The Truth about the Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine prevented organized fascists from cramming lies down the throats of the
people on a non stop basis. It needs to be restored. This is as good a case as I've seen.

The government must stop enabling corporate kleptocracy propaganda.

http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2185&Itemid=2

The demise of the Fairness Doctrine gave us Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, nearly 5,000 dead American soldiers in Iraq, perhaps as many dead "contractors," a “million or so” dead civilians, and a world unimaginably stricken with poverty and illness. But now, says Jeff Koopersmith, there's a new rule in town.

January 27, 2009 – Geneva (apj.us) – When the Reagan Administration engineered the end of what was known as the Fairness Doctrine, it opened many doors but for two terrible things we might have been spared:

1. The Fairness Doctrine dictated that public airways demanded equal time for different views on political and quasi-political issues.
2. Attached actions allowed what are now six men to control almost everything you see on television, read in newspapers and news magazines. These six men, working for six corporate entities have the power to decide just what they will tell you.

Most sadly, this includes The New York Times, which because of its status as the newspaper of record – in the world, not just the United States – led the way toward whitewashing the lies that brought us the Iraq War and something else few mention: the meltdown of the Western and neo-Eastern financial system, which is yet to show the ugliest of its numerous heads.

http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2185&Itemid=2

and they've convinced a LOT of people.

So it's good to see you're one of the people trying to sort through the distortions.

This is why the left can't get on the radio. They claim it's ratings but, in reality, the talkers
are all right wing and that's the audience for that type of show.

It is nothing less than thought control, at least for those who rely on the radio for their informaion.

when his was the highest rated show on MSNBC. The corporate ass-kissers did not want an antiwar forum on their network while prez shit-for-brains was pushing us into Iraq.

when Ted Turner had CNN it had 13 million international viewers -

after it was sold, 3 million. I don't know what they're doing now but

doubt a recovery. Same with Fox and other corporate-news.

But the important thing for corporate-news is that it has a propaganda

outlet which BLOCKS any real news which could hurt and right-wing.

They live in fear of any real news getting thru -- that's why you can only

see garbage on TV -- wrestling, boxing, sports full time -- tatooing, game shows,

violence, torture, and 40 year old reruns.

No -- it's not about profit, they'll live with the losses . . . it's about blocking.

When you control the information flow you control how people react.

with unprecedented ability for coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition to 60mil americans from 1000 stations

general demonopolization could take a long time and a remedy needs to be applied soon. it wil continue to make bipartisanship impossible and progress much slower. the CEO of gulf oil just called the CO2 global warming problem a myth- that guy is likely directly or indirectly enabled in that position because he knows a huge talk radio audience is being subjected to limbaugh's daily denial show, and his wannabe after that later in the day. actually, just requiring the blowhards to take real calls would stop a lot of their shit- how could they object  to that?

talk radio is particularly troublesome because unlike other corporatized media there is basically no alternative in a particular medium- print and TV still have to offer alternatives even if it's a "left" counterpoint within an acceptable framing. talk radio often does that framing by making the consequences for airing "extreme" alternatives (like mentioning global warming during a local weather forecast)  a miserable experience for management when limbaugh and hannity chew on you for a few days- making another mountain out of a molehill or just with uncontested distortion and exaggeration - by the time the thousands of angry calls come in its too late.


there are specific cases of TV and in many more cases print actively propagandizing but they are guilty more generally of omission. only talk radio offers one party to dominate, without chance of correction, large areas of the country in a particular medium-  politics on other parts of the dial should be the alternatives to balance the politics on the dominant stations- not music, etc. or alternative technologies.

I think even some liberals tune into Limbaugh to check on what he is saying!!

You'd hardly know that we have anti-trust laws it's been so long since they were

enforced.

What we really have is right-wing monopoly propaganda and I do think the "Fairness

Doctrine" should be reinstated because too many people can't identify what they are

hearing as propaganda or see the damage that it does.

I don't much care about chasing "birpartisanship" -- Bush stole two elections and claimed

mandates! And I think the lesson on the Stimulous bill should keep us from repeating any

such foolishness. The GOP is still controlling Congress and I think this failure tends

to fall on President Obama -- not a smart move.


the CEO of gulf oil just called the CO2 global warming problem a myth- that guy is likely directly or indirectly enabled in that position because he knows a huge talk radio audience is being subjected to limbaugh's daily denial show, and his wannabe after that later in the day. actually, just requiring the blowhards to take real calls would stop a lot of their shit- how could they object to that?

