Change At FCC And Congress: Good News For Media Reform

Posted by on November 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm. NO Comments :

The signature slogan for the 2008 campaign season was a single word that can spark a thousand interpretations: CHANGE! [It narrowly beat out “Maverick” and “You Betcha”] And change there will be.

This week, something happened in the House of Representatives that is almost unheard of. The sacred principle of seniority was set aside when Henry Waxman of California booted John Dingell of Michigan from the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell had been chairing the committee since the flood of Noah, and through most of his tenure he was a friend to the industries over which he had jurisdiction. Waxman, on the hand, is known for his work on the Government Oversight Committee as a bulldog who kept a close watch on the people’s interests. He held numerous hearings to investigate corporate abuse, greed, and corruption.

Since the FCC falls within the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction, there is good reason to assume that Waxman will put them on a short leash. He is an advocate of Network Neutrality and strict enforcement of anti-trust law. He has been deeply involved with environmental and healthcare issues for many years and will likely want to focus on those matters. Consequently, he may leave a lot of the media-related heavy lifting to Ed Markey, chair of the Telecom subcommittee. Markey is an ally who’s views and priorities are in sync with Waxman.

Combine these adjustments in the House with news that the Senate Commerce Committee is undergoing its own upheaval and there is real hope for reform. Jay Rockefeller will be taking the gavel from Daniel Inouye, another old-time industry bull. Rockefeller is far more likely to support initiatives for far-sighted projects like universal broadband (making the Internet more like a utility that is available to everyone). He will get help from Sen. Byron Dorgan, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, who has sponsored legislation to reduce the number of television stations and newspapers that a corporation can own.

In addition to these leaders in Congress, the makeup of the FCC is going to change as well. Barack Obama has gotten off to good start by naming a couple of knowledgeable and forward-looking academics to lead his Transition Team: Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. He has also tapped Julius Genachowski and Blair Levin, both top aides to former FCC chairman Reed Hundt, as advisors. One of them may turn out to be the new FCC chair. And given Obama’s own statements on the media, there is more potential for positive developments in the next eight months than there has been in the past eight years. Here is an excerpt from the Technology statement on his website:

“As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”

There is much to be done to recover from the past few years of regressive policy and obedience to corporate domination. But this is as promising a beginning as one can expect. It is now up to the new administration to follow through, and an active citizenry to be vigilant and vocal.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Obama Paranoia Strikes Deep

Posted by on November 20, 2008 at 6:44 pm. 3 Comments :

“Get ready for an unprecedented government assault upon the First Amendment. President Obama will be at the heart of it.”

These are the words that open an article in the ultra-rightist Human Events by notorious kook, Jack Thompson (more on him later). The article is another in a series of hysterical rants from conservative Chicken Littles who fear that Democratic leadership is intent on restoring the “Fairness Doctrine” which they believe will sweep their heroes (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc.) from the airwaves. This despite the fact that Barack Obama himself is on record opposing its reinstatement. But that doesn’t stop Thompson from building a delusional case for how Obama has devised an insidious plot to stifle right-wingers with an even more destructive attack on free speech.

Thompson leads his argument with this frightening passage from a speech by Charles Benton of the Benton Foundation:

“[O]ur number one national communications policy priority must be the eradication of racial and gender discrimination in media and telecommunications. Our shared goal: seeing the day when all Americans possess the tools to compete in commerce, to contribute to and enjoy the fruits of democracy, to receive unbiased and uncensored news and information, to create our culture.” [Emphasis by Thompson]

The Benton Foundation is a private institution that “works to ensure that media and telecommunications serve the public interest and enhance our democracy.” As illustrated in the quote above, their mission is one that most Americans would enthusiastically support. However, Thompson tries to turn it into something scary with creative italics. His attempt would be even more ludicrous had he included the next paragraph from the speech:

“In our democratic society, we are constantly on the outlook for undue influence by the government on our communications. But we should be equally vigilant to make sure that a handful of powerful people or companies do not dominate our discourse either.”

