Posted on 02/03/2003 11:51:40 AM PST by GeneD
Now here's a dandy example of the kind of thing that never makes it to the front page or the top of the news broadcast, but that affects absolutely everyone. The Federal Communications Commission, led by Michael ("my religion is the market") Powell, is fixing to remove the last remaining barriers against concentration of media.
This means one company can own all the radio stations, television stations, newspapers and cable systems in any given area. Presently, 10 companies own over 90 percent of the media outlets. Bill Kovach of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism say these are the most sweeping changes in the rules that govern ownership of American media since the 1940s. The ownership rules were put in place after we had seen how totalitarian governments use domination of the media to goad their countries into war.
We already know what happens when the free market zealots remove restrictions on ownership. In 1996, the FCC eliminated its rules on radio ownership. Conglomerates now own hundreds of stations around the country. One company, Clear Channel, owns more than 1,200 stations, and there are 30 percent fewer station owners than there were before 1996. The result is less local news and local programming, since the formats are programmed at headquarters. Clear Channel owns as many as six or seven stations in a market, broadcasting generic country, generic pop, generic oldies, etc.
The fearless investigative television journalism we have all come to expect (an hourlong special on Michael Jackson's face in the works) will not be improved by this move. The FCC is doing this in an almost covert way. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps reports that only under pressure did the commission agree to hold one lone public hearing on it, in Richmond, Va.
A coalition of consumer and media advocacy groups presented a 140-page filing that shows joint ownership of newspaper and broadcast outlets fails to meet the constitutional requirement, set out by the Supreme Court in 1945, that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the people."
In 1987, FCC commissioners appointed by Ronald Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, and that has already had a stunning effect on political debate in this country. That same year, Congress put the Fairness Doctrine into law, but Reagan vetoed it with this memorable rationalization, "The Fairness Doctrine is inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." The Fairness Doctrine had been upheld by the Supreme Court in a 1969 decision that viewed the airwaves as a "public trust" and said fairness required the public trust to accurately reflect opposing views. In a 1986 decision, the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals in a 2-to-1 decision upheld a new FCC rule refusing to apply the Fairness Doctrine to television text. The two prevailing judges were Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.
Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Ore., did a report for the newspaper there last year on the prevalence of right-wing hosts on radio talk shows. "The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing -- there is virtually nothing else." Monks notes the irony that many of these right-wing hosts spend much of their time complaining about "the liberal media."
On the two Eugene talk stations, Monks found: "There are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. . . . Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it."
To point out the obvious, broadcasters and their national advertisers have a clear stake in promoting the views of those who advocate lower taxes on the rich and on big corporations. What is so perfectly loony about the FCC's proposal to unleash yet another round of media concentration is that it is being done in the name of "the free market."
Is the free market not supposed to encourage competition rather than lead to its disappearance? The U.S. now ranks 17th, below Costa Rica and Slovenia, on the worldwide index of press freedom established by the Reporters Without Borders.
Damn my public school education! I thought the constitution was older than that.
Alright I went back and read it again. What on Earth is she right about?
In a nutshell, this witch wants to use the government to suppress ideas with which she disagrees.
Exactly right. This woman would rather have the government mandate an ideological perspective on the radio waves similar to the one that exists on our college campuses.
You're right, most prefer the PC and deceptive labels of democratic socialist and progressive.
and that conservatives own the truth, we have nothing to discuss.
Nobody owns the truth. It is there or not there. What we argue about are perceptions and perspectives.
That's because brainless morons, "aka", liberals, cannot think for themselves. Radio involves an intimate relationship with the discussion and arguments. It requires analytical computation and cognotive processing. Television, on the other hand, requires you to push buttons on a remote and nod your head in agreement when the "leftist" zealot mashes lies into your eardrum.
I can't foresee a liberal making it on talk radio. You can only say the same rhetoric, without exposing the facts and logical conclusions that stem from them, for so long. It's the "facts" and "logic" that make talk a radio such a hit. The intelligent underground of America is glued to their radio and has unplugged the cadre of newspeak. The liberals are flaming mad about it and I expect a full blown attack on radio in the upcoming years.
That Molly Ivins is a liberal is a factor considering this is the new Demo/liberal talking point.
If you mean concentration of media owenership is potentially dangerous and offers cookie cut-out radio, I can agree with you.
If you think such concentration is what Ivins thinks, that this is a plot to shove "right wing" (just count how many times that phrase is used in the article) ideology on some unsuspecting listeners without any diffferent choices, I suggest you find another site.
To Molly the red: You leftists own and operate the nations largest propaganda network and more than half of it is funded with taxpayer dollars. These folks do their shows with their own resources and effort. You odn't like their success, so you bitch. How typical of the left to insist they be forced to shut down, because they have succeeded.
Where is she right? Did you read her title? You honestly believe rightwing radio is taking away the freedom of the press?
Freedom of the press is far more prevalent now than at anytime in the history of our country, for that matter the history of the world. Today we have the internet, broadcast television, cable TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, etc. Anyone that wants to can apply for a license and broadcast or print anything they want as long as it's not obscene or criminal. I suspect that you agree with her since most rightwing radio doesn't approve of the homo agenda like you wish they would.
Last time I looked at the constitution the first amendment was still there. Nothing has changed but the liberals are just pissed that they don't dominate ALL media anymore. The free market has decided this, leftwing radio doesn't sell. The government has no business making sure it exists. Get over it.
Oh, really, Molly. Well, the U.S. is #1 in press freedom on the worldwide index established by Me Without A Post-Office Box and Stationery.
How so? Conservatives have made some gains with AM talk shows, but overall the media (print, network and cable TV, FM) are still controlled and dominated by extreme leftists. Also factor in the extreme leftist control of public education (K-12 through PHD), extreme leftist domination of every bureaucracy at federal, state, county, and municipal levels, extreme leftist dominance in the legal profession, courts, medical and psych organizations and occupations, extreme leftist dominance in the human resource, supervisory, and mid-level management occupations, ... etc.
Of course, when the objective is total control, one dissenting voice is too many; one child learning without proper indoctrination is too many; one person or family living without constant government supervision is one too many.
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.