"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
They just stand back and let it all be
Once upon a time, America had a rogue and lawless president who was willing to break the law to destroy his political opponents, use the full force of the federal government to carry out his personal and political whims, and generally act like he was a king, free of either "checks" or "balances." The Washington Post played an historic role in exposing his corruption, his law-breaking, his lack of regard for the Constitution. There is a reason the Post's work inspired a generation of reporters -- and it wasn't just the hopes of being portrayed by Robert Redford on the silver screen. The Post's coverage of Watergate was a heroic effort that stands among the most important work any Americans have ever done in service to their nation.
But that was more than 30 years ago. Today, the Post counts haircuts and estimates cleavage.
That's not completely fair. The Post, like other major news outlets, continues to produce excellent journalism and to cover important stories. The front page of today's Post, for example, includes an article that begins:
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III yesterday contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration.
That's an important story, clearly reported, placed prominently on page A1.
So we don't mean to suggest that the nation's news media are completely ignoring important news. They aren't. But we have long noted that leading news outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times have, by all available evidence, devoted significantly fewer resources to covering scandalous Bush administration actions than they devoted to covering President Clinton's relationship with a staffer.
When the Monica Lewinsky story broke, the Times and the Post -- like nearly every other news outlet in the country -- dedicated extraordinary resources to covering it. The day after the story broke, the Times and the Post ran a combined total of 19 articles about it, five of them on the front page. Twenty-eight reporters combined to write more than 20,000 words about a "scandal" that boiled down to whether the president told the truth about a consensual relationship that was ruled immaterial to a civil lawsuit that was thrown out of court for being entirely without merit. That's 28 reporters and 20,000 words -- at just two newspapers in just one day.
That relentless wall-to-wall coverage continued unabated for more than a year.
Fast-forward a few years. We have a president who has lied to the country in order to take it to war against a nation that didn't attack us, created a network of secret prisons, embraced torture, held people without trial or access to lawyers or even being charged with anything, used the government to spy on its own citizens, used "signing statements" to declare that he will not follow the very laws he is signing, and presided over an administration that is routinely described as "lawless" and that generally behaves as though the United States Congress has no more authority than the Ridgemont High School student council. Among other transgressions against the truth, the law, the Constitution, and human dignity.
And, it is important to note, those are not my conclusions. Those are conclusions that have each been reached by countless legal experts, scholars, and editorial boards, based on facts reported by countless journalists and placed in countless news reports by countless editors.
So, given what the occupants of the nation's most influential newsrooms clearly know -- what they have said and written before -- shouldn't the media be devoting greater coverage to the basic matter of whether or not we still live in a nation of laws?
Last night, for example, CBS News devoted 109 words to Mueller's contradiction of Gonzales' sworn testimony -- and that was the most meaningful coverage the network's evening news broadcast has ever devoted to Gonzales' attempt to strong-arm the hospitalized Ashcroft into overruling the acting attorney general's refusal to certify the administration's warantless domestic spying operation.
A mere 109 words for dramatic evidence that the attorney general of the United States may have lied to Congress.
You can hardly blame CBS for rushing through the story, though. They had other news to get to, and precious little time. Anchor Katie Couric explained: "Finally tonight, if you're a cat lover, or even if you're not, there's a cat in Rhode Island we felt we just had to tell you about. He has a very special ability to predict the future."
You see, Oscar the cat knows when people are going to die, and he curls up next to them.
CBS "just had to tell you about" Oscar the cat. Just had to spend 490 words on Oscar the cat.
Yesterday, the director of the FBI gave testimony that suggested that the attorney general may have lied in his own sworn testimony, but last night, CBS News had more important news to report. News about Oscar the cat.
There are very real and very serious questions about whether the United States is currently a fully functional republic. About whether our president feels compelled to obey the law and to respect Congress as an equal branch of government and to follow the Constitution. About whether we still have a system of checks and balances rather than a monarchy -- or whether that is but a quaint notion that will live on only in schoolchildren's history books, if at all.
Isn't it time news organizations devote more resources to exploring these issues -- even if it means fewer stories about cats and cleavage?
Well, Faux News covered it. It went something like this. Today, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez endured more insults from congress as publicity seeking Democrats continued to harangue the White House.....
"Once upon a time, America had a rogue and lawless president who was willing to break the law to destroy his political opponents, use the full force of the federal government to carry out his personal and political whims, and generally act like he was a king. "I presume the MMFA intern who wrote this week's article hasn't heard of JFK?
What? Pretty lame attempt, wrong prez, try putting this over somewhere else.
Yeah. Especially in light of very recent developments. Friday night (see pbs.org/newshour), we learned about the distinction Atty. Gen. Gonzalez was attempting to make in his testimony this past week. Apparently, there was a different program, quite possibly a more purely DOMESTIC spying program (and not the Terrorist Surveillance Program as we have come to know it) which was the controversial one that Ashcroft and Comey would not sign off on. Now, today, we have President Bush calling for new spying legislation, supposedly to allow for technological advances in the past thirty years, but in reality according to experts designed to RETROACTIVELY give legal protection to corporatiosn who may have cooperated in spying on US citizens, since all of these technological advances were already provided for in The Patriot Act were explicitly cited at the time by President Bush himself.
