So Pick Your Side

 The other day, when talking about the Dems’ plan to try to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine”, I noted that there really are only two sides to this debate; you support free speech, or you believe that federal bureaucrats should control it; the exact words were “authoritarian thug”. 

We have a vote for thug:

But the Fairness Doctrine is back or at least being talked about again, with Congress set to challenge the FCC. The thought is already driving conservatives nuts, with more here, here, here, here, here, with Jeff Goldstein his usual obtuse self. QandO offers more. One blogger calls it Free Speech’s Abu Ghraib. [waves] They’re all nuts [Doh!  I’m “nuts”!  I’m disintegrating in the face of the logical onslaught!]. They’re also very happy with controlling the radio waves.

Let’s stop right there for a minute.

The woman writing this bit – Taylor Marsh – bills herself as a “radio host”.  Her “radio show” is, of course, an internet-only stream.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it explains how so much of what she says really has nothing to do with the reality of the radio industry.

Conservatives “control the airwaves” because we provide a better product that more people want to listen to.  Example:  My NARN pals and I (who broadcast on a real station as well as a real internet stream) “control the market” among political talk on Saturday afternoons not because of “corporate support” (Salem vs. Clear Channel?  Puh-leeze).  No, we bitch-slap both KTLK-FM and the local Air America affiliate like a prison laundry-room beat-down because people want to listen to us, for whatever reason.

Ipso Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt and the rest of us.  Nobody holds a gun to an audience’s head and makes them tune in. 

Looking at Ms. Marsh’s take on history is interesting, inasmuch as it shows the left hasn’t changed their talking points in over a decade:

The short version of the Fairness Doctrine is that in 1987 Reagan had it scuttled. Shortly after that Rush Limbaugh began his journey and right-wing radio was created and gradually took over the airwaves, with the help of their corporate friends

I’ve often wondered what Democrats think they mean when they say this?  Was it that…:

  •  Limbaugh succeeded only because of the machinations of a cabal of oligarchs that forced America to make him their #1 talkradio choice?
  • Or was it that they don’t think there were a slew of “corporate friends” backing the likes of Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo and, of course, Air America?  And, with that in mind…
  • …how do they think someone launches a national syndication effort?  By nailing posters up on telephone polls asking people to listen?

And, speaking of “corporate support”; the week after the NARN went on the air, Fast Eddie Schultz appeared on the Today show, in a gushy, fawning interview with Katie Couric.  “Is this man the answer to Rush Limbaugh?”, Couric asked in the teaser into the break before the interview.  At that moment, Schultz had six stations in his network; other than Fargo and Minneapolis, none were in large markets.  KSTP’s Joe Soucheray had a bigger cumulative audience.  But the big media desperately want someone on their side to come along and knock off Limbaugh, which is why stiffs like Schultz and Air America get such breathless, sycophantic approval from (and treated like actual players in) the mainstream press.

  More history gone tragically awry follows:

 I’m exaggerating, but Democrats were so dense about radio for so long it’s amazing there are still any progressive hosts out here working every day to get back on radio.

They were indeed dense – and, looking at the endless farce of Air America, seem to remain so – but the denseness was that of the fat ‘n happy incumbent, not the plucky challenger.  Remember when the “Fairness Doctrine” was repealed?  I do – I was working in talk radio at the time.  Who were the big players?  ABC Talkradio was the big network in 1987; their big players were Michael Jackson (who, with the repeal of the Doctrine, came out as an unabashed lefty), Sally Jessy Raphael (not political, but her sympathies were obvious), Owen Span (left of center) and some whom I’ve long forgotten, but not a conservative among ’em.  Mutual’s big – and only – property was Larry King, who never did a “political” show, but whose sympathies are and were solidly left of center.   “Conservative” network talk was pretty much unheard of; Morton Downey, Bob Grant and Joe Pyne were the godfathers of the genre, and they were purely local.

So in terms of content, the left had control of talk radio the day the Fairness Doctrine was put to sleep.  How could that status quo have flipped 180 degrees within two years? 

 Because “corporate friends” willed it?  Or because Rush Limbaugh et al delivered a product that the market wanted and scooped up in droves?

And what about those droves?  How did they get there?

 It’s about getting control of all the little stations in all the little towns so that you can influence all those people.