I think Limbaugh heavily screens his callers -- have heard a lot about that.
But Global Warming is something they've been successfully distorting for four decades now.
The New York Times was complicit and in alliance with oil industry/ExxonMobil in letting
them run anti-Global Warming propaganda on their Op-Ed pages for more than 30 years!
Also, PBS was bought out long ago by oil industry - "Petroleum Broadcasting System"!
The oil industry bought scientists -- and about a year ago the Royal Academy of Science
called out the oil industry and ExxonMobil for their lies, distortions, propaganda,
misinformation on Global Warming and telling them to stop. They haven't!!


talk radio is particularly troublesome because unlike other corporatized media there is basically no alternative in a particular medium- print and TV still have to offer alternatives even if it's a "left" counterpoint within an acceptable framing. talk radio often does that framing by making the consequences for airing "extreme" alternatives (like mentioning global warming during a local weather forecast) a miserable experience for management when limbaugh and hannity chew on you for a few days- making another mountain out of a molehill or just with uncontested distortion and exaggeration - by the time the thousands of angry calls come in its too late.


I find the absence of liberal radio very frustrating because I like to listen in the car.
Air America has barely any reception in my town -- so I can only hear it if I'm a major highway,
or out of town! I do tune into Nova via internet.

1) to get a list of the local sponsors to call complain boycott and picket.
2) to find out what the GOP is planning - they always get limbaugh and sons to prechew their talking points, set up their framing, and lay the groundwork for their strategies. anyone who listens long enough can pick up the patterns in the repetition.

I think the cancellation of the Donohue show is a leading example of the corporate misuse of public airwaves for manipulation of political discourse.

"the talkers are all right wing and that's the audience for that type of show." The talkers as in the hosts? Cause it sounds like you're saying the hosts are all right wing, the audience is all right wing, and so they mesh well together. Which I kind of agree with; Air America did and doesn't work. Why would a sponsor support a money-losing show? Just to make a point?

I think we need to step back and examine WHY our message isn't selling and the Repuke's is.

Democratic Talk radio: "The DOW jones climbed nearly 200 pts today when the Fed lowered its interest rate from 0.5% to 0.25%. In other news, Israel continues to decimate palestine, with now nearly 1300 civilians dead...."

Republican Talk Radio: "But he's a SOCIALIST, EWWW, GET HIM!! Kill all the A-rabs!"

Their message, although somewhat incoherent is entertaining and exciting. Note I did NOT say informative. Our message, although informative is hardly entertaining or exciting...

Whereas the left-wing message is more of, "We're all in this together. Let's play nice and share."

The right plays to people's desire to feel special, chosen, better than everyone else. And the audience eats that up even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support it.

I don't know any liberals who listen to radio news.

Why? Because it is all shit. There is NO market for liberal radio because we are not listening. Adding to that, the big networks by and large decided to not carry Air America and so they had to build their own network. If it had been broadcast in my hometown I likely would have listened.

On the other hand I can spin an AM dial in just about anywhere in the US and listen to Rush or some other hate-mongering idiot who hates working americans and America.

You are right about one thing. We need to get better at slogans and sound bites.

don't try to sell it very hard. They don't "follow the market". They create the market. More people listen to hate radio than truth radio because it's 1000 times more available.

Yeesh. Why would someone on Democratic Underground believe and repeat right-wing propaganda?

There's non need to study anything. Corporate America controls all major media. They use it to
push their nihilistic, destructive message. We need to break up the monopolies, restore and extend
the ideas of a fairness doctrine to cable and other owned media (not the internet obviously), and
stop the lies. The non stop lies of the media are the reason that other voices are not heard.

I tried to include a link of the memo listing 90 large corporate sponsors of ABC radio stations into one of my posts, but since it is a .gif, it showed up as a graphic. Here is the link to the post where you can see it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4017446&mesg_id=4017446

They were arguing that the FD actually stifled diversity because programmers didn't want to have to use up air time on the "other" views so "stations won't air any political views." So ending the FD will create MORE diversity by lifting that obligation.

Uh huh...thats exactly what happen! Another example of how well GOP ideas work!

:kick:

for fairness

I understand disliking Rush, Hannity, et al, but I do not believe this is the way to go about fighting their message.

It's about 15 seconds long.

If they won't put YOUR MESSAGE (for instance, the message of nearly 60% of the American people who opposed to the Iraq War--Feb 2003, all polls) on TV/radio public airwaves, then you are Bambi--you get squished by a BIG FOOT. Nearly 60% of the American people can't get a word in edgewise. It's all pro-corporate, pro-war.

That is the problem.

The Fairness Doctrine is as much about MEDIA MONOPOLIES as it is about "equal time." If six fatcat, rightwing, billionaire CEOs control all news and opinion in the country, your opinion and your news, and news that supports or illustrates your opinion, and news that you are interested in, have NO CHANCE.