There is a possibly related story which the mainstream media does not seem to be reporting, but which DemocracyNow! had the other night, and for which The Nation has a web-exclusive, about the unprecedented, unaccountable, and therefore potentially corrupt and dangerous outsourcing of DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE (see [link to www.thenation.com]
Another story the mainstream media might give more coverage to would be an article (a movie review) by S. James Snyder in the New York Sun (7/27/07) titled, "How Iraq Got Off to a False Start" (see [link to www.nysun.com] This is a review of the documentary, "No End in Sight," by Charles Ferguson, "former senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and professor at M.I.T."
Lame try Genghiz. Try reading a little history sometime. Just think about one event of the Nixon presidency. A conversation in 1971 between Dick and Henry where they both agree that the war in Vietnam can not and will not be won. The decision is to not share this info with the public or the poor saps fighting the thing. Ya see, that might have made it difficult for Dick to win re-election. This is on record. We're told it was the hippies or the press or something or other that lost that war. Think about this you great patriot, over 20,000 Americans died in Vietnam AFTER Dick and Henry had that conversation. You can't put anything past right wing Republicans. Murder don't mean a thing to these guys. They just bury the corpses in flags and count on suckers like you.
You are exactly the viewer Katie wants and the voter Bush-Rove & Co want.
Bush's failures are well documented, but while this thread was dumping on Nixon I thought I'd remind everyone that every president makes mistakes: especially the democrats.
Carter was an abject failure. Clinton was a degenerate, and and utter failure, overall. He failed to get Bin Laden while he was busy chasing tail, and then went and bombed the hell out of Bosnia just cause he felt like it.
Not to mention Waco, the biggest tax grab in U.S. history, Ruth Ginsberg, attempting to seize the means of medical production (Hillary will try to do it this time), sending Elian Gonzalez to a dictatorship (for now), doing nothing to save up to 1,000,000 Africans in Rwanda from being slaughtered ( a disgraceful non-policy never to be forgotten), ....
If I were Oscar the Doom Kitty I would curl next to the media and threaten to stay by it until it started doing it's job, which is provide the citizens with information and editorial that is intellectually provocative.
I have no idea why media and it are in italics. Act of God/Allah/Yahweh anyone?
Maybe because media by definition is a plural noun and it (and its) infers singular. Probably something written into the program to tell you you are a bad person for mixing singular and plural in your post.
As a guess, yours is as good as any I can offer, even though yours defies reason and experience. The capacity of this program to edit appears to extend almost as far as catching most of the common "banned" words, and perhaps a few more recent additions (I think of "fa99ot"). Certainly, not further, into spelling and grammar which we see violated daily, including the example word offered.
Totally a guess on my part, but we have to attribute the italics to something, right?
Media is plural. "It's" should have been "its." And you imply to and infer from.
Hey, maybe Oscar will pay a visit to Cheney in his hospital room when he has his "heart" re-oiled tomorrow! Oh wait, oh shoot, this isn't the Huffington Post, is it? Sorry gang, let me slink quietly back to O'Reilly's website (though I can't remember, did I pay my $5 for the primo membership this month?)
Oh, I meant Oscar the CAT not the GROUCH! (Da Grouch may be gloomy but he ain't the grim reaper!)
As long as the people who own the media are the same people that own the factories that produce the military hardware for the world you are going to get a "slanted" take on the news. Some time ago the news was taken out of the hands of journalists and put into the hands of people who take their marching orders from military agendas and maximized profits.
In the 1800s there were the yellow journalists and the muckrakers. Time marches on...as newspapers matured, the reporting got better...but on the side were the tabloids. With the consolidation of media, the line is blurred and cable television has no lines.
the U.S. public has to grow enough to eventually get tired of the lurid and repetitive nonsense and want something more substantial in the way of news.
"In the 1800s there were the yellow journalists and the muckrakers. Time marches on...as newspapers matured, the reporting got better.."
I get the impression that "muckraking" is used here as a pejorative. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Muckrakers served the public interest by exposing violations of widely held mores - child labor, unsanitary food prep, political corruption, etc. Among the more notable were Upton Sinclair, Nellie Bly, and I.F. Stone. Would that there were more muckrakers today, not that a corporate-owned/corporate-funded medium would give podia to such.
It is true, that a privately-owned and controlled "media" has been around for some time, and has been serving interests remote from the truth, for some time now... and that "media" used to be exclusively newspapers, and at one point they went "yellow", when they saw what going "yellow" got them:
Circulation, driven by the sensational stuff they printed... sensational stuff, and scandals, and the lurid details of murder: It drove circulation up, and as a natural consequence, drove up advertising revenue (always based on circulation) and other powers, most notably the power to manipulate the American People (a power made greater, the greater the circulation).
And now circulation has become ratings, on television... and the sensational stuff and scandals and lurid details of murder are the same, but Fox News is the new "yellow"... and the power to manipulate the American People, has never been greater, as this "media" has never been so broadly cast, as it is now broadcast by television.
But there is a distinction to be made here which is so important, that to simply make it, delivers us from being whining complainers about the privately-owned and controlled "media", to being attentive landlords and proprietors, perhaps evicting but at least Regulating, those who use our Property.
Because television (and radio) broadcasters use Property that doesn't belong to them, but belongs to us: The PUBLIC AIRWAVES belong to us; they are PUBLIC PROPERTY, and require permission in the form of an FCC License to use, and consequently require adherence to FCC Regulations (which are Regulations meant to serve us, because they Regulate the use our our Property, Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES).
OK, to get right down to it: Do we really mean for our Public Property (by way of an FCC License to broadcast on it) to be used to advance the personal politics and other private interests of those who broadcast on television (and the radio), on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES?
