The Voice of the People
... or at least my own
|
|
|
... or at least my own | | ||||
February 19, 2003
|
During the 1990's, radio listeners have become barraged morning, noon, and night by the venomous rants of deranged megalomaniacs who believe they speak for the "average" American. I'm speaking of self-proclaimed prophets of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, and the rest of their ilk. These voices come at the radio listening public, dissecting every political issue of the day into hate and oversimplified jargon that serves the political agenda of extreme right-wing corporate fascism. Rush himself likes to say he is a "polemicist," which is a fancy word for shit starter. But what these well paid millionaire loose talkers do is LIE. They do not merely have an honest difference of opinion that respectful explains the issues based on facts. Why believe the rantings of these voices who have been caught and proven to lie and mislead more than hundreds of times ... and that minimum accounting is assuming a lot; the true figure is probably closer to beyond one million. These two men alone have their voices blasted to radio listeners across the country from 600 plus radio stations. There is no equivalent opposing viewpoint that offers anywhere near that many stations. These radio stations are also all interconnected by the media-conglomerates that own the vast networks and dictate the programming from central offices. In a totalitarian regime that is called a propaganda machine. This is dangerous to our democracy. It used to be that stations were required to offer opposing opinions air time as a condition of their FCC license renewal. Stations could not use their control of the airwaves to broadcast only one opinion. But as the information below will indicate ( I've sourced each one so you can read this material yourself) this began to change with Ronald Reagan. The idea that radio stations (and media outlets in general) were a public trust lost favor in light of the "de-regulation" mania that sought to remove "government" regulation from the presumably "benign" workings of the free market. In 1987 the FCC stopped enforcing the "fairness doctrine." According to Reagan's FCC chairman Mark Fowler, "the perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants." This received legal approval at the same time from the US District Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. when an organization set up by Republican Senator Bob Packwood (called the Freedom of Expression Foundation) won a case 2 to 1, with the 2 judges being none other than Robert Bork and current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (SOURCE: The Eugene Register-Guard , June 30, 2002 ... http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/06/30/1f.ed.col.monks.0630.html ... in What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman, Chapter 5, page 71.) The idea that radio should be organized by the interaction of "marketplace participants" is ludicrous and just plain insane. Consumers don't really have a choice when the conglomerates that own the massive network of stations do not allow any choice but the screams of raging lies mascarading as the people's voice. If radio (or television) were measured by the votes of the presidential election, then 50% of radio time should be available for other opinions. Is that what is happening? No, because the ownership of the market dictates what the controlled market will offer. There is no choice. Instead, what we see is a competition of liars and propaganda agents each trying to out do one another and be promoted by upper management to do the bidding of what is in management's interest. Management and their multi-billion dollar owners are not interested in listening to or sponsoring other opinions because they are self-righteously insulated from the everyday lives of average people. Laws, legislation, policy decisions, and the interpretation of legislation is not made from an honest discussion of issues or a true desire to provide the greatest good for the most people on all sides of the issue. Instead political favors and subterfuge are pursued, and the radio and TV pundits are meant to distract and confuse the voters so they will not know anything but sound bites and oversimplified name calling. Our democracy is in dangerous waters if we accept this state of affairs. This is not a liberal versus conservative matter. What is at stake is the control of our government and media organizations by spoiled, bumptious, over-zealous billionaires who want to organize the state in their own name without having to listen to anyone, including reason. These people gladly enlist and pay for the support of the maniacal voices of TV and radio pundits to do the dirty work of confusing the people with lies. It is a boss system, but you don't get to see or hear the bosses, only glossy faces and scurrilous voices of the liars whom the bosses pay for with good ole American dollar bills. Below is some additional information on the Fairness Doctrine: ------(SOURCE: http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html)
Released: July 25, 1997 WASHINGTON, DC -- The passing of media ownership into fewer hands, the potential for conflicts of interests, and the virtual exclusion of significant opposing viewpoints are good reasons to reevaluate the broadcasting Fairness Doctrine, and it's potential for obtaining more balanced coverage of Islam and Muslims. The Fairness Doctrine from 1949 until 1987, when it was discontinued by the Federal Communications Commission, required broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views. It did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views. The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). The Court's decision led to the FCC reevaluation and discontinuance of the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC stated: "We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists." In 1987 a bill to place the Fairness Doctrine into federal law passed the House by 3 to 1, and the Senate by nearly 2 to 1, but it was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Among those voting for the bill were Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). In 1989 the Fairness Doctrine easily passed the House again, but didn't proceed further as President George Bush threatened to veto it. In 1991, hearings were again held on the doctrine, but President Bush's ongoing veto threat stymied passage. Then the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was assigned the responsibility to: "facilitate the full development of public telecommunications in which programs of high quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, and innovation, which are obtained from diverse sources, will be made available to public telecommunications entities, with strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." The "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993" was sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner (D-N.C.). Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine have included New York Governor Mario Cuomo, and broadcaster Rush Limbaugh. Cuomo argued that, "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." Limbaugh argued that there should be no government fairness standards on broadcasters, since there are none on the print press. Others, such as columnist Jeff Cohen, say these arguments miss the key difference: If you set up your competing broadcast station next to a Limbaugh station on the radio dial, without acquiring a government license, you will be prosecuted. Broadcast frequencies are limited, and they belong to all Americans. Furthermore, says Enver Masud, Director of The Wisdom Fund and a strong supporter of free speech, "Freedom of speech has its limits. Even in a theater, one does not have the right to yell 'fire' when there is no fire." Since these attempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, media ownership has passed into fewer and fewer hands. Mark Crispin Miller, professor of Film and Media Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, has written extensively on the media and the increasing concentration of ownership of media companies in the United States. Miller has created charts that trace the holdings of four major conglomerates: Time Warner, Disney/Cap Cities, General Electric, and Westinghouse. Each of these conglomerates owns a news network, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, respectively. And not only do they own news networks, but also radio stations, magazines, cable TV, motion pictures, music, and newspapers. Furthermore, the (non-media) holdings of these conglomerates create "alarming conflicts of interests" says Miller. Lastly, diverse opposing voices are virtually excluded from major TV networks. Among these are prominent speakers such as former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the prolific writer Noam Chomsky, the militant National Alliance, and Muslims who by the year 2000 will constitute America's second largest religion -- Islam. More recently the Broadcasting Act of 1996 establishes the Broadcasting Standards Commission. In effect, this merges the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, creating a single forum for public concerns relating to the portrayal of sex and violence and matters of taste and decency in television and radio programmes, as well as unjust and unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy by broadcasters. The reasons that led to the demise of the Fairness Doctrine no longer exist. Perhaps it's time to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. [The FCC replaced a 30-year-old equal employment opportunity (EEO) program that was struck down as unconstitutional in 1998 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. "Under the new system, the FCC will require broadcasters to have an active outreach program for hiring women and racial minorities. The companies will have to publicize job openings widely to ensure that minorities and women hear about and can compete for the positions." -- John Schwartz, "FCC Unveils New Rules on Hiring," Washington Post, January 21, 2000] Copyright © 1997 The Wisdom Fund - All Rights Reserved. Press Releases may be freely reproduced in newspapers, magazines, and other print media. They may not be downloaded to other web sites, newsgroups, bulletin boards, etc. ------(SOURCE: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm ) FAIRNESS DOCTRINE U.S. Broadcasting Policy The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine. This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate. From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine. In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management. The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy. The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine. The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended. By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine. By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush. The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming. -Val E. Limburg FURTHER READING
Aufderheide, Patricia.
Benjamin, Louise M.
Brennan, Timothy A.
Cronauer, Adrian.
Donahue, Hugh Carter.
Hazlett, Thomas W.
Krueger, Elizabeth.
Rowan, Ford.
Simmons, Steven J.
Streeter, Thomas. ------(SOURCE: http://www.savagestupidity.com/fairness-doctrine.html ) The FCC stated: "We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists." In this statement, the FCC fails to acknowledge some basic facts: the airwaves, unlike print, or the Internet, have inherent limits on diversity and accessibility. In any one area, only a limited number of frequencies are available... so, even if you had the resources to do so, setting up a competing broadcast station next to "Hot Talk 560" on the AM radio dial, without acquiring a government license, would result in prosecution. Thus, if broadcasters have the right to refuse to air your views, it is quite possible for them to completely silence all opposing points of view. A situation which "liberal" radio listeners find all too familiar. A review of conservative literature discussing the Fairness Doctrine attributes the explosive growth of right-wing talk radio to the elimination of this regulation. Freed from the unpleasant obligation of having even the slightest obligation to provide a balanced point of view (the "inhibition" mentioned by Ronald Reagan's FCC above), corporate America has embraced the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage with a vengance. This is what conservatives would like to portray as "an upsurge in public affairs programming and discussion of controversial issues" on the radio. In actuality, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine has had almost no effect in this area outside of right-wing talk radio. Research demonstrates "that there was not a mass effort by broadcasters to begin or cease editorializing after the Fairness Doctrine was set aside by the FCC in 1987". In fact, only two stations, out of 306 surveyed, began to broadcast editorials at that point. According to Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting (CIPB), "Research demonstrates that news and public affairs substantially declined after termination of the Fairness Doctrine, contrary to broadcaster promises. What did increase were right wing talk shows and religious right ministries, now free to editorialize against their favorite demons without fear of contradiction." Corporate America and the right-wing sound the alarm every time that the idea of restoring the Fairness Doctrine is raised: "It will be the death of talk radio." It will "end discussion of controversial issues... rather than risk having to provide equal time, broadcasters will simply not cover anything." Horsepucky, in my opinion - no sane manager would pull Rush Limbaugh off the air, just because they might have to provide an hour of "liberal" programming or some other opportunity for an opposing viewpoint to be heard. What conservatives and corporate America are really afraid of, is that some fire-breathing liberal or leftist (god-forbid) will prove to be economically viable, and put the lie to the proposition that "liberals aren't entertaining or interesting".
|