When the First Amendment was written, there was no TV, no radio--no mass communications. When TV/radio commenced, early in the last century, and especially when it became pervasive--1930s-1950s--everybody understood that the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC, and must be regulated, unlike print media, because the TV/radio medium were extremely powerful tools that could be misused by private interests. That is why the Fairness Doctrine came into being--not to limit anyone's free speech, but to insure that no single point of view gained control of the airwaves, and to lessen the potential danger of the misuse of these media to our democracy. In order for the airwaves to be licensed to private corporate broadcasters, there had to be rules to prevent these evils. First and foremost were rules against acquisition of powerful TV, radio and newspaper monopolies--so that one point of view (one financial empire, say) gained all media power in a given region. The size and nature of such corporate entities was strictly limited. Secondly, anyone requesting a license to use the public airwaves had to promise to provide equal time on issues of big public concern or controversy. And thirdly, they had to pledge and prove public service--broadcasting public events, broadcasting the president's speeches when he requested it, providing children's programming, etc.

There was never any 'free speech' right to use the public airwaves. Such use was/is licensed and subject to the conditions that the people and their democracy wished to impose. Theoretically, the people could seize them all, and create their own broadcasting groups, and exclude private, commercially interested business corporations. Looking at things now, it is probably unfortunate that we did not do this--and create government funded production companies, with sufficient guarantees of variety to represent different points of view, segments of society and artistic interests.

In any case, the Fairness Doctrine created GOOD RULES for private licensing. And they influenced the entire spectrum of free speech--for instance, promoting fairness in newspapers and news magazines (who were not obliged to do it), promoting good journalism (objective, impartial), promoting the separation of the 'news' service from pressures from the CEOs and advertisers. But, as corporations gained more and more power, over the 1970s to the 1980s, they began eroding and making a mockery of the rules, and seeking less regulation, and more monopolies, through the Reagan regime, which killed the Fairness Doctrine entirely.

Arguably, that was the real beginning of the tattered ruins of democracy that we see today. Our Constitution in shreds. Free speech only for the rich and powerful. The return of unjust war. The vast looting of the public coffers. The outrage of the U.S. torturing prisoners. And on and on and on. And virtually no proper and reasonable debate about any of these things on our PUBLIC airwaves.

You know what CBS execs said to Dan Rather, when he was fighting with them about the Bush AWOL story? They said, quote, "It is in our interest for Bush to be re-elected," unquote. Under the Fairness Doctrine, the interests of the business corporation and the independence of the news division had a wall between them. The FD gave journalists some clout in dealing with that kind of pressure. It didn't always work, but it was the ideal--the goal of the FD. All Dan Rather had protecting him was his contract (which he has sued CBS about). Back in the FD days, he could have said to them, "SO WHAT? Your financial interest has nothing to do with this story!" But everything had changed. They just fired him. Back in the FD days, he could have taken them to court for violating the FD. That was NOT supposed to happen--an important news decision based on the financial/political interest of the corporation.

It would also mean, today, that when Faux News broadcasts a Hannity rant, those whom he is attacking, or those who represent a different point of view, have a RIGHT to be given time to rebut Hannity. It does not take Hannity off the air. It opens the airwaves to alternative views. But it MIGHT influence the broadcast corporation to hire better commentators.

not in content restrictions/requirements.

LMAO!!

increase the kinds of information available, but some firewall between other interests and media is needed to prevent corporate skewing of the news. The fairness doctrine included a "right to respond" that did not restrict the right of media to editorialize but simply required them to offer opponents an opportunity to present an opposing view. And content requirements can serve the public interest: for example, some local reporting (beyond the homogeneous national feeds) gets communities needed news

the political debate, and SELLING rightwing/fascist propaganda. And we cannot have that, on all our public airwaves, and in every media outlet--newspapers, news magazines, books, entertainment (that dwells on violence, idolizes law enforcement, stereotypes minorities and "perps," and so on)--and have a democracy. Free and open debate with many points of view, and maximum access by the public, are ESSENTIAL to democracy. It's written right there, in our FIRST Amendment, and in all of the writings of our Founders. Corporate 'news' monopolies parade under the color of the First Amendment, but it is a farce and a mockery.

'News' monopolies are different from other kinds of monopolies. All monopolies are bad, but 'news' monopolies are an attack on our democratic system, and our very status and rights as citizens. They require special attention, and the fostering of a culture of public service.

I see what you're getting at--you don't think the government should have any say on content. You think it shouldn't be able to require rebuttal time. I would just repeat that, with the Fairness Doctrine, the corporation is not prohibited from presenting a view that serves their interests; they are merely required, as a condition of their license, to give back a small bit of the air time on the PUBLIC airwaves, to an alternative point of view.