Do you see what I'm saying here? The privately-owned and controlled "media", in the form of newspapers magazines and books even, can do what they want I guess, because they don't use Public Property (or require a License) in so doing... and our power there, is in not buying I guess... not buying the newspapers etc., or the crap the advertisers sell, in that "media"...
But what's our power over those, who use our Property, Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, by way of an FCC License...
...which must be considered a License we grant, through our agents in Congress and by way of our agency, the FCC.
Do we really mean for the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to be used for private political purposes, against us the American People?
The distinction I make here is too important to not make... to be reduced to simply a complainer is too little power in these matters... to see the difference between those who use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES and those who do not, is to see the difference between us as landlords, and us as boycotters.
The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: For nearly forty years, it was the Regulatory policy of the FCC... in 1987, it was repealed by the Reagan administration, in an act of de-regulation that did not serve the American People... that repeal allowed those who hold broadcast Licenses to use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES for their own private political purposes...
To use our Public Property against us the American People, and corrupt our Democratic processes for their own gain...
Is that why we grant them a License to broadcast on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES?
Time to bring back the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE... time to admit it was a mistake to repeal it in the first place... time to reclaim our Property, Public Property, from those who use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES for their own private political objectives and personal power...
Time to reclaim our Public Property Rights from Fox News et al, from the new "yellow".
Even if YOU could re-create the MEDIA in exactly the image you wanted it to be you cant make people watch/read YOUR version of what you perceive to be the truth. Even if you reduced "news" to 1 channel/outlet and forced Americans to buy/support the delivery method and content you would have simply reversed the reality as it is today and become that which you at this time loath. Assuredly, American ingenuity would raise its ugly head somewhere in the process and screw the whole thing up anyway. If 'ignorance is bliss" then "knowledge" can be a burden, most CHOOSE not to pack it around. And why should they, most today are (and I suspect you to) living in paradise....almost anything you could ever want is but a phone call or a mouse click away....thrive.
"re-create the MEDIA in exactly the image you wanted" and "make people watch" and "reduced news to one channel" and "forced Americans to buy/support"...
Who knows what you're talking about, or how you imagine it has anything to with the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, or anything I wrote (and who knows how you can type while wearing a straight-jacket).
But I love repeating the truth.
Those who broadcast on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, by way of a License from the FCC, use Public Property (Property owned by the American People, not the broadcasters!)
Do we have a Right to Regulate that use of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES?
You bet we do!
Do we License those broadcasters to use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to broadcast their own personal political opinions?
You bet we don't!
And so, if they the broadcasters, broadcast on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES (Public Property!) political opinions or personal attacks, what do we do about that?
Prohibit such a use of our Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES?
We could...
I have a better idea!
If those broadcasters use our Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, to broadcast political opinions (which they don't have to do you know), then they must, on those PUBLIC AIRWAVES (our Property!) allow for opposing political opinions, or 'reply time' to those who are personally attacked (using our Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES!)...
Yes, and we'll have those Regulations of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES enforced by our agency, the FCC...
And we'll call that 'fair and balanced' use of Public Property (our Property!)...
THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!
Great idea!
Got a problem with it?
Yes, in your attempt to make everything "fair", again, thats a judgment call from you prospective. What you think is "fair" may not be my interpretation. Its all about control. I prefer to let he market decide. Just because you force an apposing position on the air waves does not mean anyone will listen....and if no one listens advertisers will not buy time in that slot thus having an detrimental effect on the stations ability to make a profit...and on and on.....public airwaves or not.
"I prefer to let he market decide."
In this particular field, the market is corrupted. The solution is to break up these big media conglomerates which will give smaller companies a foothold in the market.
With regards the idea of the "Free Market":
When it comes to the Licensed use of Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, then the idea of a "Free Market" is different... newspapers and magazines and books and movies and audio recordings and video recordings: The sale and distribution of those "media" are as "Free Market" as it gets, because of the near unregulated things they do (and whatever Regulations may apply to those "media", is no concern here)...
But as to broadcasting on the television and radio bands, the first limitation of the idea of a "Free Market" is this:
There is no such a Right or Freedom to do that, to broadcast on the television and radio bands... a License from the FCC is required, and to satisfy all the Regulations of that License is also required...
Because it's a private commercial use of Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
Again, there is no Right or Freedom to broadcast... there never has been.
So much for the idea of the "Free Market", when it comes to the use of Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, by way of an FCC License.
And it's worth noting, that this use of Public Property I speak of here, is little different from other uses, such as grazing and water rights (by way of Permit or License) on Public Lands, or logging timber on Public Lands, or drilling for oil, or mining precious metals and minerals, on Public Lands...
There are no Rights or Freedoms to do those things either, as they are also a Licensed use of Public Property, as is broadcasting on the television and radio bands of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
And as far as the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE goes, imagine for minute those other uses of Public Property, such as the mining of precious metals... imagine those mining interests setting up billboards, on the Public Lands they're Licensed (and Regulated) to use... billboards promoting the political opinions of the mining company owner...
...on Public Property, that they don't own, but we let them use.
Imagine that instance, and that political use of Public Property, and you would easily see how such a use of those Public Lands would either be prohibited, or would require 'equal time' to opposing political opinions (or 'reply time', to those who might be personally attacked on those billboards... again, set up on Public Property!)
The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE should certainly apply to such an imagined political use of those Public Lands, as it should to the real use of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
...used for political purposes, against the American People and their Democratic processes.
