FCC and Right-Wing Radio Helping U.S. Press Freedom Slip Away (Molly Ivins Alert)

Creators Syndicate via sltrib.com ^ | 02/03/2003 | Molly Ivins

[GeneD]

Now here's a dandy example of the kind of thing that never makes it to the front page or the top of the news broadcast, but that affects absolutely everyone. The Federal Communications Commission, led by Michael ("my religion is the market") Powell, is fixing to remove the last remaining barriers against concentration of media.

This means one company can own all the radio stations, television stations, newspapers and cable systems in any given area. Presently, 10 companies own over 90 percent of the media outlets. Bill Kovach of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism say these are the most sweeping changes in the rules that govern ownership of American media since the 1940s. The ownership rules were put in place after we had seen how totalitarian governments use domination of the media to goad their countries into war.

We already know what happens when the free market zealots remove restrictions on ownership. In 1996, the FCC eliminated its rules on radio ownership. Conglomerates now own hundreds of stations around the country. One company, Clear Channel, owns more than 1,200 stations, and there are 30 percent fewer station owners than there were before 1996. The result is less local news and local programming, since the formats are programmed at headquarters. Clear Channel owns as many as six or seven stations in a market, broadcasting generic country, generic pop, generic oldies, etc.

The fearless investigative television journalism we have all come to expect (an hourlong special on Michael Jackson's face in the works) will not be improved by this move. The FCC is doing this in an almost covert way. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps reports that only under pressure did the commission agree to hold one lone public hearing on it, in Richmond, Va.

A coalition of consumer and media advocacy groups presented a 140-page filing that shows joint ownership of newspaper and broadcast outlets fails to meet the constitutional requirement, set out by the Supreme Court in 1945, that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the people."

In 1987, FCC commissioners appointed by Ronald Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, and that has already had a stunning effect on political debate in this country. That same year, Congress put the Fairness Doctrine into law, but Reagan vetoed it with this memorable rationalization, "The Fairness Doctrine is inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." The Fairness Doctrine had been upheld by the Supreme Court in a 1969 decision that viewed the airwaves as a "public trust" and said fairness required the public trust to accurately reflect opposing views. In a 1986 decision, the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals in a 2-to-1 decision upheld a new FCC rule refusing to apply the Fairness Doctrine to television text. The two prevailing judges were Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.

Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Ore., did a report for the newspaper there last year on the prevalence of right-wing hosts on radio talk shows. "The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing -- there is virtually nothing else." Monks notes the irony that many of these right-wing hosts spend much of their time complaining about "the liberal media."

On the two Eugene talk stations, Monks found: "There are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. . . . Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it."

To point out the obvious, broadcasters and their national advertisers have a clear stake in promoting the views of those who advocate lower taxes on the rich and on big corporations. What is so perfectly loony about the FCC's proposal to unleash yet another round of media concentration is that it is being done in the name of "the free market."

Is the free market not supposed to encourage competition rather than lead to its disappearance? The U.S. now ranks 17th, below Costa Rica and Slovenia, on the worldwide index of press freedom established by the Reporters Without Borders.

[mg39]

If you think that liberals = commies, and that conservatives own the truth, we have nothing to discuss. Fanaticism may be fun, but it's self-defeating in the end.

Just ask the Taliban.

[Grit]

...meet the constitutional requirement, set out by the Supreme Court in 1945.

Damn my public school education! I thought the constitution was older than that.

[Grit]

"She's absolutely right."
"Yes, she is. But you're going to get flamed anyway!

Alright I went back and read it again. What on Earth is she right about?

[fightinJAG]

Memo to Molly:

No matter who owns radio stations, for example, they usually own them to MAKE MONEY.

Stations MAKE MONEY when they play stuff that people want to hear, and thereby expose themselves to advertisers who PAY MONEY.

If there was a massive audience for one of these left-wing hosts, that host would have burst upon the national scene by now.

Sorry.

[quebecois]

The fairness doctrine was created by the libs to suppress right wing radio decades ago..and it worked. Any station which had conservative content was attacked at license renewal time for being "biased". The result was ideological cleansing of the airwaves. The libs, meanwhile, controlled the tv airwaves (and somehow, the fairness doctrine was never used to rectify THAT bias).

In a nutshell, this witch wants to use the government to suppress ideas with which she disagrees.

[quebecois]

"In real life, regulation becomes a tool for those in power"

Exactly right. This woman would rather have the government mandate an ideological perspective on the radio waves similar to the one that exists on our college campuses.

[tet68]

Has anyone ever seen Molly Ivans and Helen Thomas at the same time?

That scenario gave me pause.

Do you think they could be .......lovers?

Try NOT thinking about that scenario!