It worked very well in the '60s to bring us a lot higher quality TV/radio news shows and commentary, without infringing on any of the corporations' so-called 'rights'. They still skewed the news and commentary, but they had much more respect for objectivity and investigative journalism--and the journalists were not just corporate slaves and toadies. It improved the status of reporters. It improved what the public got to see and hear.

Are probably the best, most succinct argument I've ever seen for the Fairness Doctrine.

Bookmarked.

But monopoly on content control by those who can afford to buy a hunk of the gian monopolies will
produce more monolithic content. It isn't content restriction, it's content enhancement. There
are requirments - don't peddle your ideas, whomever you are, in a vacuum.

We wouldn't have had the ridiculous economics of the far right if a fairness doctrine were in effect.
The arguments of the Friedman crew are essentially ridiculous but have reigned since there's no way
to challenge them except have your economy melt down and the world left in ruin.

There is no free speech if it's only available to those with mega wealth.

'fairness' isn't necessary. It most certainly is. The media is owned by corporate Amurika. They are not going to willingly present all side fairly, or even present all side of an issue at all. They will continue to skew the truth and keep presenting one side complete with the bullshit propaganda to back it up.

It's like capitalism. Capitalism only works when people are honest and don't try to game the system. Take a look around, you see that sure as hell ain't what's been going on.

If this was just about private property rights and market manipulation then I would accept your premise, but once the media uses the publics airwaves then they need to run by the rules we decide, much like you need to follow my rules on my property or you are invited to leave.

Does this make sense to you?

We need to ensure that the interests of the many are represented ---

Hitler's Germany and the heavy use of right-wing propaganda should be a warning

about its use. And, heed well, that the Nixon White House was studying Nazi

propaganda. And since that time, Republicans have heavily used propaganda, spin,

robotic recitation of their "points" covered in taped messages to them -- and every

means possible of "catapulting" right-wing propaganda, including every means of

hiding information from the public and disinformation campaigns.

Here's a hypothetical:

seanrushlimphannity goes on his talk show and spends five minutes screaming about how bush got it just right with the "surge" in iraq.

Who gets to respond:
Someone who thinks that bush should've done more, sooner, like maybe nuking Iraq off the face of the earth.
Someone who thinks that bush didn't need to go as far -- that the surge was unnecessary.
Someone who thinks the war shouldn't have been started in the first place because it was just about oil.
All of the above?

Who decides which of these points of view gets represented? Who decides who the representative of each point of view should be?

And if one of the responsive points of view is the person who disagrees with the claim bush got the surge right is someone who thinks the war should never have been started because it was just about oil, does that trigger another round of responses from people who think the war should never have been started, but don't agree with the "it was just about oil" position and from people whoo believe for varying reasons that the war should have been started.

I'm curious to understand how you think the FD would work in practice in the hypothetical posed.

We could also start by clearing out CIA and military from contracts with corporate-news.

What is being eliminated today is majority viewpoints --- what is being presented is the

views of the FEW.

Plus what you are asking for answers to is OPINION . . .

Let's get back to facts -- and just report them.

If Sen. Bob Dole gets up in the Senate --- as he did do -- and says that Gulf War I is

about OIL . . . then report it. If Hannity has an opinion on that, you don't report it.



PS: And let's have reporting which counter-informs re LIES.

What people fail to mention in these debates is that if you or I set up a transmitter and start broadcasting, armed agents of the federal government will soon be knocking on our door and having a chat with us.

We pay for the government to enforce monopolies that only the few benefit from.

The communication infrastructure was built by and is owned by the public. All must have fair and equal access to it. Period.

Fox News is a pay service, and therefore doesn't fall under the public airwaves. Just throwing it out there.

I think the biggest positive change that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would bring about is the aspect that in effect forces public media outlets to provide equal time to citizens. Without allowing that time, media conglomerates completely dominate the message. But if they were required to provide time to people with an interest in an issue, Iraq war protesters would have more of a voice. That IMO is far more important and practicable than forcing each politically conservative commentator to be matched with a liberal commentator.

Of course, none of this matters until the news becomes seen as a public good again, and not as a for-profit enterprise.

The privatization of cable is a whole nother topic. Currently, Faux News would not come under the Fairness Doctrine (unless we change things--draw the statute differently, or take back cable in the public interest). But the FD would, very likely, influence Faux News, as it influenced newspapers and news magazines in the Sixties to be fairer, although they were not obliged to be. Thus, you had the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers, in defiance of the government, and being to rightfully crow about their objectivity and presentation of something that served anti-war views, because they were in competition with TV news, which did have to fair, and which covered the war, in bloody, real detail, as well as covering anti-war protests.