Is this really something that Thompson thinks conservatives should recoil from? He continues by trying to demonize the concept of “localism” which calls for the FCC “to gather information from consumers, industry, civic organizations, and others on broadcasters’ service to their local communities.” If Thompson is opposed to this, one wonders from where he thinks the FCC ought to get information. Politicians? Missionaries? Astrologers? He further disparages localism by associating it with the latest conservative buzz word for bogeyman, “community organizer.” What is most perplexing is that Thompson really expects anyone to be troubled by the agendas outlined above. But, sadly, there will be plenty of troubled readers who will buy Thompson’s snake oil.

Thompson’s most disturbing argument against localism comes with a reference to one of the right’s favorite new fright-makers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. However the connection is as fragile as Thompson’s grasp of reality. In 1967, the United Church of Christ’s Office of Communication participated, with the NAACP and residents of Jackson, MS, in a challenge to the broadcast license of WLBT. For the record, Wright was not associated with the UCC at that time – he was not even a minister. In fact, he was wrapping up his service as a Navy medical technician assigned to the team caring for President Lyndon Johnson. It was not until 1972, after returning to college and earning two masters degrees and a Doctorate of Divinity, that he became pastor of UCC’s Trinity Church.

But it is Thompson’s characterization of the WLBT challenge that is truly disgusting. He calls WLBT “a Southern station [that] was not covering the civil rights movement fairly.” The truth is somewhat more unsavory than that trivialization. The book “Changing Channels – The Civil Rights Case That Transformed Television,” by Kay Mills, describes what really happened with a little more detail and accuracy. Mills wrote about the situation in an article for the National Archives:

WLBT, which had gone on the air in 1953, employed no black people, either on camera or behind the scenes, although its audience was more than 40 percent black. The station also did not cover the black community in the same depth as it covered news about the white community, and it broadcast the Sunday services of only a local white church and none from black churches. Its station manager editorialized on the air against the admission of James Meredith to the University of Mississippi in 1962, arguing that states, not the federal government, should determine who could attend their schools and colleges.

The case against WLBT was a hard fought matter of principles that endure today. Prior to this victory, which was argued before both the FCC and federal courts, the only people who could bring these sort of challenges were those with “an economic stake in the issue or people who could claim electrical interference from broadcasters’ signals.” This case provided the first ruling that permitted citizens to take action against broadcasters who failed to serve the public interest. It was the first time that regulators were forced to listen to citizens and not just the broadcasters and corporations.

WLBT was an egregious violator of the Fairness Doctrine rules in effect at the time. Its management was overtly racist. And they repeatedly resisted efforts to be more responsive to their viewers and the community at large. The battle against WLBT produced a profound victory that was aided by historic figures like Medger Evers, Thurgood Marshall, and Warren Burger. It is this example that Thompson chose in order to whip up opposition to Obama and an expired doctrine that Obama does not support.

Thompson is so fixated on roiling the waters that he would denigrate one of the most significant events in the civil rights movement to further his ignoble ends. Therein lies the seeds of his madness. Jack Thompson is a well known nutcase. He has a long history of feuding with a variety of people and institutions. He has been a crusading critic of pornography and violence in video games, advocating what amounts to censorship. And when his nuisance suits were quashed, he whined about being discriminated against for his Christian beliefs. Eventually, he was permanently disbarred from practicing law in Florida for making false statements and attempting to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate litigants and other lawyers. None of this, however, keeps Human Events from making Thompson a regular contributor.

[Update: It has just been revealed that Kevin Werbach, a co-chair of Obama’s FCC transition team is an avid gamer. This should set up an epic battle between him and anti-gamer, Thompson.]

The Culture Warriors on the right are shameless in their brazen assaults on someone who has not even taken office. Yet somehow Obama is orchestrating an end to the First Amendment. The current state of the economy is already being referred to by the Hannitized as the Obama recession. If he chooses an aide or cabinet appointee with experience, he is said to have abandoned his promise for “change.” But if he names someone new from outside the beltway, he’ll be accused of being irresponsible.

The message is clear: The Martinets of Conservatism want you to hate Barack Obama – and they want you to start NOW!


Post-Election Cable News Ratings: Good News For MSNBC

Posted by on November 19, 2008 at 4:56 pm. 3 Comments :

The presidential election was a boon for the news business, especially cable TV news. All three players boosted their year-ago numbers, but it was not an equal opportunity affair.

