the FCC with the Internet.
It’s not just me saying this. 299 members of Congress have said so – a large bipartisan majority. More than 150 organizations, state legislators and bloggers have said so. So have seventeen minority groups – that are usually almost always in Democrat lockstep.
So have many additional normally Democrat paragons, including several large unions: AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America (CWA),International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); several racial grievance groups: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Minority Media and Telecom Council (MMTC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Urban League; and an anti-free market environmentalist group: the Sierra Club.
So too has the unanimous D.C. Circuit Court – led by a Democrat Bill Clinton-appointee – ruling in April in the Comcast-BitTorrent case that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to regulate the Internet.
Most importantly, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has himself said so. In an interview last week with the Washington Post, the Chairman readily acknowledged “(W)e have a Communications Act that wasn’t written for broadband.â€
Chairman Genachowski is referring to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the last time Congress addressed communications policy and the authorities the FCC has there over. Broadband Internet for all intents and purposes didn’t yet even exist.
The remedy to all of this is crystal clear. Congress should do what it’s supposed to do – write a law that defines and details the FCC’s role (or lack thereof) in regulating the Internet.
And the FCC should do what it’s supposed to do – unless and until Congress acts, NOTHING.
What the FCC must NOT do is unilaterally vote itself vast new powers under the cover of bureaucratic, post-election darkness.
Mick writes, “Meaning the Internet that you currently enjoy … will be subject to vast new governmental regulations.”
Mick, We all love the internet as it is today, don’t we? The “vast new government regulations” you talk about are intended to keep the internet as it is today. It’s the big media corporations which want to turn our free open internet into a private toll booth, where the big money players get their sites to boot faster and show up higher in search engines, while the little guys (like Brad and me) will get forced into the digital slow lane.
And as to those 299 Congressmen who are saying no to “Net Neutrality?” Just remember who pays for their campaigns. Same big media “corpses.”
I’m sorry, Mick, but someone has been feeding you corporate Koolaid! Don’t drink it.