Consider the NYT today--publishing government lies, day after day, about Iraq WMDs, and suppressing a report of pervasive NSA domestic spying for a full year, to help Bush get re-elected (or rather to support the narrative that he was). How the mighty have fallen! But the key is that TV/radio is all corpo/fascist now, so why should the NYT bother to be anything else? There is no competition to serve the PUBLIC interest.

The faux equality, 'both points of view are equal' drivel that has been bantered around for the last 8 years gave credibility to the lies and base propaganda the * admin and its political minions flung about.

And in an ordinary world it does. But in a GOPer biased media, that point of view seems to receive more air time, with little rebuttal offered. Faux news would be an example of that. Or the abc programs that were 'McCain' only, such as the so-called town halls, where McCain was supposed to be on his own.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm

The following brief history of ABC offers a perfect snapshot of everything that has gone wrong with the media. This remarkable story includes ABC's takeover by a conservative parent corporation, the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, the rightward shift of the evening news, the rise of conservative talk radio, and the cozy relationship between a state and a press that are supposed to be separate...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/145

:kick: & R

After all, if corporate America wants to lionize a oxy junkie and his rantings, then why
shouldn't they have to allow a real opposition ... to point out that corporate America
lionizes such a deviant.

conglomorates and control the messages, why don't rich fat cat liberals (Soros, Buffett, etc.) do the same thing? Air America has been an attempt, but if you look at the ratings it pales.

I suspect there is some demographic difference at work here... perhaps the right wing by and large has more people with less alternative things to do than spend their midday or afternoon listening to blowhards reinforce their prejudices telling them what they want to hear.

Just a thought.

Ted Turner was/is liberal, that's why he got forced out, and CNN was converted Fox lite.

Similar thing happened to NPR of the last two decades, right-wingers stealthed in and forced out honest voices.

Turner is/was a social liberal big time, but in matters business and fiscal, not so much.

That's seems pretty obvious to me.

Wouldn't it be great if all the stations that carry Limbaugh had to carry Thom Hartmann (or some equally liberal voice), too?

Are you okay with Democratic&RepublicanUnderground.com?

All have equal access to the Internet.

everything we see on tv or read in newspapers and news magazines?

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm">it was simply FCC policy.



When Raygun told the FCC to end the "doctrine", Congress passed legislation to give it the force of law. Raygun vetoed it and Congress could not override his veto.

If you are really interested, the six men would be;
Jeffrey Immelt
Jeffrey Bewkes
Rupert Murdock
Philippe Dauman
Robert A. Iger
Lowry Mays

This list could be expanded but these are the top guys of the corporations that control over 90% of all the media in this country.

This list is a bit out of date...Lowery Mays no long is in control of Cheap Channel...the largest radio company...Bain Capital, a division of the Carlyle Group purchased them a year ago.

Redstone is head of Viacom that owns CBS and CBS is the second largest radio station owner in the country as well as owning a dozen cable channels. Iger and Disney are all but out of radio now...sold to Citadel.

I worked with the Fairness Doctrine...it had to do with the rise of Rushbo...there had been venom throwers before him such as Joe Pyne and Wally George...just as conservative. The FD, as described above was primarily a licensing thing...for public service programming and in making sure all candidates had access to purchase airtime at the lowest rates (avoiding price gouging). Shows like Rushbo were considered "Entertainment" (why he calls himself an "Entertainer") that was exempt from the Fairness Doctrine.

The real problem is media consolidation that was the byproduct of Telcom '96. That allowed these companies to monopolize the dial and with it put on whatever programming they felt like airing. Rushbo was cheap replacement programming for local talk and information as those rules were eliminated and our public airwaves became a plantation for a handful of big corporations.

The GOOP is fearful of losing their radio monopoly (most of these companies are big GOOP donors) and some congresscritters want to prevent a stations from changing format even if the station is losing money or has changed owners...to legislate hate radio onto the dial. A vain attempt as the entire industry is currently imploding due to its own largess...the large debt and driving away millions of listeners has sent radio into its death throes.

You ask if I'm really interested. The answer is yes. I'm also actually pretty knowledgable. But I would like to see how this "90 percent of all media" claim gets defended. In the meanwhile, some information that you may not be aware of.

First, leaving aside issues of whether the list is current, the six men claimed "to control almost everything you see on television, read in newspapers and news magazines" are executives/principal shareholders in GE, Time Warner, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, and Clear Channel. At the outset, let's deal with Phillippe Dauman at Viacom. Presumably his inclusion on this list is a mistake. He is the head of Viacom, which is an entertainment company that owns a bunch of cable networks like MTV and Showtime, but has no broadcast properties, no newspapers, radio stations, magazines, etc. and no real news programming (unless you count MTVNews). I assume that you really meant to include CBS, which is a separate entity from Viacom and one over which Dauman has absolutely no say. But to move things along, let's substitute Sumner Redstone, who controls National Amusements, which is the principal owner of Viacom and CBS.