If I were to wake up the morning after you had completed your restructuring of the public airwaves and you were in complete control....what would I here on my radio?
I'd be happy to explain and/or discuss in great detail, this important matter of National Policy with you (that matter again, being the Federal Regulation by the FCC of broadcasting on the television and radio bands of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, specifically when those broadcasts contain political opinions... the political opinions of the broadcasters, on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES).
But seeing as how your question is so stupid as to include within it "your restructuring of the public airwaves" and "you were in complete control"... which is you bending the discussion into your own imaginary and foolish terms...
I won't bother.
It's no fun arguing with madmen fools or liars... they don't respond to reason... they generally don't even stick to the point, and often misinterpret (intentionally or not) whatever it is being said, in the discussion.
What I've already written on the matter, is both complete and to my point, and would be enough for most folks...
...but not near enough for a fool or a madman or a liar; nothing ever is, in talking to those sorts.
And besides, the word hear isn't spelled "here".
OK.....if you say so.....my programing is safe, I am happy and your still living in a theoretical world of angst, hate and discontent....enjoy.
No. The people you listen to on your radio live in that world.
TWEAK:
What would you hear on YOUR radio? If the "MARKET" were accurately represented, then three out of ten programs would be the kind of propaganda you desire: Bush promotion, conservative "thinking", and all that stuff Hannity and Savage and Limbaugh now do in 95% of that Market.
See, the nation has turned against the rightwing, their policies, their "leaders", their ideas, and their propaganda promoters.
If "the market" was in play, instead of WEALTH and LOBBIESTS determining the use of our public airwaves, the representation of YOUR ideas would not dominate the airwaves; YOURS is a small minority view and getting smaller.
What you advocate is NOT anything to do with "THE MARKET", but instead the privileges and powers that WEALTH bestow on would-be dictators. Wealthy elitists believe that they are ENTITLED to rule, so they expend billions in order to buy up entire markets to use for their own monopolistic agenda.
You, TWEAK, are happy now because the ideology you support ... NeoConism ... has purchased the means to dominate media markets, and expended even more wealth to unfairly influence government (through lobbiests and campaign contributions and blackmail) to cast aside advocacy for THE PEOPLE and instead favor ONLY the powerful owner class.
You are happy because this takeover produces the propaganda you prefer, but you cannot be happy at the RESULT. I wonder how you explain that the more the rightwing dominates the media, the farther the rightwing falls in public opinion? Shouldn't it be the other way around? As Limbaugh and Hannity promote Bush, shouldn't his numbers be sky-high? If they give Hannity just a few more hours on radio and TV, shouldn't this have Bush's popularity approach 100%? That's the PLAN, that's exactly why Murdoch is spending his millions, but the unpredictable has happened; the more Rightwingers pimp for their party, the more ordinary people distrust, reject, and dislike those being promoted.
It must be frustrating to buy up every ice cream parlor in town, only to have the people opt for candy instead, rejecting your product. All that expense, all that planning, and FAILURE is the result. Enough to drive a rightwinger mad.
The world YOU are living in is known as Planet Wingnut a world of complete delusion and fantasy with no connection with reality whatsoever so feel free to rant like the guy at our park who needs to increase his Haldol intake but if you ever want to be taken seriously you need to at least let SOME reality in around the corners and deal with it.
"I prefer to let he market decide...blah, blah, blah...thus having an detrimental effect on the stations ability to make a profit" -TripleT
This is the obstruction of a conservative to the understanding of anything beyond the smell of money.
Republicans just can't understand how people's actual lives are affected by the recalcitrance of our media (it's our airwaves, we own the media) to talk about this full blown Constitutional crisis. We are a hair's width away from losing our liberty to an authoritarian regime and the sole concern of the right-wing is the freedom of corporate elitists to steal more money.
How servile can you be?
Same question....your in complete control...what/who..specifically would I hear on my radio?
Your premise is stupid, as it starts from the perspective of individual control instead of collective agreement. The airwaves, like our democracy, is the distilled wisdom of many not the controlled domain of the few.
Sounds like you would like to punish success or at least control it...ok, I understand...its theory not reality, those in power are not going to give it up except by force......never happen...status quo is safe for now.
So the concentration of control into the hands of the few is success? And giving say to the people is punishment?
You come across as very anti-democratic.
We want to increase competition.
No you dont understand. So far you have shown by your every post that you have no ability to understand virtually anything.
Thats TOUGH. These corporations make their money off of OUR resource, so they have to take whatever profit comes while operating according to the way WE decide if they dont like it they can open a dry cleaners to make their money. Profits are not the end all of existance. We made a deal with them. THEY get to make obscene buttloads of money off of our resource and in return they provide a public service. It is up to US to decide what that public service is. They either keep their end of the bargain or they can go into another line of business. Both sides of public issues should be heard, if people reject the other side it doesnt matter, they have HEARD it. The CHOICE is what is important. When you only get one side that is the essence of propaganda and that is NOT a public service.
The so-called Fairness Doctrine is nothing but a Fairy Doctrine meant for people who CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.
I wonder how old you are. I grew up in the 1950s so I remember when the Fairness Doctrine was dropped. It made a difference and this isn't a "fairy" tale. While a valid argument can be made to re-introduce it, (thanks dem) most of us and no Democratic politician is calling for it's return.
We need instead to limit the number of tv, radio and newspapers owned by one conglomerate so only a handful of companies control what we see and hear.