Why does the left fail at radio?  Because they don’t understand it.  Yes, Limbaugh has been for many years a Clear Channel property – but his popularity waxed long before that deal was ever inked.  And in those days, stations – including a throng of small to mid-market stations, most of them not even “talk radio” stations in format terms – took Limbaugh’s show in droves.  My own radio alma mater, KQDJ in Jamestown ND, ran Limbaugh for years; the rest of the day, they were middle-of-the-road music and farm prices.  Many small market stations followed suit.  Why?  Because people tuned in.  Which is the goal in the business.

The inevitable rejoinder from the left is “But ClearChannel controls both Limbaugh and hundreds of stations!”.  Yes, for now – they’re selling off most of their small-market stations – and it’s irrelevant.  ClearChannel is a business.  Not only that, but much of the “success” Air America has had in the past few years has been from Clear Channel optioning Air America programming at some of its smaller urban stations as a tactical move. 

In other words, Clear Channel – the big, bad, “conservative” radio powerhouse – did more than any other broadcast corporation to keep Air America alive in the market.  Why?  Because they figured there might be a (fringe) market!  (They eventually realized they figured wrong; most Clear Channel talk stations are backing slowly out of their Air America commitments).

Let’s return to Ms. Marsh.  Contempt for the audience?  She’s got it!

 The host gets to know his/her audience, they trust him/her, so when this host tells them to vote for Right Wing Randy/Roxanne, they likely will.

Yeah, it worked like a charm this past November, didn’t it? 

 After all, they’ve built up a trust. Republicans will do anything to get ratings, which includes leaving the facts out and plying their audience with daily doses of emotion instead.

Leaving aside the “facts” bit – and no movement that includes Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews should complain much about selectiveness – talk radio is entertainment.  Emotion trumps fact (although among many of conservative talk’s stocks in trade is filling facts about stories the left-wing media omits.  Memogate, anyone?) 

But I’ll give this to Ms. Taylor; her next graf sums up the left’s ignorance of radio as perfectly as anything I’ve seen:  

Creating Democratic business consortiums that help hosts get on the air, with the best of us staying on and eventually catapulting to syndication. The Fairness Doctrine could really make a difference. Why do you think conservatives are screaming like crazy?

The left treats radio like a top-down command economy; all it takes is a couple (more) lefty plutocrats, and all the walls will fall!  And like all top-down command economies, it needs government coercion to work. 

(And as far as that “the best of ‘us'” bit – I’ll have to listen to Ms. Marsh’s show and see if she rates this impromptu promotion).

Ms. Marsh; there is nothing preventing Democrat talk radio from doing exactly what you describe.  Nothing.  Indeed, it’s been done; NPR (and MPR) are nothing if not the product of left-leaning power brokers – they differ in working through government rather than the market.  And in fact, Air America’s three year nightmare was exactly what you described (except for the whole “best of ‘us’ vaulting to syndication”; Air America tried to skip the whole “learn how to do good radio” step of the process.  As did Hightower and Cuomo.  The results were, at worst, comical; standup comics make lousy talk hosts). 

No, what you (plural) want is for government to force the market to accept you. 

We’re “screaming” (the term I use is “pointing out the inherent oppressiveness and paternalism of your idea”) because you want the government to do for you what the your genre’s fundamental lack of talent, mass appeal and market savvy can’t do for you.

Because head-to-head, all things being equal in a free, open market, conservative talk beats liberal talk every time.  And without Big Brother holding a gun to our head and telling us to fight with an arm behind our backs, we always will.

So here’s the question:  Do you believe that people are too stupid to be trusted as consumers of free speech (as Ms. Marsh seems to)? 

Because, as Ms. Marsh put it in about as many words, that’s really the only reason to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine”.

37 thoughts on “So Pick Your Side

  1. Apparently there are two “Taylor Marsh”es; the one in the pictures on the bio page who is wearing a catchers mitt on her face, and the one who looks like a 24 year old Miss USA contestant on the masthead.

    Obviously, someone airbrushed the one on the bio page to make her look like a dried-up hag with a bad wig.

  2. Where I live, I can only hear Rush on a very crackly, barely-coming-in station out of Grand Forks. There’s a station out of Bemidji also, but again, it’s bad reception and we have no reception at all until we’re midway between here and Bemidji (about 130 miles). So, this is one little town where the right aren’t able to brainwash the poor, drooling hicks and get them to listen to ideas they would never have thought of on their own…..

    There’s no end to the excuses that libs will come up with to defend the failure of leftist radio. It can’t possibly be that it’s poorly done and people know the ideas presented are a load of crap. Nah.