Second, let's drill down a bit on these six companies. Four of them (GE, Disney, Natl AMusements, and News Corp) control the four major broadcast networks. Leaving aside the fact that the networks share of the viewing audience has for some time been dropping like a rock, that is no small thing. But does it represent 90 percent of the media? Well, let's consider that these four companies own a total of around 50 television stations (out of more than 1700 fulll power stations in the US). Their networks of course have lots of affiliates -- around 850 -- closer to 1000 if you toss in the CW Network, MyNetworkTV and Telemundo). That leaves around 700 stations that aren't owned or affiliated with these companies. And that's not counting the more than 350 full power stations affiliated with PBS. And, it should be noted that most of those 1000 or so affiliates that aren't owned by the networks typically offer, in addition to the nightly network news programming, local news programming that they produce themselves (or acquire from sources other than the networks.)

Those four companies have other media interests of course. News Corp in particular owns a number of cable networks, including Fox News. Most of the other networks are sports or entertainment oriented. News Corp also owns the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. They have no radio stations but do have a syndicated Fox radio network. NOt sure how many radio stations carry it. GE owns a lot of cable networks, including several news-oriented networks (CBNBC, MSNBC). They also own some properties you've probably never heard of, like the "Chiller" network -- currently available to some Dish and DirecTV customers and hardly anywhere else. GE has no newspapers, no news magazines, no radio properties. ABC also has a lot of cable networks, although almost all are sports and entertaintment oriented, not news. They sold all their radio stations and their radio network a few years ago (its still called ABC radio network but they don't own it anymore), they do still distribute syndicated ABC News radio programming. ABC also doesn't own any newspapers or news magazines. Nat'l Amusements, as noted, has a bunch of cable networks like Showtime and MTV. No cable news. They tried years ago and it tanked, badly. They have no newspapers, no news magazines. They do own around 140 radio stations and the CBS radio network which has around 1000 affiliates (out of the 11,000 commercial radio stations in the US).

Based on the above, it seems pretty hard to figure how one gets to the 90 percent control claim. And looking at Time Warner and Clear Channel doesn't do it either. Time Warner owns a lot of cable networks, including CNN. It also owns Time Magazine. It owns no newspapers and no radio properties. It also owns a lot of cable systems, but it will stop owning those sometime in the next 10 weeks under a spin off that will leave Time Warner and Time Warner Cable completely separate companies -- no overlap in management, including Mr. Bewkes. Clear Channel is the biggest radio station owner in the country, but it has no television properties, no news magazines, no newspapers. I'm not sure exactly how many radio stations Clear owns -- last I saw it was between 900 and 1000. That's a lot, but not exactly 90 percent of the 11,000 commercial radio stations licensed in the US (there are also between 1500 and 2000 full power noncommercial radio stations in the US).

If that isn't enough to debunk the 90 percent myth, consider the following: of the top ten newspapers in the US, only two are controlled by any of the six companies identified as cotnrolling 90 percent of the media -- the WSJournal and the New York Post, both controlled by Murdoch's News Corp. Even more noteworthy, if you look at the list of the top 100 newspapers in the US, you discover that none of them are controlled by the six companies listed, except for the aformentioned WSJ and the New York Post. There also are three natianal news magazines -- only one, Time, is controlled by the six companies identified. Also, in considering what constitutes the "media" we shouldn't ignore cable systems and DBS companies. Only one of the six listed companies owns cable systems and/or DBS companies. Out of the close to 100 million pay tv subscribers in the US, Time Warner Cable (soon to be independent of Mr. Bewkes and Time Warner Inc) has around 13 million subscribers I think. (Its smaller than both Comcast and DirecTV and about the same size as Dish Network).

My point isn't that everything is sweetness and delight in the media business. Its that the claim that six guys control 90 percent of everything is nonsense and making nonsensical claims doesn't help address the real issues. Even you buy the notion that the Chairman of GE spends his day overseeing what gets reported on affilates of the GE owned Telemundo network, media diversity has been an issue in this country a long time and those that think its appreciably worse now than at some earlier time are fooling themselves.

When were the glory days of a robustly diverse media? Back in the 70s when there were only three networks, when a far greater percentage of the television stations in the country (there were only around 700 stations then -- a thousand less than today) were affiliated with one of those networks. Newspapers were definitely healthier back in the 70s and tHere is too much newspaper/television cross ownership today, but there was more cross ownership back in the 70s and today there are two national newspapers (USA Today and WSJ) whereas back in the 70s there was only one. There were around 5000 fewer commercial radio stations and half as many noncommercial stations as today. There were no cable networks back then, limited to no access to foreign sources of news and information. I grew up in a very large (top ten) market and had access to three network stations a pbs station and one "independent" station that featured mostly syndicated re-runs. Today, via cable, I have access to around a dozen local stations, including several PBS stations. There were three daily newspapers although only one was worth a damn. Today there are two papers, only one of which is worth a damn. There are more radio stations today, including a lot more foreign language stations. There was one all news radio station. Today there are two or three and while I think all of them are commonly owned, at least they're no longer owned by the local newspaper, as was the case when I was a kid.