Unlike the posters checkers and tweakthetroll, I believe you to be sincere Mary, and concerned about a problem that truly plagues the American People and their Democratic process.
And to state that problem as briefly as I can: Privately-owned and controlled corporations, are using the PUBLIC AIRWAVES (our Public Property, not theirs) to broadcast their political opinions... and that their broadcasting those political opinions, involves no Right to Free Speech of theirs (or any other Right they might invoke), because there is no "right or freedom to broadcast"... none whatsoever, or why is an FCC License required?
And the main point here is the use of PUBLIC PROPERTY, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, for private political purposes...
...and We the People have every Right to Regulate this use of our property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, when it comes to the broadcasting of political opinions...
And were we to prohibit such broadcasting of the political opinions of those who own those corporations that hold FCC Licenses, that would not be unthinkable...
...but instead we wish to mandate a "fair and balanced" use of our property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
A "fair and balanced" use, enforced as FCC Regulations, known as the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE (which was law for forty years, until the Reagan administration repealed it in 1987, giving us the present incarnation of what it is that plagues our Democratic process so... what it is that sincerely concerns you and I Mary).
And while that is all clear enough, here is what I don't understand: I see a number of comments here, that seem to overlook the power We the People have, to Rightly Regulate the use of our own property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
...and instead, these comments seem fixed upon some type of control or dismantling or reorganization or prohibition even, of private corporations and their use of private property (their own) and private capital, such as the use we see made of the "media" of newspapers and magazines and for that matter movies and record companies.
And I don't understand this... what kind of unprecedented (and without a doubt, legally challenged) control of those private companies (using their own property) can be hoped for that way?
I mean why reach for the stars unattainable (which here means the mandated control of privately-owned property), when the Regulation of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES (our own Public Property) is already in our hands?
To which I can only add, is it not the use of the television and radio broadcast bands that really plagues us here?
Is it not Fox and NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN and MSNBC, and the various radio syndicates such as Clear Channel...
...aren't they the ones who manipulate the "media", aren't they using the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to corrupt our Democratic process?
Anyway, I just needed to add that, as a final note here, on this matter. The thought of somehow breaking up or otherwise dictating the structure of, privately-owned corporations, is difficult (and legally challenged) at best, and maybe even impossible...
On the other hand, to simply Regulate the use of Public Property (such as is used by Fox et al, when they broadcast on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES), that is easy to do (and without legal challenge), and is more than possible...
...as for forty years it was the law, the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE was... and all we need do is bring it back.
Why attempt what is not in your power presently, and may never be... why reach for the stars unattainable, when your own property is right in your hands: The PUBLIC AIRWAVES, which are being used against us, the American People.
Thank you for your points about the Fairness Doctrine. Now that it has been gone for some time, I'm not sure how it would work and who would decide what constitues "fairness" on the airwaves. You may be right; I just don't know.
I do think that the FCC has regulations that limit the number of media outlets that one company can own in a given market. Those rules were changed 3-4 years ago to allow more...when Michael Powell was running the FCC. There was a huge outcry.
I think the limits need to be lower. Precisely because it is the public that should own the airwaves.
Should those who hold broadcast Licenses from the FCC (to use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES), use those Licenses to broadcast political opinions, then they are to allow for equal time, for opposing and/or different political opinions...
And should those broadcasters using the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, broadcast personal attacks, then they are to allow for reply time, to those who were personally attacked...
Sound difficult to define what is a "political opinion" and what is a "personal attack", and what exactly is "equal time" and "reply time"?
Then good, let the difficulty begin (let it begin first, with however those terms were defined, in the forty years in which the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE was law)...
...let the difficulty begin, and if in any way it should result in those who hold FCC Licenses from refraining on broadcasting their political opinions and personal attacks...
Then Good Again!
Because that is not why We the People License those broadcasters in the first place, for them to broadcast their political opinions and personal attacks... and in so broadcasting, corrupt our Democratic process.
And lastly, if you have enjoyed railing against this privately-owned "media" this past year, and enjoyed also complaining about it in the previous year, and the year before that...
...then get used to it, and be prepared to enjoy complaining next year and the next and the next...
Because they don't give a crap about your complaints.
They're using your property, Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, as they see fit, and in any way they like, for political purposes or whatever...
And You Can't Do A Thing About It!
So get used to 24/7 of Monica Lewinsky (when it serves those broadcasters to do that)... get used to "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" against a presidential candidate (when that serves the owners of the broadcast companies)... get used to Hillary the witch, and Mr. Edwards the fahg, and David Brock the nazi (when that serves the owners who hold broadcast Licenses from the FCC)...
It's not going away, so get used to complaining about it...
They could care less, they're going to use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES for their own private political ends...
They don't give a squat what you think about how they're using your property, Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
So get used to whining and complaining and ranting and railing, because you have years and years of it to come.
(Unless you wake up, and smell your own Power, and your own Property... Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES... unless you wake up, and reclaim your PROPERTY RIGHTS to the PUBLIC AIRWAVES: The American People's property.)
With satellite radio and cable TV, much of your application of the Fairness Doctrine becomes, well, unprecedented. However, I am willing enough to accede to that proposal with the understanding that "the people" still own the spectrum for satellite and the right-of-way for the cable.
