Yes, that's right. I'm so confused I no longer know where the power on/off button is on the remote.
Posted on 04/23/2007 10:42:44 AM PDT by The Pack Knight
Just the sight of his sharp face, bushy eyebrows and exaggerated cowboy hat evokes in me the same feeling as that obnoxious TV ad, “Apply directly to the forehead, apply directly ...” But Don Imus is only a symptom of a deeper malaise in broadcast journalism.
Even though we have followed our hearts to Blacksburg, Va., forgetting Imus, the sickness he revealed in our cultural discourse should draw us back to examine the origins and history of the disease.
When the Fairness Doctrine, which imposed a degree of civility on the use of public airwaves, was repealed during the Reagan administration, we didn't know that it would spawn Imus, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and a thousand pygmy imitators.
Supporters of eliminating the doctrine had an appealing argument: It was merely an attempt to apply the same First Amendment rights enjoyed by print journalists to their broadcast colleagues. I bought it; others did.
But the late Eric Sevareid, whose commentaries on CBS rose to the level of philosophy, saw trouble brewing from a great distance. He said broadcasters would get in trouble, “because they don't have a leadership institution.”
Just one among many examples of “leadership institutions” is the Nieman Fellowships at Harvard. The two dozen foreign and national journalists chosen in mid-career each year are marked as men and women who should be listened to. Broadcast has no program of similar prestige.
With the arrival of cable and all-news, all the time, vast oceans of time opened that had to be filled with such inventions as “infotainment,” a marriage of entertainment and information — misinformation as in Rush (to judgment) Limbaugh, and tasteless screed as in Imus, Coulter and company.
Airtime that had to be filled gave birth to talk shows such as Hardball and Crossfire that featured battling ideologues. Opening the fairness gates also admitted the barbarians of radio talk.
A culture of Argument and Opinion developed out of this Babel of unedited, undifferentiated chatter that confused the public, which wondered what is news? Confusion over what is news, opinion or merely entertainment infected legitimate news programs and the press in general.
A precipitous drop in the believability of the three networks was noted in surveys of public attitudes, beginning in the late 1980s. The Reagan FCC voted 4-0 in August of 1987 to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine.
It is impossible to know exactly what was in the minds of the Reagan appointees, but one would imagine that they might perceive some advantage for the Republican Party in unrestrained broadcasting.
Congress tried to restore a reasonable rule for accurate, balanced and fair comment on the public airways, but President Reagan vetoed the bill. George H. W. Bush blocked another attempt at common sense restraints in 1991.
Once the standards of good taste and fair play were removed, the way to be heard above the clamor of perpetual news was to shout louder, to make ever more outrageous statements. A confused public turned cynical, doubting the veracity of all news media.
In 1985, just 16 percent of the public gave low credibility ratings to their daily newspaper; by 2004 that number had nearly tripled to 45 percent. Public trust in the three broadcast networks, leading news magazines (Time and Newsweek), and CNN also fell. The percentage saying they could trust little of what they saw on ABC News rose from 13 percent to 36 percent, CNN from 15 percent to 28 percent, and so on.
One measure of public cynicism is a Pew Center poll showing that neither the government nor the media were telling the truth about Iraq.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the poison has not seeped into the ground water of local opinion. Our readership panel, which includes a vocal critic and a woman who once picketed the paper, had criticisms and suggestions for improvement, but asked if they doubted our reporting, not a single hand was raised.
Surely that is because we do not give ourselves the same license that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has given such so-called journalists as Limbaugh and Coulter.
Libraries could be filled with their assaults on the truth and common decency. Two examples will suffice. Here's one from Limbaugh's anti-Clinton obsession:
LIMBAUGH: “You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends private school. ... A recent eighth-grade class assignment required students to write a paper on 'Why I Feel Guilty Being White'. '... My source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up.”
REALITY: CBS denied running such a story. Ellis Turner, the director of external affairs for Sidwell Friends, said: “There is no legitimacy to the story that has been circulating. ... We're anxious to let people know that this story is not true.”
Coulter, wildly popular among the right wing, has recently called Democrats “faggots,” Arabs “rag-heads,” and said Supreme Court Justices should be murdered.
Reagan unleashed demons who have degraded calm, intelligent debate between the parties in pursuit of the common good and who have undermined public trust in critical democratic institutions.
But the Reagan Era seems to be ending. A new president and Congress next year have an opportunity to refresh public debate and restore civility in a renewed Fairness Doctrine. Call it the Imus Act.
More like the Lack of Insight section.
Don't be nasty. Just remind him what the First Amendment is all about.
I didn't think so....
This little Hitler wants his “Enabling Act” against talk radio.
Is anyone running a Fairness Doctrine ping list? It’s getting to the point where one might be worthwhile.
By which he must be referring to Al Franken...
Ya know, if Imus had said that, I bet this guy would be calling for his head.
By which he must be referring to Al Franken...
Franken doesn't rise to the stature of a pygmy.
The First Amendment was never about "good taste and fair play".
Two obvious comments:
Rush Limbaugh and his “dirty ilk” do not claim to be Journalists. They are commentators. They comment on politics from a conservative approach. They have lots of listeners because they make easy to follow, logical points.
The left fails because the logic doesn’t follow and their politics is based on emotion. It is hard make folks weep over the radio when discussing politics.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Now that's funny.
I’m confused. What did the FD have to do with what is being said over the air?
Alos, does this idiot know Ann Coulter doesn’t have a radio show, but is a writer and columnist?
And another thing:
While we are talking about radio opinion commentators and their alleged vitriolic hate speech, let’s talk about elected officials who represent the democrats in this country. I find more of what they tell Americans offensive than I find on conservative talk radio.
I have spent a total of 38 minutes over the years trying to listen to Air America. I can’t get past the slander and name calling on those shows. It’s like 3rd graders arguing about tax cuts and health care. Nothing makes sense but all the rebuplicans are “dumb-dumb head.” It fails because it’s laughable, shameless pandering. There is no argument allowed on liberal talk radio.
Yes, that's right. I'm so confused I no longer know where the power on/off button is on the remote.
Big suprise. Some commie attacks Rush, but doesn’t name a single leftie radio talker. More “fair and balanced” liberal hate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.