  3. About ten years ago, I was living in Cincinnati. Clear Channel Radio (CCR) was headquartered there (more accurately they were in Covington, KY). A neighbor was having a backyard get together and I learned one of the other guests happened to be a controller for CCR.
    I’ve always been fascinated with the radio business and Rush Limbaugh had just signed on with Premier Networks which was owned by CCR. Anyway I asked this guy what he thought of syndicated radio, Limbaugh, etc. and why wasn’t there a “liberal” Limbaugh out there (I think Jim Hightower’s show had just failed). This guy told me that the way CCR operates is fairly simple: if a host can generate and hold audience – that CCR can sell advertising time for – they will put them on and keep them on. Period. They don’t care what the host has to say (FCC violations excepted). If a commie or socialist or leftist whatever could generate and hold audience, they could get a 250 station deal right then and there. He told me it was the business side that runs things there and if the host can sell the time, they stay on the air.
    By the way, I also remember Limbaugh’s start up. He had something like 150 – 200 stations and nationwide long form talk – which was pioneered by Larry King and others I’m sure you know better than me Mitch, was a nighttime only phenomenon. Most everyone in the radio business at the time predicted utter failure for Limbaugh. Not only because of his politics but because it was thought that no host could hold a national audience during the day – talk radio subjects had to be localized. The host proved them all wrong and created a whole industry and some say saved the AM band.

  4. This would be just fine if CBS gave Medved, Prager, Ingraham et al 50% of 60 minutes, ABC 50% of Nightline and 20/20, NBC 50%, PBS 50%, CNN 50%, NPR 50%, MSNBC 50%….
    This could bite the left in the ass.

  5. Hey, jbauer, now could you do a novella about why Air America is in the toilet? Don’t forget to include the slew of misspellings that characterize your second paragraph. K. Thanks!

  6. Sure am glad Limbaugh is such a hero, after all preaching division and hate is a certainly a christian ethic, right?

    Would you care to be specific? What “hate” does Limbaugh preach?

    Division is a fact of American life, and always has been. It is, in fact, a strength, not a liability.

    That said, while there is NO doubt that Limbaugh generates ratings, some of it do to doltish ditoheads, some of it due to morbid or purient curiosities, some of it just due to people drawn to the kind of hyperbole and exageration that is his hallmark, there is however doubt as to whether like minded programs, such as NARN, generate anything – more likely than not they don’t generate much, and they raise the question of why EVERY last single commentator on a particular airwave is a conservative, or a liberal for that matter.

    Huh?

    The point is, why doesn’t WWTC put Ed Schultz or Stephanie Miller on? Both generate ratings FAR outstripping Hewitt

    Untrue on several levels; Miller, Schultz and Hewitt don’t compete head-to-head in any significant market (they are mornings, late PM and PM drive, respectively), so there’s no worthwhile comparison.

    Salem stations outrank Air America stations in just about every market in which they compete directly.

    Hewitt’s ratings trounce both of them in the Twin Cities, and, as far as I’m aware, in every market where both are present. WWTC is beating KTLK in every slot but Limbaugh’s and (barely) Lewis’; the local FrankenNet franchise barely registers. Bill Bennett is KILLING Miller; Medved is beating Schultz pretty handily.

    Sorry, “J” – the facts piddle on your statement.

    – or local hacks for that matter. Sure, it costs, but then again, they generate ratings and thereby revenue.

    You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? You don’t know the costs OR the ratings OR the revenues involved!

    There is an answer of course, and that is the management of many stations is interested in promoting a specific programming set – the open question is whether that’s related to seeing a national trend in interest, or whether it’s related to corporate motivations to air commentators who don’t object to mass media conglomerates – in fact who endorse it.

    It’s an interesting little conspiracy theory. There is absolutely no evidence (nothing recognizable without wrapping one’s head in tinfoil) to support it, of course.

    The fairness doctrine has little to do with what Mitch claims that’s just more Bergshot, it has to do with requiring the carrier, not the program, but the carrier to offer counterpoint to the generally rabid opinion their programs aspouse.

    Right. And as a result, national network network/syndicated talk drove right down the middle.

    The market can continue to operate just fine, Limbaugh, Medved, Savage, Hannity, and Hewitt will generally perform well because there is an audience interested in more opinion than fact (in my opinion) and so the air time can be sold. Indeed fairness doesn’t even require airing counterpoint during prime hours, just airing it at all.

    True, perhaps (and that’s very much up in the air), and so what? Why should the Feds have anything to say about it?

    Considering stations like WWTC put people on to fill air time without cost, this is just more of the same free programming that local yappers provide nationally to right-wing (’talk’) radio.

    Cost has nothing to do with it.

