The closer we come to a Barack Obama victory on Nov. 4, the more the nation’s ultra-right-wingers are fretting that their monopoly on the radio industry might be in jeopardy. On ABC Sunday morning, Newt Gingrich darkly warned that the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the radio world might be in trouble if Obama is elected.
In other words, he’s afraid that Obama’s supporters might try to do what the Bush-Cheney brainwashing crowd almost got away with over the last eight years – control the airwaves to the point that freedom of thought and difference of opinion is suppressed to the point of extinction.
Just the other day, as I was flipping around the AM dial on my car radio, I noticed that of the six stations I checked, one had a sports show, one had music, and four had a right-wing host bashing Obama about something or the other.
The Limbaughs of the world can talk all they want about the “liberal mainstream media,” but the fact is, it’s a myth. If you don’t believe that, find me a “liberal” radio talk show. Go ahead. In the South and Midwest, they’re virtually non-existent.
It’s another example of greedy right-wingers taking advantage of deregulation.
It used to be that the Federal Communications Commission had strict rules about station ownership in order to assure freedom of expression and serve the best interests of the public. The theory was that too much power concentrated in too few hands could lead to what we’ve had in recent years – a serious tilt in balance toward one side or the other.
But when the FCC was deregulated, big communications corporations owned by ultra-right-wing business moguls began buying up stations everywhere so they could control what goes on the air.
The most egregious offender is Clear Channel, which is to radio what the Fox News Network is to network TV. Except worse. It’s impossible to find a “liberal” talk show on a Clear Channel station because the corporate owners order their affiliations to replace local pundits with their nationally syndicated hosts such as Limbaugh and the others of his narrow-minded, mean-spirited ilk.
Read the Rest After The Jump:
This accomplishes two goals: It enhances the corporate bottom line and it gets the message spread 24/7. You know the message, right? It goes like this: Liberals are unpatriotic, anti-God demons who are responsible for the decline in “family values,” whatever they are, and Conservatives are heroes trying to preserve an American way of life that pays scant attention to diversity, inclusion, and tolerance.
That’s an oversimplification, of course, but it’s close.
As the years have worn out, the ultra-right has even distorted the meaning of “conservative.” Whatever the Bush-Cheney philosophy is, it’s not traditional conservatism. That’s why both Obama and Republican John McCain are running against George W. and his failed policies.
In Louisville, we’ve never needed the nightly Joe Elliott Show on WHAS, the commonwealth’s only 50,000-watt station, more than we need it now. But Clear Channel gave Joe’s nightly show the boot a few months ago and replaced it with the syndicated garbage of national host Michael Savage.
Replacing a local show with any syndicated show is never good for the local audience. It diminishes the opportunity to discuss issues important to the listening audience and to hold public officials accountable. Elliott always was a voice of reason who carefully examined both sides of an issue. He did not play favorites. He was the epitome of responsible radio journalism.
To replace Elliott with Savage was disgraceful. Savage is a vulgarian who cares only about drawing attention to himself. He has no redeeming qualities, social or otherwise. He’s an insult not so much to the intelligence of the audience, but to its decency. Putting him on the air in Elliott’s place demeans the proud tradition of WHAS. It also tilts the balance of the station’s programming so far to the right that an FCC investigation might be in order.
Like the best newspapers, the best radio and TV stations are public trusts. They were never intended to be mere commercial enterprises. They have an obligation to keep the public informed in a fair and honest way. Instead, they’ve become propaganda centers for the ultra-right-wing agenda.
If Obama is elected, I hope he pushes for more regulation of the airwaves. I’m certainly not talking about censorship. I’m talking about the freedom of opinion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
So if a station wants to use Limbaugh, that’s fine so long as it devotes equal time to a host with a different point of view. The only way the public can make intelligent decisions is to get information and opinion from all areas of the political spectrum.
History tells us that anytime a dictator seizes control, the first thing he does is take over the media. (Then come the artists and intellectuals, more commonly known in Rush world as the “Hollywood elite”).
Over the last eight years in this country, we have come frighteningly close to losing our airwaves to a group of tyrants and bullies who want to control our minds by controlling the flow of information.
But now help may be on the way. The monopoly may be over. And that’s why you heard Gingrich and others squealing about what might happen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Carter Burger // Oct 22, 2008 at 9:51 am
There is so much wrong with this, where do I start? It’s called the free market, Billy. It’s sad that liberals don’t understand it and want to undermine it. While I don’t like what Clear Channel does 90% of the time, like with Joe Elliot’s show, conservative radio sells ad time because it has the audience. Liberal radio has been tried time and time again, and it has failed. Most recently Air America that had to buy it’s way on radio.
Nobody is violating your first amendment rights by putting Limbaugh, Hannity or Savage on the air. All you have to do is head down to Clear Channel’s office on Bishop Lane and purchase how ever much air time you want. Then you can say whatever it is you want to say on the air. Just like Air America.
“Like the best newspapers, the best radio and TV stations are public trusts.”