[amused]

If you think that liberals = commies,

You're right, most prefer the PC and deceptive labels of democratic socialist and progressive.

and that conservatives own the truth, we have nothing to discuss.

Nobody owns the truth. It is there or not there. What we argue about are perceptions and perspectives.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

On the two Eugene talk stations, Monks found: "There are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. . . . Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it."

That's because brainless morons, "aka", liberals, cannot think for themselves. Radio involves an intimate relationship with the discussion and arguments. It requires analytical computation and cognotive processing. Television, on the other hand, requires you to push buttons on a remote and nod your head in agreement when the "leftist" zealot mashes lies into your eardrum.

I can't foresee a liberal making it on talk radio. You can only say the same rhetoric, without exposing the facts and logical conclusions that stem from them, for so long. It's the "facts" and "logic" that make talk a radio such a hit. The intelligent underground of America is glued to their radio and has unplugged the cadre of newspeak. The liberals are flaming mad about it and I expect a full blown attack on radio in the upcoming years.

[amused]

Yes, Ms. Ivins is liberal, but I think we all need to remember that no side has a monopoly on the truth.

That Molly Ivins is a liberal is a factor considering this is the new Demo/liberal talking point.

If you mean concentration of media owenership is potentially dangerous and offers cookie cut-out radio, I can agree with you.

If you think such concentration is what Ivins thinks, that this is a plot to shove "right wing" (just count how many times that phrase is used in the article) ideology on some unsuspecting listeners without any diffferent choices, I suggest you find another site.

[spunkets]

" On the two Eugene talk stations, Monks found: "There are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. . . ."

To Molly the red: You leftists own and operate the nations largest propaganda network and more than half of it is funded with taxpayer dollars. These folks do their shows with their own resources and effort. You odn't like their success, so you bitch. How typical of the left to insist they be forced to shut down, because they have succeeded.

[Just mythoughts]

Now, now Cows are clean compared to these two, More like "swine", in a mud hole.

[ChuckHam]

She's absolutely right.

Where is she right? Did you read her title? You honestly believe rightwing radio is taking away the freedom of the press?

Freedom of the press is far more prevalent now than at anytime in the history of our country, for that matter the history of the world. Today we have the internet, broadcast television, cable TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, etc. Anyone that wants to can apply for a license and broadcast or print anything they want as long as it's not obscene or criminal. I suspect that you agree with her since most rightwing radio doesn't approve of the homo agenda like you wish they would.

Last time I looked at the constitution the first amendment was still there. Nothing has changed but the liberals are just pissed that they don't dominate ALL media anymore. The free market has decided this, leftwing radio doesn't sell. The government has no business making sure it exists. Get over it.

[txradioguy]

I agree with you. Let's see the RATS have CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NY & LA Times, Washington Post and NPR to spew their leftist hate speech. Sounds like Molly needs to look more closely at the message before shooting the messenger.

[L.N. Smithee]

Is the free market not supposed to encourage competition rather than lead to its disappearance? The U.S. now ranks 17th, below Costa Rica and Slovenia, on the worldwide index of press freedom established by the Reporters Without Borders.

Oh, really, Molly. Well, the U.S. is #1 in press freedom on the worldwide index established by Me Without A Post-Office Box and Stationery.

[driftless]

There is absolutely nothing, including lack of money, stopping liberals from setting up their own radio big mouth. The fact is they stink at the talk radio format. If they were successful at getting some idiot to achieve good ratings, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. The fact is they're enormously irritated at the reality of their long-time dominance of media being over. And they're worried sick that liberalism may have come to a dead end.

[txradioguy]

Boortz posted a really good article on World Net Daily before Christmas about why Liberals always fail at Talk Radio and why they're better on tv and in print.

[Let's Roll]

Just as it is on NPR. You have a whole network, Molly, that's all you get.

[Let's Roll]

It HAS come to a dead end. Their message DID get out. NO ONE IS BUYING IT ANYMORE! Between their philosophy of govt control and regulation of everything all the time and the kind of people that believe their philosophy - it was bound to happen.

[meadsjn]

She's absolutely right.

How so? Conservatives have made some gains with AM talk shows, but overall the media (print, network and cable TV, FM) are still controlled and dominated by extreme leftists. Also factor in the extreme leftist control of public education (K-12 through PHD), extreme leftist domination of every bureaucracy at federal, state, county, and municipal levels, extreme leftist dominance in the legal profession, courts, medical and psych organizations and occupations, extreme leftist dominance in the human resource, supervisory, and mid-level management occupations, ... etc.

Of course, when the objective is total control, one dissenting voice is too many; one child learning without proper indoctrination is too many; one person or family living without constant government supervision is one too many.