In other words, the more things change the more things stay the same. CBS before Sumner Redstone tossed off the Smothers Brothers show because of its politics and put on HEe Haw. DOesn't sound like the good old days to me.

http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php

Google is your friend.

And thanks for providing a site that definitively proves that six companies don't control 90 percent of the media.

understand, is not whether it is six people or ten or fifty. Just as our resident defenders of fascism declare we do not live under totalitarianism because there are no tanks on the street, or because we can post to the internet, or because we have the illusions of choice and elections.

What is, is.

reads,sees or hears is nonsense is not splitting hairs. Its exactly the point. There is a problem. Splitting up those six companies won't fix it.

Convincing enough people that there is a problem isn't going to happen if we rely on easily rebutted exagerrations and misleading claims. The problem is once the 90 percent claim is debunked -- and as I demonstrated, and you confirmed with your link to cjr, it is quite easily debunked, the credibility of the argument about the larger problem -- the historic lack of diversity in them media, is severely damaged.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :patriot:

Good stuff.

It may be just another seemingly obstacle here but the majority of people are consumed in the day to day struggle and not aware, and it's just that, what is being exploited.

You may be right but you are a minority.

WE own the public airwaves. It's time to kick out the corporate impostors.

Radio Free Amerika!

There has to be some small provision to air the truth.

End the almost monopolistic control by a very few large corporations and there will be a larger incentive for more diverse opinions on the air waves.

They are already mounting an online offensive via petitions to their Congresspersons:

Media Research Center
http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=18645182

They are freaked.

Democrats might well do the same *in favor of* MORA

Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA)

"Bill Summary
I. Guarantees Fairness in Broadcasting

Our airwaves are a precious and limited commodity that belong to the general public. As such, they are regulated by the government. From 1949 to 1987, a keystone of this regulation was the Fairness Doctrine, an assurance that the American audience would be guaranteed sufficiently robust debate on controversial and pressing issues. Despite numerous instances of support from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and a subsequent bill passed by Congress to place the doctrine into federal law was then vetoed by Reagan.

MORA would amend the 1934 Communications Act to restore the Fairness Doctrine and explicitly require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

II. Restores Broadcast Ownership Limitations "

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

Sounds a little like censorship to me. Always has. If you dont like the opinion expressed by the host of the show.. turn it off. Whats so difficult about that?

What about all of the TV shows? There are still several million people who receive TV over the air.. not on cable. Wouldnt it be subject to the same thing?

AM stations I get in my area play Booris, Limpy, Handjob, and Weener all at the same time, 5 days a week. The other station sells vacation crap and dinner coupons. Simply put, I'm not allowed to listen to talk radio unless I subject myself to one asinine ideology. Yeah, I can turn it off. Yeah, I don't have to listen. Kind of not the point though.

So if there were enough people in your area to support something else.. shouldnt there be some more choices?

The problem is, we do not have a say in it. That is why there are so many repukes spouting Rush talking points everyday. While you and I are forced to not listen to talk radio, they have a constant indoctrination to an ideology of shit, lies, and uh... shit.

It doesn't say "you can't say X" or "you can't put someone on the air who espouses view Y".

It says that you must allow other side to espouse their view. It says that you can not censor the opposition view.

seanrushlimphannity goes on his talk show and spends five minutes screaming about how bush got it just right with the "surge" in iraq.

Who gets to respond:
Someone who thinks that bush should've done more, sooner, like maybe nuking Iraq off the face of the earth.
Someone who thinks that bush didn't need to go as far -- that the surge was unnecessary.
Someone who thinks the war shouldn't have been started in the first place because it was just about oil.
All of the above?

Who decides which of these points of view gets represented? Who decides who the representative of each point of view should be?

And if one of the responsive points of view is the person who disagrees with the claim bush got the surge right is someone who thinks the war should never have been started because it was just about oil, does that trigger another round of responses from people who think the war should never have been started, but don't agree with the "it was just about oil" position and from people whoo believe for varying reasons that the war should have been started.

I'm curious to understand how you think the FD would work in practice in the hypothetical posed.