    No the real issue is exactly as described, the right hates the idea of general discussion that validates the left has decent ideas too,

    Whether it’s true or not, it’s irrelevant. It’s not about politics. It’s about serving a market. Discussing whether one side is valid or decent or not would make horrifffffically boring radio.

    it is the right that currently has a near monopoly on the air time,

    Again, wrong. “Monopoly” implies centralization and some sort of predatory intent. NOTHING is centralized; Limbaugh dukes it out with Savage, who slugs it out with Hewitt, who is banging heads with Micheal Reagan, who goes at it with Oliver North, who is hammer and tongs with Laura Ingraham. WITHIN conservative talk, the competition is fierce.

    Monopoly?

    Put away the conspiracy theories and learn a thing or two before you bother commenting on this subject again. You are not qualified.

    and they aim to keep it that way – regardless of “fairness” either as a doctrine, or principle.

    Fairness is when everyone has an equal shot. Liberal talk has had a MORE than equal shot in the past five years; lavishly bankrolled, with epic PR goodwill.

    They blew it because they suck.

  7. limbaugh hate speech:

    “Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”

    “When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it’s an invitation”

    I mean, why didn’t these morons leave New Orleans before the hurricane? I’ll tell you why: because they wanted to rape and loot! That’s just the way some people are! And if they’re black–if the rapists and looters are black–it’s not George Bush’s fault! We’ve had these problems ever since the Emancipation Proclamation. Once the whites leave town, all you’ve got is overwhelming lawlessness. That’s not racism, Mr. Snerdley; it’s a proven, demonstrable fact. Have you even seen a ghetto in Greenwich, Connecticut? I rest my case. [12 September 2005]

  8. Jesus Christ said: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation”

    Then Abraham Lincoln said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

    Then Mitch said:”Division is a fact of American life, and always has been. It is, in fact, a strength, not a liability.”

    Is that from the Gospel of Lee Atwarter or Rove’s Sermon on the Mount?

  9. It’s hard to see how you can be in favor of a fairness doctrine for the airwaves & still oppose Horowitz’ academic bill of rights.

  10. Fulcrum, you misunderstand Rush. When he calls people feminazis he does it with love. When he celebrates the kidnapping of peace activists it is merely an extension of his Taoist philosophy that encourages a dynamic interaction between opposing points of view in order to bring about a more harmonious understanding of the opposing state of being. He is wise.

  11. So since all you libs have accreted here, let’s ask:

    Do you support the reimposition of government bureaucracy on free speech?

    That is the only question in play, now. Noodling about with Limbaugh’s real or imagined record might be an interesting diversion among lefties, but you’re among adults now. Focus like a laser.

    Do you (plural) believe the American people are too stupid to process information for themselves?

  12. I say damn the first ammendment! It’s not just inconvenient, it’s downright unAmerican! To Hell with people spouting any old thing that comes to mind. We need some other dolt expressing the opposite viewpoint because people by and large are just too stupid to think for themselves. Then we need Gatekeepers. Lots and lots of Gatekeepers.
    People hear what they want to see.

  13. Mitch said,

    “Do you (plural) believe the American people are too stupid to process information for themselves?

    No Mitch but they are too lazy.

  14. Given the newfound Republican enthusiasm for civil liberties and opposition to any restrictions on the First Amendment, let me confirm something: you’re comparably opposed to FTC “indecency” standards, as well as Newt Gingrich’s proposed limitations on free speech as part of the perpetual G.W.O.T, right?

  15. No Mitch but they are too lazy.

    Huh.

    Well, I guess I did want a liberal to say it. (You called me arrogant?)

    So, liberals – is Doug right? Are the American People too lazy to be trusted with the chore of processing incoming information?

  16. Given the newfound Republican enthusiasm for civil liberties and opposition to any restrictions on the First Amendment, let me confirm something: you’re comparably opposed to FTC “indecency” standards,

    In principle, sure.

    as well as Newt Gingrich’s proposed limitations on free speech as part of the perpetual G.W.O.T, right?

    In principle, sure.

    Just to be sure, here, though – without googling, what DID Gingrich propose?

    And – let me make sure people are in the same discussion, here – do you think there’s any comparison between obscenity and people disagreeing with your politics?

  17. This country’s media is over-whelmingly privately owned. And most important, mass media — that media capable of reaching and influencing the broadest possible mass audience — is, because of its extremely high ownership cost, almost exclusively corporate owned. It is not government, but corporate interests, that control its content.