BUT a larger problem presents itself in overcoming the Oligopoly that currently controls the media: with only 5 corporations controlling content, there is neither incentive to truly compete, nor access for "outsiders" to afford that competition. Thus, we get "Hannity and Colmes" to the nth degree: an ineffectual presentation of the non-corporate POV vs powerful bombast and lots of production value in presentation of the Corporate. Even O'LIElly just loads up a loser sidekick; and we have gained zilch.
The only way to ensure competition, access, credibility, diversity - the crucial elements of a true marketplace - is to (re)institute meaningful limits on the reach and saturation of each ownership. Content providers will arise to fill demands of the various alliances of the thousands of freed outlets as those Oligopolies divest. If Hannity is actually in demand, let him be carried. If Randi Rhodes is more to the taste of the owner or the audience, let that taste be served. If all of network TV is dismal - and it is - then groups of stations will ally to obtain something new.
The FCC would then need only to count the outlets held by each ownership, and deal with "public service" requirements of renewal of license.
YES - that divestiture is viewed by me as punitive: I wish a pox on every one of the Corporations currently choosing my content. And I resent their grab for every loose outlet over the past 10 years, as they and the Repugnants conspired to increase the reach/saturation limits. But regardless of the vengeance *I* seek, it is not good public policy to allow such concentration. Does Taft-Hartley still ring a bell?
If you're talking about increasing competition, I'm all for that. To me, government interference in the market of free exchange in any arena is to be avoided at all costs. Forcing tv, and radio etc. to air so-called 'equal time' to both, or more, views, is just too heavy-handed, and dangerous to free thought.
You wouldnt know the truth if it kicked down your door and ate your breakfast cerial. Limbaugh and Company dont tell the truth they tell LIES, what you want is an exclusive franchise to lie to America without the truth being heard. Propaganda is so much more effective when the other side isnt heard and its the propaganda you want to protect you dont even understand the concept of truth.
Other than some trivial mistake about a number, or an incorrect name, etc, name one factual lie that Limbaugh has said.
Are you kidding me? Off the top of my head he said Sherrod Brown was black in order to fabricate some wierd racial reason for Hacket leaving the race. He said there were more Native Americans alive today than when Columbus landed. Heck just check the archives 750 words wouldnt scratch the surface of his constant lying. He lies as much as Bush.
I don't get a lot of people agreeing with me, but I've believed for a long time that the big media news operations have all passed to the control of their business and finance management. In part this means that costcutting and sensationalism will swamp serious news, but it also means that the larger political and economic interests of the big corporations controlling the various media will bias political coverage.
I include the Post and the Times in this. Sulzberger and Graham chair both the business board and the operations board of their respective organizations. The Times and the Post have a brand name to protect, and they can't corrupt their news coverage to the extent that Fox does, but their coverage of the Clinton scandals, Bush-Gore, and the runup to the Iraq War were all unprofessional and dishonest in a way that really requires some explanation.
Beyond the business explanation, I believe that politically Graham and Sulzberger are personally pretty well committed to some kind of eclectic neo-con / neo-liberal mix that makes it hard for them to be fair to Democrats, especially (but not only) liberal antiwar Democrats.
Too many people are waiting for the media to clean up its act. I don't think that this is going to happen. Various sorts of alternative media help out a lot, but we really need entirely new national publications. I think that if the big money people started a new national newspaper, they may or may not make money on it, but they would revitalize American democracy. That makes a lot more sense to me than spending half a billion dollars on limp, losing Presidential campaigns with no long-term impact.
Whining about media coverage of YOUR favorite subject will not change anything. Viewers do not care about lying attorneys generals...thats not a story...thats normal. Sales of advertising space and increased viewership is brought about by showing cats, cleavage and blue dresses. And thats the bottom line.
And as usual, you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims. Viewers don't care about lying attorneys? The polls on Gonzales say otherwise:
[link to www.pollingreport.com]
Huh? 64% either don't know who he is, have no opinion, think he is doing a good job or doing an excellent job.........
You're reading the poll like a conservative. Read it the correct way.
And that is...........?
14 percent have a positive opinion of him; 36 percent have a negative opinion of him; 22 percent want to stay out of it; and 28 percent have their heads in the sand. The poll was taking in April. I would say his positives have gone down and his negatives have up since then.
And that link actually shows 8 polls on Gonzales that reflect the same thing. A large percentage of those polled have an unfavorable opinion (indicating an interest in the story), while much smaller percentages have either a positive opinion (also indicating some level of interest) or they apparently don't watch the news at all an have no idea who he is. No matter how you slice it, the majority of those polled have an interest in the story.
Once again the "money" angle is steered to benefit conservatives. I'd imagine the public cares less about antique land deals with no evidence of presidential wrongdoing than lying attorney generals, but that didn't stop them giving us blanket coverage of Whitewater.
It's not about what the market wants, it's about what the media owners tell the market to want.
A few things on "let the market decide."
1. The "market" has determined that hard-core pornography is what the people want (multi-billion dollar industry). Yet why can't we see hard-core porn on CBS? The "market" has decided. Sometimes, standards are more vital and puriel interests.
2. As Dem so emphatically pointed out, these are the PUBLIC airwaves. If I have a trillion dollars i can buy and start a.) a newspaper, b.) a magazine, c.) a movie, d.) a college, e.) a Web site. What I CANNOT do, without the gov't's permission, is operate a tv or radio station. No amount of "market" desire will allow me to do so w/o the gov't's approval. That's why TV and radio are different from other media.
Viewers do not care about lying attorneys generals
Said the people who LOVE the death penalty.
