Don’t those people up there in those shiny white marble buildings have media consultants? In Tennessee, for instance, we have a Democratic governor who continues to use frames constructed by the opposition for the sole purpose of controlling the political debate. In this week’s State of the State, Governor Bredesen twice described responsible and sound fiscal policy as “conservative”:
First, the principle of the “family budget”; that we honestly appraise how much money is coming in, and spend that much and no more. This is a common sense and conservative approach, and is particularly needed when we’re in a recession that may yet go deeper and last longer than we expect….I’m going to send you a budget in March that is conservative and we’re going to use any money the federal government sends us carefully and wisely.
In both of these instances “conservative” could have easily been replaced with “fiscally responsible” or “fiscally sound.” Tin political ear, indeed. Unless he used that term on purpose, in which case, thanks for abandoning the Democratic wing of the Democratic party again, Governor.
The ol' hairy eyeball.
And there are those in the U.S. Congress who don’t yet know enough
to shut up about the
Fairness Doctrine, which is the juiciest of red meat for rabid right-wing broadcasters. Red meat they use to play the victim and whip their audience into a frenzy about “free speech” and the First Amendment.
But the Fairness Doctrine argument is a red herring (which must be why the mendacious Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al. like it so much.) The real issue is one brought forth by a yet-to-be outdated 2007 study written by the Center for American Progress – there are serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves serve the listening needs of all Americans.
The top 5 commercial station owners would be upholding the responsibility to the public trust that comes with their broadcasting license if:
- 91 percent of the total potential U.S. radio listening audience were conservative
- 76 percent of the total potential listening audience in the top 10 radio markets were conservative (but with the top 10 markets including most major metropolitan areas, that doesn’t seem likely).
- Broadcasting 2,570 hours of conservative talk compared to 254 hours of progressive talk every weekday (10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk) served the needs of all their listeners (see the first bullet point).
So why the imbalance? Well, it’s the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, of course! Yeah, well, not so much. Then it’s ol’ supply and consumer demand, then! Not that either. Sorry.
As the report CAP reports states, “neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.” The real reason is the deregulation that followed in the wake of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which amended the Communications Act of 1934 and eliminated most media ownership regulations and continued the industry consolidation begun by President Reagan. In 1983 there were 50 major media companies. In 1996 there were 10. And now there are 5.
But the 1996 act kept some key provisions of the 1934 act, namely that any reduction of barriers be within the confines of acting in the public’s interest.
When station owners are granted a broadcast license, they become the trusted guardians of a limited resource. And with that trust comes a responsibility to broadcast in the public’s interest – all the public’s interest, not just a select few. When large corporations that could care less about this responsibility – and are not held accountable to it – are able to gobble up a majority of the most powerful stations in the country, we end up with a vast network of talk radio hosts all hitting the same note.* In addition, the relaxation of the station ownership rules effectively shut out local ownership and local management requirements. And who knows better than a local what would serve the local interest?
In an interview yesterday with the unlikely outlet CNSNews, acting Federal Communications Commission commissioner, Michael Copps, addressed the Fairness Doctrine kerfuffle best:
“That’s kind of yesterday’s fight,†Copps told CNSNews.com. “I understand the goals behind it. I understand that the legislative intent is still there to make sure that our airwaves serve the public interest. (But) I don’t think the best way to get there is to just to rehash something nobody agreed about, even back in the 1950’s….How do we ensure true localism in our broadcast environment, especially in light of the damage that has been inflicted upon that environment by two decades of excessive media consolidation and mindless deregulation of the public interest?…I think we have a tremendous opportunity going forward to reinvigorate our media…to ensure that the public airwaves truly deliver the kind of news and information that we need to sustain our democratic dialogue and to reflect the great diversity of our country; its races and ethnic groups and culture and music and arts.”
UPDATE: THe Huffington Post’s Craig Aaron has a cure for Fairness Doctrine Panic (FDP), just say no:
BILL PRESS: Isn’t it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?
DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN: No.
BILL PRESS: Don’t we need it? But isn’t this the only way to keep progressive voices on the air?
DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN: No.
BILL PRESS: Is the Fairness Doctrine ever coming back?
DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN: No. Nope. Not. Nyet. Never.
*By the way you run into the same problem if you listen to the radio for music – the same top 40 hits are played over and over again in market after market.
Recent Comments