    For this reason, in the mass media, there is no choice, as you state, between “government controlled” speech and “free” speech. There is only corporate sponsored and controlled speech.

    The “Fairness Doctrine” was a rather modest attempt, based on the notion of “public” ownership of the airways, to mitigate this reality by requiring private mass media owners to “balance” the speech they would naturally be most likely to sponsor — speech that served their interests and reflected their world view — with contrary and opposing views from the community at large (whether from the left, right, center or elsewhere) .

    In arguing against it (the Fairness Doctrine), you can, if you choose, argue that wealthy owners of mass media have a right to use the media they own to exclusively promote their personal views, ideologies and interests, and that the Doctrine limits their freedom. But you can’t logically argue that eliminating the “Fairness Doctrine” has provided greater freedom of speech for the public at large. All it has done for the rest of us is further limited access to and representation in the mass media. It has, in fact, limited speech in the mass media pretty much exclusively to those who exclusively serve the media owner’s interests.

  18. Esmense,

    Good comment, actually. I disagree, but it’s a good start.

    This country’s media is over-whelmingly privately owned. And most important, mass media — that media capable of reaching and influencing the broadest possible mass audience — is, because of its extremely high ownership cost, almost exclusively corporate owned. It is not government, but corporate interests, that control its content.

    Yes, but that was the case during the “Fairness Doctrine” as well.

    And the repeal of the doctrine laid at least one of the foundations for changing that. We’ll return to that point.0

    For this reason, in the mass media, there is no choice, as you state, between “government controlled” speech and “free” speech. There is only corporate sponsored and controlled speech.

    Again, that’s been the case (in mass media) since the first printing press was priced out of reach of the peasants of the day.

    The “Fairness Doctrine” was a rather modest attempt, based on the notion of “public” ownership of the airways, to mitigate this reality by requiring private mass media owners to “balance” the speech they would naturally be most likely to sponsor — speech that served their interests and reflected their world view — with contrary and opposing views from the community at large (whether from the left, right, center or elsewhere) .

    Right. “jbauer”‘s bleating aside, I’m very familiar with its history. I grew up in radio during the last years of the Doctrine (I started in the biz in ’79) and had to learn all about it when I started.

    And I submit to you that it didn’t work as you describe (and as it was designed) even then. The owners got pretty much what they wanted to say across one way or the other – and headed for the bland, mushy, risk-free middle otherwise.

    In arguing against it (the Fairness Doctrine), you can, if you choose, argue that wealthy owners of mass media have a right to use the media they own to exclusively promote their personal views, ideologies and interests, and that the Doctrine limits their freedom.

    Actually, I argue that everyone from TV networks down to bloggers should be able to address their chosen market any way they want.

    But you can’t logically argue that eliminating the “Fairness Doctrine” has provided greater freedom of speech for the public at large.

    Greater “freedom of speech”? Not, perhaps, directly – but it has opened up access to information that was not available to the consumer before the repeal. The success of that new information – I’m talking about the conservative alternate media – shows that there was certainly a latent market for it. Along with freedom of speech, freedom to access and consume is also important – and I argue that the impetus behind the current drive to reinstate the FD is to restrict that freedom.

    All it has done for the rest of us is further limited access to and representation in the mass media. It has, in fact, limited speech in the mass media pretty much exclusively to those who exclusively serve the media owner’s interests.

    And again, that’s always been the case.

    But here’s the upshot – and the unintended (?) consequences of reinstating the Doctrine: Technology has given us the ability to outflank the traditional Broadcast Network model. Any schlub can produce a cable TV show today, and get it aired. Anyone can produce their own internet talk show, podcast or tv show. Blogging has pushed the ability to “publish” out to, theoretically, everyone – and it’s having an effect.

    And bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine” will be another skid down the slippery slope toward stifling the greatest explosion in citizen involvement in the media since Gutenberg sold his press to a big institution.

    And lest you (plural) think I’m being self-serving – that slope can swallow you lefties, too.

  19. Mitch said: “So since all you libs have accreted here”

    More to the point, many of your more thuggish right-wing commenters have, in the wake of the election, run away like little girls.

  20. Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that I added passwords to my comments. It cut down on the casual comments (and eliminated comment spam). My volume of non-spam comments is about the same as before, minus a few of the REALLY casual commenters, and most of the trolls I used to get from DU, the Freep, Daou, or some of the other big sites when I’d get a link.

    But my point was that, since I actually got a bunch of libs to sound off, I musta had their attention, right? Perfect time to ask a question, no?

  21. except when you ask questions, and when we respond, you tell people to stay on target.