If that were true, why are:
1) network news orgs. facing ever-declining ratings?
2) major newspapers struggling to retain circulation and advertising revenue, buying out the early retirements of experienced staff, and laying people off?
Considering that newspaper readership is way down perhaps the newspapers need to re evaluate what they are covering and we the readers need to demand they types of stories we want covered!
The Right is soo afriad of Bloggers, because they are all over these stories, well researched and NOT afraid to say they made an error if they have done so.
The real question is who is controlling the media and how do we get it to stop? We need information, not propaganda or talking points.
Who will tell the story of how the MSM failed the American people throughout the first 6 years of Bush's administration?
Among the litany of CheneyCo transgressions I find missing the attachment of political officers to every Cabinet and sub-Cabinet department to ensure that findings do not contradict dogma. This is eerily reminiscent of the old Soviet system.
Whether it's the suppression of non-doctrinal empiricism or the use of U.S. Attorneys to sway elections, this is a most noisome action and dangerous precedent for what's supposed to be a republic.
Mr. Foser,
You asked: "Isn't it time news organizations devote more resources to exploring these issues...?"
The answer: "No, it's waaaay past time and the clock is running."
Trouble is, in broadcast media, there are hardly any "news organizations" left. The dog-and-pony-show (and I mean that as the slur it originally was) format is "what the public wants".
Or so we're told.
"Or so we're told." So very right! And, of course the ones telling are the very same 5 corporations controlling 100% of the content, and over 90% of the delivery media.
I may differ with the concept of the "Fairness Doctrine" as objective, or enforceable, but the problem is as defined, whatever the cure. Not only have those Corporations driven me completely away from traditional news outlets - particularly, the fear that I may damage my relatively expensive television set in my frustration and rage at the inundation of lies presented as news and opinion - but from much of the entertainment function as well. There is less and less that is appealing - or even acceptable - on the (now, four) broadcast networks; and even the 200 extra channels of cable do not provide steady fare, since too many seek to emulate or rerun the unacceptable from the networks. I am reduced to watching BBC for entertainment at least four nights per week, after having been forced to BBC for TV news long since. Yes, I do watch Olbermann most of the time - but certainly wish for a harder edge, greater emphasis on information, even there. Movies have become the latest frontier of the invasion of the "Crap Culture" into our lives: I will certainly rent "300", just because the concept is so attractive to me; and maybe the Bourne Ultimatum, someday. Otherwise, the movie year has been a loss to me.
So, just who are these Corporations reaching? Is there truly an audience for their offerings - other than that infamous 25-26-27% Bungleoids?
Bill Moyers' Journal, Friday nights on PBS is the ONLY news analysis show on TV worth watching. KO does a pretty good job covering the major issues, but still half his show is focused on fluff. I guess that's the price he has to pay to be allowed to do the REAL news first.
Our Democratic candidates are co-conspirators in a media set-up that actually impugns them and all democrats as a matter of course. This boggles my mind. We need to confront Messrs. Obama, Edwards, Ms Clinton etc. about re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine and agreeing to boycott any news outlet that fails to strive for some objective balance. But they won't.It would not be hard to establish a suitable metric for media objectivity. Media Matters has tracked the affiliation of commentators and analyzed content. My point is that the Democrats don't have the cojones to take on the mainstream media at all. Even though they know that the deck is stacked against them. Very depressing... because if they won't, then all our bluster is just so much desperate hot air.
that giant exxon sign that brings this fair city lighthttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1385/930810756_4b76dcd143_m.jpg
I agree with LOONZ that the media conglomerates need to be broken up.
now just a handful of companies (some with conflicts of interest regarding the sale of military supplies) own most of the television news as well as radio stations and newspapers. It's unhealthy for democracy. Thank God for the internet.
"Thank God for the internet.", but....
Before we decide which conglomerates are to be "broken up", let's all pause and take a deep breath.
I don't want any government group, private group or a combination deciding what constitutes a news "conglomerate", much less how they will be "broken up."
The First Amendment hurdles with such an approach would be impossible to conquer.
And, who's to say that a "conglomerate" blog isn't the one with the highest hit count?
I don't wanna go there.
Today, most of the comprehensive and accurate news appears as items on [insert names of favorite web sites here] and an awful lot of it originates from print and/or wire service journalists.
I don't want to see anyone screw with this arrangement.
As for the corporate-controlled MSM, the only workable solution I can even imagine is to pass legislation that says: "Okay NBC, FOX NEWS, CNN, etc., you shall provide a minimum of (X) hours of commercial-free daily news programming for every (Y) hours of total programming. How you transmit the content (radio, TV, cable, satellite) to your audience is of no consequence"
This way, CNN can still run Glenn Beck, MSNBC can still titillate to their heart's content, and FOX NEWS can be, well they can still be FOX NEWS.
I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.
Of course, the ultimate solution would be to have corporate America get their collective heads out of their asses and see that Americans want news that is really news and not the crap we're getting today and that their advertising dollars would be well spent on such programming.
The advertising seen on most informative web sites is a foot in the door, but web sites are out of reach of an awful lot of Americans.
The blogosphere is a start, but there's a long way to go.
There are already limits. They used to be more restrictive but the conservatives have been steadily loosening the limits on how much of each market can be owned by one media ownership group. There is NO REASON why these restrictions cannot simply be re-instated. Make no mistake, these large media owners want more and more control over the market, thus more and more control over the message. We have to control it.