This is such a myth, no they are not. They are business just like anything else. If they don’t serve the public with what they want to hear, read or watch, the ratings and ad revenues go down. Just because they are not doing what YOU want them to do does not mean they are not serving the public as a whole. If you don’t like what they are doing, start your own newspaper, radio or TV station. The Courier Journal is about as liberal as they come, however you don’t hear conservatives complaining. We simply dropped our subscriptions, and now the CJ is hurting because of it. The free market, works every time it’s tried.
“History tells us that anytime a dictator seizes control, the first thing he does is take over the media. ”
Yet, that’s exactly what you want an Obama administration to do, take over the media with reenactment of the “fairness doctrine”. Ironic. Should the “fairness doctrine” be re-enacted you can bet there won’t be any conservative talk shows, there also won’t be any liberal talk shows because, like before, radio owners will not want to deal with the hassle. Conservatives will simply move to the internet. Until you liberals try to regulate it, too.
We’ll also add your name and Gingrich’s name to the list of people who have said talk radio will fail with a new administration. The only way talk radio will fail under an Obama administration is if they see a way to bring back the “fairness” doctrine.
BTW, the FCC’s ownership limits were deregulated in 1993. Under the Clinton administration. A Democrat.
2 Nathan // Oct 22, 2008 at 11:03 am
You lose conservative radio, what’s next under Obama?
Freedom?
3 Radio Rules // Oct 22, 2008 at 11:25 am
I agree with almost everything Billy says in this article. However, I’d disagree that Clear Channel is the worst offender. Fact is, CC has had some success with liberal talkers. To find the worst culprit, look to Salem Radio - an outfit that qualifies on-air employees with a litmus test of their loyalty to Bush, while their programming wreaks of religious right dogma and hyper-nationalism.
Re: Carter Burger’s comments - None of us can just go out and start a broadcasting station. The licenses are controlled by the FCC. You should read the Communication Act of 1934 to better understand the idea of the airwaves as a public trust.
As for the fairness doctrine, I doubt it will be enacted as it was before, but some balance needs to come to radio. It may happen with ownership requirements but there are other ways to bring more diverse views on the air.
I agree that the market and ratings are important. But, a fair and free market is being restricted under the current set-up. We’ve been fed the myth that there is no market for progressive talkers and that’s just bull. The truth is, they’ve been locked out by most owners like Salem Radio.
Over-the-air broadcasting is still the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues. Station owners are public trustees and they need to insure that they inform the public, not inflame them. I don’t think there is a universal solution. But we need a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse such as having Michael Savage forced upon Kentucky citizens.
This was an important ruling:
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
4 Paul Schmidt, Ph.D. // Oct 22, 2008 at 11:52 am
My mind is never lonelier than when it tries to look at both sides of an issue. Where can I find informed comments on public issues which speak of opponents in civil terms?
I asked my adult children and a class I teach of young parents to tell me who they are voting FOR for president and why. They could hardly speak without villifying their opponent. So I couldn’t agree more with your comments. I see the sad fallout, the decline and fall of the open mind and the civil dialogue. Your blog was the first encouragement I have seen in awhile. Keep it up.
5 Brian // Oct 22, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Billy,
Stick to writing about sports! Your liberal views of the world fit right in with the backwoods UK fans that you love so much.
6 Carter Burger // Oct 22, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Radio Rules, would you please indicate which title of the Communication Act of 1934 stipulates that the air waves are a public trust? Bear in mind that the Communication Act of 1986 amended or repealed sections of the ‘34 act, also. Remember also, that ownership rules were relaxed in the 96 act when Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was president. I don’t recall any liberals complaining then about ownership limits.
As of December 2007 there were 13977 licensed radio stations. Of those, Salem Communications owns approx 100. When a company owns less than one tenth of a percent of the radio stations, can you also please explain to us how they are locking out liberal talk.
“There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others”
There is also nothing in the First Amendment that requires it, either. If you think you have a constitutional challenge, then challenge the broadcasters when their license comes up for renewal. I can tell you this, the FCC does not get involved in programming issues. If you challenge Clear Channel’s renewal of WHAS’ license on the ground that you don’t agree with the talk programming, you will be summarily bounced out of the hearing room.
7 Charlie Springer // Oct 23, 2008 at 11:01 am
Wonder how Billy would feel if the fairness doctrine applied to web sites? This site could use a little balance. Why limit it to radio and television? Put it on web sites and newspapers as well. Might help keep newspapers solvent.
8 Dr. Rick // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I am still free to change the channel. Democracy is crap anyway, ask any Native American. Freedom is just an empty promise from all the tyrants that sit in power. Do any of you Morons recall ” No Taxation Without Representation” ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
9 Billy Reed is an idiot // Oct 26, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Reed this article proves that underneath a typical Liberal is a tyrant wanting to silence all opposition. You sir, are an idiot.
10 derbs // Oct 27, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“Your liberal views of the world fit right in with the backwoods UK fans that you love so much.”
Man — I have read strange analogies that make no sense, but this one may be the champ.
11 Wals // Dec 2, 2008 at 3:59 am
What WHAS did was sad. But it’s hardly without precedent in the biz.
Most of today’s hosts push Big Spend, Big War, Big Expansionistic garbage. None of this is conservative. While dismissing science and medicine.
Continuation of this kind of nitwit thinking (Sarah Palin ‘12?) will just cause the GOP to hasten its disintegration.
Leave a Comment