    You simply said, “Would you care to be specific? What “hate” does Limbaugh preach?”

    I provided examples, plain and simple.

    but apparently it isn’t hate speech since kermit when he agrees with those statements…but we already knew that he would.

  22. Esmense wrote:
    “In arguing against it (the Fairness Doctrine), you can, if you choose, argue that wealthy owners of mass media have a right to use the media they own to exclusively promote their personal views, ideologies and interests, and that the Doctrine limits their freedom.”

    The only wealthy owners of mass media I can think of are Murdoch (if he owns more than 50% of Fox) and Sulzberger of the NY times. Mass media, defined as television, movies, and newspapers, by and large aren’t owned by rich individuals, they are owned by public corporations. The officers of these corporations are driven to make money, not promote a particular political message.
    Moreover the people composing and delivering the mass media “product” are overwhelmingly on the left side of the political spectrum. What more do you want?

  23. Fulcrum,

    The examples you cite are “on target” in the sense that they answered my question. Kudos.

    However, they also lower the bar for what is considered “hate” to the point where Harry Belafonte in his prime couldn’t limbo under it.

    Tasteless? Insensitive? Not Nice? Sure.

    Hate?

    You’re devaluing the term “hate”. The term implies a lot more than what you showed us.

  24. Maybe this is the crux of why Republicans have a hard time gaining the African American vote – when a very right-wing radio personality says, “I mean, why didn’t these morons leave New Orleans before the hurricane? I’ll tell you why: because they wanted to rape and loot!” – and it is brushed aside by the right as insensitive, tasteless, or just not nice.

  25. It’s hardly “brushing it aside”; I think Limbaugh was wrong, and I’ve said so.

    Don’t let the fact that I won’t devalue the word “hate” fool you (or trigger your wishful, exceptionalistic thinking).

  26. Terry — If you read my post you will see that I said “corporate” owners and was obviously not simply referring to individual owners. In fact, the high cost of ownership of mass media with a truly broad reach — the kind of media once covered by the “Fairness Doctrine” — places it mostly beyond the means of even the most extremely wealthy individuals today. Murdoch built his media empire slowly, over many decades, starting in a time of, and in a media with, lower entry cost. And, to boot, his initial entry into the media was inherited. Sulzberger, too, inherited a media franchise — one that’s value has been built over many generations — and one that, by the way, is more aptly described as elite rather than “mass” media. The NY Times may consider itself, and be, a “national” newspaper, but, its reach is miniscule compared to that of any of the broadcast networks — which, again, are the only media that the “Fairness Doctrine” applied to.

    Disney, GE, etc. are “wealthy” corporate owners. And of course media owners, whether they are corporate managers or individuals are “driven to make money” — but that does not exclude promoting a particular political message that serves their interest. Why would it? (Jack Welch, for one, thought it foolish for corporate owners to NOT use their media divisions to promote the political and economic interests of other divisions and the corporation as a whole.)

  27. NY Times may consider itself, and be, a “national” newspaper, but, its reach is miniscule compared to that of any of the broadcast networks — which, again, are the only media that the “Fairness Doctrine” applied to.

    Although, as noted in several forums, the NYTimes has a disproportionate impact on the news that the broadcast media actually cover. One former CBS staffer called the CBS Evening News in the eighties basically a retread of that morning’s NYTimes.

    Disney, GE, etc. are “wealthy” corporate owners….that does not exclude promoting a particular political message that serves their interest.

    But that message isn’t what you probably assume, either. Wealth doesn’t bring conservatism. Disney’s executive suite is heavily liberal (and Disney programming reflects this), among others.

  28. Esmense-
    “Terry — If you read my post you will see that I said “corporate” owners and was obviously not simply referring to individual owners.”
    But you specifically used the words “wealthy owners”. Publicly traded corporations are owned by their stockholders. Although some of these stock holders may be called “wealthy” they are also owned in part by mutual funds, retirement funds, small investors ans well as other public and private corporations. You also used the words “personal views”. Obviously a corporate body cannot have a “personal view”.
    I believe you’re personalizing an entity which is not a person in order to advance your argument.
    Which, come to think of it, is rather off the point anyway. The fairness doctrine (as it worked in the 80’s) applied only to overt political speech by the grantees of radio & television spectrum regulated by the FCC.
    There was never any requirement that a general corporate political bias needed to be countered.This statement:

    The “Fairness Doctrine” was a rather modest attempt, based on the notion of “public” ownership of the airways, to mitigate this reality by requiring private mass media owners to “balance” the speech they would naturally be most likely to sponsor — speech that served their interests and reflected their world view — with contrary and opposing views from the community at large (whether from the left, right, center or elsewhere) .

    is demonstrably false. The goal of the fairness doctrine was to A) require broadcasters to air controversial subjects of interest to the public and B) to require that when these subjects were discussed, they would be discussed in a fair and balanced manner. Wishful thinking aside the Fairness Doctrine was never meant to counter a prevailing “corporate” or capitalist POV on the public airwaves.