Draft,
I wouldn't have the slightest problem with a law that said: "One company shall not own more that 10% of the airwaves in this or that market. and the FCC shall enforce this law effective immediately."
I think it would be good for Democracy and good for America.
Be very careful that the Internet is not taken away as well. When I am not pushing people to email Rep. Hinchey to root for MORA, or to advocate for your choice of changes to make MORA more efficacious, I am supporting "net neutrality". There are afoot continuing efforts by some of those very same media corporations (and others) to undermine the internet. Would discrimination by the internet carriers be in your best interests?
(You might as well sign the petition while you are on the site - please?)
Personal taste: I don't care much for the Fairness Doctrine - subjective, and difficult to enforce; but I love the notion of restoring the 1980 limits on reach/concentration of ownership, then forcing some real divestiture - maybe half of the 1980 limits. When there is a sufficiency of outlets available, there is an opportunity for diversity of ownership, for access, for actual competition, for a true marketplace.
One of the ugly tricks of this concentration of media content and outlet, is that even if one mounts a successful community effort to compete for purchase of a local station (AM/FM or UHF) one's community is then stymied by inability to acquire substantial content at a marketable price, due to a sort of penalty clause invoked for those of us who are not members of the Corporate families.
We abandoned the effort after finding that it would cost us twice what the current ownership pays, to carry exactly the same content (which wasn't what we wanted, but offered a test of feasibility). To pull pieces from here and there, and mix in a little truly local content with any credibility, our budget would have to have been between 2-1/2 and three times the programming budget of our predecessor.
We couldn't afford the minumum of six years of heavy losses, even with cooperation and assistance from the local university, to establish a true independent voice in the community - despite the fact that those airwaves belong to that community.
Almost every one of the above posts talk about even more restrictive freedoms---which amount to CONTROL. You want to control this and control that because you don't like someone or something.
Did you ever stop and think---for just a moment---that your ideals equate to those of Islamic extremists who want to control everything and restrict freedoms because they don't like certain aspects of life as they see it?
Even the ACLU couldn't stomach what's been posted here. Why? Because the ACLU won't tolerate increased controls over our lives (national ID card program, etc.).
Just what I want in my own life---more controls, more oppression, less freedom. Yippee! NOT!
Are you sure your post is on the right thread? Possibly you composed offline, and selected the wrong site when ready to post? Or the wrong thread?
I see few asking to control others, so much as asking to remove "control" illicitly imposed by others - that monsterous oligopoly in the media. Or do you and I also differ as to what is acceptable use of public property by private parties?
It seems to me that this begs the question, where were Woodward & Bernstein (men who have been heroes of mine since I was five years old) during all this?
Oh yeah...Woodward's brain has been AWOL for about five years & it's like the other one vanished off the face of the planet. Well, Bob, I guess I'm happy you figured it out eventually--even if it was after the 2004 elections.
Way to be a day late & a dollar short.
This discussion has prompted me to look at the Fairness Doctrine further. This info. was on one of the discussion threads at Thom Hartmann's air america web site:
Equal Time" is a requirement from Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934
Okay, is that settled? Please? Finally? Equal Time is Congressional law, dating from 1934, signed by the president. The Fairness Doctrine is an FCC policy dating from 1949, ending in 1987.
Now on to the Fairness Doctrine. First it is just that - a very very loose doctrine of fairness. Virtually nothing in it was codified originally and it developed on a case-by-case basis. Louise Slaughter has the history correct, Thom. You do not:
Let me finish by adding how the Fairness Doctrine worked (I worked for radio stations under it but never hosted until it was already abolished): Someone on usually a local issue wanted to respond because the only talk radio in their town was giving one POV, usually on an issue involving referendums and initiatives and taxes. They were given 15 minutes during a week to counter what was often months of spin. But at least the other sides - sometimes there were several - had a right to petition the station. Failure to comply reflected on the station's public service obligation requirements - AS IT WELL SHOULD HAVE.
And I must point out again the most important point in the matter (a point I'm sure you get):
We're Talking About A Use Of Public Property Here, The PUBLIC AIRWAVES
"Equal Time" and "Reply Time" (to those who are personally attacked on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES), these things do not apply in your own personal or private affairs (and beware the dishonest persons who try and lead you cleverly to believing that, by way of making ridiculous hypotheticals about "equal time" in your own private speech and affairs)...
...they apply only in broadcasting on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, only under the jurisdiction of the FCC, and only to FCC License holders.
And guess what?
These things don't apply to newspapers and magazines, because they don't use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, and are not (that I know of) under the jurisdiction of the FCC.
So let's prioritize our targets here, and prioritize our fire, and know what is and is not our Property, Public Property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
...otherwise we fire aimlessly, and waste our fire, and accomplish nothing because we fail to distinguish what is our own Property in these matters...
...otherwise we complain and whine and rant and rail perpetually, for years to come, against the "media".
I think the quote alluded to in the title comes from Bruce Springsteen's song, Jungleland.
"And the poets 'round here don't write nothing at all They just stand back and let it all be".
Expecting poetry from the media is like expecting spirituality in a Vegas showroom. You're never gonna find something where it doesn't exist.
When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if Earth could say, in a voice floating up perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon "It is done." People did not like it here. Kurt Vonnegut
And, when another species rises up, or Earth is visted by aliens they will come to a place in the hallowed ruins of New York City and they will find a building in whose edifice is carved the inscription MUSEUM OF TELEVISION AND RADIO and they will deduce..."This is where the end began."