What we have now is $$$$$$$$$$$ presenting their limited view --

we need to have the non-$$$$$$$$$$$$ side of the issues ---

Money can buy networks, opinion, scientists --

but the non-Monopoly side has to be covered and given an opportunity to be heard.

the FD, to be specific, required that stations present "contrasting points of view"

Hearing Fannie Lou Hamer's POV on Segregation and tenant farming in Mississippi --

hearing her POV as to Senator Eastland's reign in the South was invaluable

to an American audience.

A POV is the other side of the story -- as it is experienced by others.


Newspapers used to offer their perspective on what should be done to solve

problems -- a vision of ways to improve things which we can all offer.

This is quite different from what Hannity and Limbaugh deliver -- and, in fact,

that very kind of wild hatefilled opinion is what we need to see fall by the wayside.

First, the idea that one can draw sharp lines between "opinion" and "point of view" and "fact" is hysterically funny but for the fact that we'd be advocating having the government draw those lines.

Second, if what you are saying is that what Hannity and limbaugh do is opinion not "point of view" then the FD doesn't do you a damn bit of good since all the FD does is require stations to present contrasting points of view.

not "opinion" . . . as the Op-Ed pages label their stuff.

You might also start here . . .

pseanrushlimphannity goes on his talk show and spends five minutes screaming about how bush got it just right with the "surge" in iraq.

and tell us if Hannity offered any evidence/facts in regard to his claim --

Meanwhile, let me take the timesaver of putting you on "ignore" --

Somehow, the fact that you can't face up to a debate doesn't surprise me.

was implemented in the past.

It was never about giving someone the chance to respond to specific statements made by others. Nor was it about internally balancing a particular show.

The point of the doctrine is that the broadcast frequencies are a scarce resource and private companies are licensed by the government to use these resources. Therefore, the first amendment does not allow private censorship by those broadcasters.

So, to address your hypothetical, there are a number of ways that it could be addressed. For example, if a particular station broadcast a variety of shows, which espoused a variety of viewpoints on the various subjects, then they would be no need for further action.

Alternatively, if a group or individual felt that a station was not expressing a proper balance of views, the station could set aside time to allow a response to be broadcast. If the station disagreed and felt that a sufficient range of views had been expressed, it could then appeal to the FCC for a final decision. This is what worked in the past and it can continue to work today.

I was trying to drive home the point that it doesn't (and couldn't) do what a lot of folks here seem to assume it would do -- namely ensure that there is some direct response to specific yelpings from rush et al.

Your description of how the rule worked is mostly accurate. One quibble -- it was the responsibility of the folks who thought the station wasn't presenting balance on an issue to take it to the FCC, not the other way around. And to be clear, if a group complains that a station isn't presenting sufficient balance, the station can meet its obligation by finding some other group to make a presentation and wouldn't necessarily have to let the complaining group get on the air -- although that generally was what was done since it had the effect of ending the dispute.

The point I was making with my first post was really a reaction to someone saying that it sounded like censorship... I think you and I are actually on the same page here.

The airwaves are a public asset and they have been purloined by literally a handful of people. The Fairness Doctrine must be reinstated and kept sacrosanct as a pillar of democracy and as a matter of national security. The treasonous enemy within has demonstrated itself to be even more insidious and terrible than any from outside.

at julius(ATSIGN)genachowski.com.

Someone posted his email address at Brad Blog in the comment section (the 4th comment):

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6832#comments

but what really needs to be done is that all the wingnut news conglomerates must be broken up. Corporations with other interests must not be allowed to own news outlets. News organizations should be run by career news men/women with no corporate input whatsoever. The FCC should be 12 men tried and true with one outsider to break ties perhaps appointed by the president, but independent from the president who is elected by the people. The FCC should not be under the thumb of any president or any ideology. The media is the fourth estate of our government and should be regulated as such. With an absolute aim to fairness with debilitating fines for propaganda (things that are untrue and gratuitous to any ideology) that is not labeled very clearly "opinion piece"; But still must be fact checked before output and that is where the fairness doctrine will be useful. Lies in the press, even in an opinion piece, should be grounds for fines or for loss of license to use our airwaves. Lies masquerading as opinions must be dealt with severely.

The right wing can't handle the truth.

In Nashville, there's a non-profit in town that runs a once-weekly liberal talk show. The hosts have approached every commercial talk station in town and always get the same response: there's not a big enough audience for a liberal talk show that would make it profitable for them.

Here's the joke: Nashville voted 2:1 for Obama last October, votes reliably blue just about everytime it's asked.

Tell me again how no one could make a profit doing liberal talk in this town.

Liberal does not = democrat That is why

A big part of that 2:1 are not liberals or progressives the are democrats frustrated with the economy
These people have no intrest in liberal talk radio.



The government is not the solution it is the problem

Quoting Reagan ought to get a person tombstoned here.