  29. Mitch —

    Thanks for the thoughtful response to my post. I would not, for the most part, with some minor exceptions, disagree with you so much as draw different conclusions from and make different value judgements on some of the things we agree on.

    For instance, I agree that even with the Fairness Doctrine in place, media owners got “pretty much what they wanted.” (Which is why I would reject the notion that it really was a restriction on freedom.) And I would also agree — although I would state it very differently than you did — that what the Doctrine mostly tended to do was moderate speech in the broadcast medium. It did so not by limiting anyone’s direct right to speak, but by making those who spoke subject to more accountability. The Doctrine didn’t, in my view, make speech “mushy” it made it more responsible — providing a check on the most blatant and outrageous forms of dishonesty and manipulation. Outrageious things could be said. But they also could be answered. And that encouraged a little more checking of the facts beforehand.

    Eliminating the Doctrine hasn’t, in my view, broadened the spectrum of opinion available in the broadcast media — it has just encouraged more irresponsibility and sensationalism. Less mushy moderation — more hysterical, unaccountable pap.

    Beyond that, I think there is one thing the Doctrine did that you have overlooked — it staked a claim for the public, and the public interest, in terms of participation in and control over powerful mass media. The Doctrine is based in the notion of public ownership of the airwaves — and when we eliminated it we also weakened that notion, weakened recognition of viewers as citizens as well as consumers, and undermined the idea that use of the airwaves entails civic as well as commercial responsibilities. I think all of that is a mistake. As a democracy, acknowledge of a public interest in the use of mass media can be, and should be, a check on BOTH government and corporate manipulation of the media. The worse possible world is one in which government and corporate power unite to use mass media against the public interest. That’s fascism.

    Where I directly disagree with you, and do so as someone who, before starting my own business, was a marketing and advertising professional, is in the notion that the Fairness Doctrine prevented conservative speech from getting an airing. And that its elimination has been the major cause of the proliferation of conservative media outlets.

    The truth is, the broader the audience served by a form of media, the less sharply divisive and partisan programming you are going to find in that media. The reason for this should be obvious. If you make your bread and butter selling apple juice and disinfectant to millions of female consumers, you need to broadcast programming that appeals to those women, and, you can’t afford to offend them. Routinely calling working women “feminazis” on the network news broadcasts, for instance, wouldn’t really be a very smart idea. (But, running hysterical segments on exploding car seats and home repair scams might be just the ticket.)

    During the time the Doctrine was in place, the most powerful and pervasive media outlets were required to appeal to, and certainly wanted to refrain from offending, the broadest possible audience. Broadcast advertisers were exclusively mass market. (When I started in advertising in the mid-late 70s, for instance, it was a given that financial services advertising pretty much exclusively meant print advertising — tv and radio would have been a waste of money for an industry that needed to reach such a small, although wealthier (and more conservative) than average, audience. That didn’t change until it became possible to use tv and radio in more targeted ways.)

    About the same time that the Doctrine was removed, we started moving into an era of more targeted advertising markets and more targeted media outlets. The two things were coincidental, not causal.

    What has really encouraged the growth of more conservative programming is the proliferation of media and the ability to more narrowly target media programming. You have many more advertisers trying to reach that older, richer, more conservative audience through media other than print today. And as a result, you have more programming designed to appeal exclusively to those conservative consumers today.

    I wish people on both the right and left would give some consideration to this — the bias you perceive in programming is more likely to be a reflection of the bias, and interests, of the AUDIENCE that program, and its advertisers, are trying to attract than it is the bias of either the media owners or the advertisers.

  30. I would like to amend the second sentence in the next to the last paragraph in my previous post, because I believe the change is significant: “You have many more advertisers trying to reat that older, richer, more conservative — are more predominantely male — audience through media other than print today.

    I don’t understand why so many conservative guys find it difficult to understand the reluctance of mass media marketers and programmers to promote views that are designed to insult a large part of their female audience, or why they might, from time to time, feel its advantageous to cover some ot the health care, workplace and consumer issues that are of interest to a vast number of women. It’s not a liberal plot.

  31. I don’t understand why so many conservative guys find it difficult to understand the reluctance of mass media marketers and programmers to promote views that are designed to insult a large part of their female audience, or why they might, from time to time, feel its advantageous to cover some ot the health care, workplace and consumer issues that are of interest to a vast number of women. It’s not a liberal plot.

    It is a liberal plot. Look at who’s introduced the idea of reviving the fairness doctrine in congress. Look at the blogs that are supporting it. If did not use a liberal tool (state coercion) to promote a liberal idea (talk radio is too conservative. We need to change that) and if liberals hadn’t taken control in the house we wouldn’t be discussing the idea at all.

    “I don’t understand why so many conservative guys find it difficult to understand the reluctance of mass media marketers and programmers to promote views that are designed to insult a large part of their female audience, or why they might, from time to time, feel its advantageous to cover some ot the health care, workplace and consumer issues that are of interest to a vast number of women.”

    This is nonsensical. What the heck does this have to do with the fairness doctrine?

  32. It doesn’t have anything to do with the fairness doctrine. It addresses the question of perceived media bias and offers some explanation for why all media programming may not exclusively reflect the views, interests and preferred subject matter of conservatives. (That reason? Because conservatives aren’t the only ones watching or the only ones advertisers need to and hope to attract.)

    As for the Fairness Doctrine being a liberal “plot.” Nonsense. Under the Doctrine, conservatives can demand equal time for their views just as liberals can. What neither can do is put forward their views with complete assurance that those on another side of the issue, or with facts that contradict their report, will not be able respond, contradict or argue against those views or correct their facts. Plus, the doctrine only applies to broadcast media that relies on the public airways. It does not apply to print (newspapers or magazines), subscription cable, the internet, etc.

    As I said in an earlier post, it was the proliferation of media outlets and the ability to profitably target media to more homogeneous audiences that really accounts for the increase in conservative media programming — not the ending of the Fairness Doctrine.

    Returning to the Fairness Doctrine — to the disappointment of many liberals I’m sure — won’t change that dynamic much. (Perhaps Rush will join Howard Stern on satellite.)

    I support returning to the Fairness Doctrine for another reason entirely — I think it will make broadcast and cable news program not more liberal or conservative, but a little more responsible, a little less careless with the facts, and perhaps a little less idiotically sensational.

  33. Terry — I see that I failed to respond to your second post about corporate ownership. I think you are reading things into my post that simply aren’t there. I never said, and don’t believe, that the Fairness Doctrine was meant as a check on a “prevailing corporate or capitalist point of view on the airwaves.” I only believe that it was meant to encourage more accountability in terms of what is broadcast over the airwaves.

    Of course the corporate and capitalist nature of media ownership shapes how and what information is presented. Corporations aren’t human, but the people who manage and work for them are and who they are and how they perceive their interests can’t help but shape what they produce. But, that shaping is not necessarily liberal or conservative — it may, depending on a viewer’s political bias, or on how in a given situation the advertisers, programmers, media owners and corporate managers perceive their self-interest, appear to be one or the other or neither. The more important questions to ask about the information presented in the media are; is it accurate? Is it misleading? Does it tell a full enough story? Does it over-sensationalize the story? Etc.

    As I said in my last post, I don’t see the Fairness doctrine as a corrective to political bias. And as I said in this post I don’t see it as a corrective to capitalist bias. I see it only as a way to encourage accountability — an accountability that applies equally whether the speech being aired is perceived to be from the left and the right.

  34. esmense-
    Part of the problem with the esmense fairness doctrine is that it is formulated to achieve a specific political goal. The old fairness rule was apolitical, other than promoting the idea that citizens should be informed of controversial subjects of the day in a balanced manner. That goal makes sense only in a time when the broadcast radio and television networks are the first provider of news and information. That era is gone forever. Oddly enough, during that era (the 50’s thru the mid 80’s)newspapers, which were not subject to the fairness rule, did a better job of covering controversial political issues than the broadcast media did.
    Again I dispute your statement that reviving the fairness doctrine is not a liberal plot. I say this because of rhetoric surrounding the current push: In the 60’s and 70’s it was the liberals who said that the then existing fairness doctrine was law passed by congress, not a mere FCC regulation, and it was congressional liberals who opposed its elimination under Reagan. The movement to reinstate it today originated with congressional liberals who specifically say that they aim to reduce corporate dominance and influence of the broadcast media. This is liberal political goal undertaken by liberal politicians.

  35. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » The Barnett Saga

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.