Network Prev Week +/- Prev Year +/-
Fox -30 +40
CNN -58 +36
MSNBC +40 +143

Once again, MSNBC delivered far stronger growth numbers than any of its competitors. And once again, that growth was driven by Keith Olbermann’s Countdown and the Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC was the only cable news net to close the post-election week with more viewers than the prior week.

It’s still hard for MSNBC to get any respect, though. The article linked above from Media Week sports the headline, “No Post-Election Slump for Fox News.” Without closely reading the article, one might think that Fox was the big beneficiary of the campaign season. But the numbers show a completely different story. Which just goes to show you, even media reporting about the media can’t be trusted. My headline is far more accurate.


Fox News Fans Obama Assassination Flame, Again

Posted by on November 19, 2008 at 12:35 pm. 2 Comments :

What is it with these Fox News contributors who are incapable of repressing their fantasies of violence against Barack Obama? This morning on the Live Desk, a discussion on Obama’s emerging cabinet led to another disturbing and repulsive threat directed at the President-elect.

Eric Metaxas, an author of (get this) children’s books, was making the argument that naming Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would be inviting trouble for Obama. Metaxas asserted that Clinton would seek to grab all of the attention and that her omnipotent power would overcome Obama. That analysis fails to give Obama credit for defeating her in the primary, which might suggest that he would not be so easily dominated. Metaxas, however, thinks Clinton is untrustworthy and having her in the cabinet would be like “dancing with a snake.” He likened it to President Lyndon Johnson during the Kennedy administration. I was unaware that Johnson overshadowed Kennedy. So was Bob Beckel, who then initiated the following exchange:

Beckel: Who got more attention – Kennedy or LBJ?
Metaxas: Who got shot?

Without sharpening my mind-reading skills, it’s difficult to know precisely what Metaxas meant by that. But I can’t come up with any justification for how that could be used in this context, other than that Metaxas believes that LBJ had something to with Kennedy’s assassination, and that Clinton will play the same role in the Obama saga.

There are plenty of Kennedy conspiracy theorists out there, and some finger LBJ as a participant. But Clinton would have to knock off Biden, Pelosi, and Byrd too, before she would benefit from such a plot. Consequently, Metaxes’ comment makes no sense. It is just an unnecessary passage into a dark territory that is all the more troubling due to the increasingly threatening environment that surrounds the new president. The Secret Service reports receiving more threats against Obama than any previous president-elect (thanks to Sarah Palin).

Metaxas’ remarks follow up on those made by another Fox News contributor, Liz Trotta, who said last May:

“…and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama …uh… Obama … well, both if we could.”

And then there was Bill O’Reilly’s lynching party for Michelle Obama:

“I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.”

These are not random crackpots posting anonymously on some blog. These are paid commentators on a major news network. The cumulative effect of these repeated atrocities could plausibly lead to real crimes as mental suggestions are planted and a general numbness sets in.

The fact that Fox gets away with it is problematic not just because of the obvious disgust that it entails, but the very notion that they persist in this behavior with little notice or consequences makes my skin crawl.


No Success Like Failure

Posted by on November 18, 2008 at 7:08 pm. NO Comments :

In Bob Dylan’s classic “Love Minus Zero/No Limit” he makes the counter-intuitive observation that “There’s no success like failure.” Well, much of the establishment of America’s politics and press have taken that to heart.

The latest example is that of the Senate Democrats who have opted to let Sen. Joe Lieberman get away with political treason. Lieberman, who was ejected from the Democratic Party by his constituents in Connecticut, spent much of the last year campaigning against Barack Obama. In the course of the campaign he declared that Obama was too inexperienced to be president, was unsupportive of the troops, may have been a Marxist, and many more insults to his character and ability.

Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that there would be no repercussions for Lieberman’s betrayal. Lieberman would be allowed to keep his chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee. What Reid has done is to compound Lieberman’s betrayal with one of his own. And the rest of the Democratic Caucus who went along with it are equally to blame. Reid told reporters that he didn’t want to pursue a course of vengeance. But selecting Party leadership based on loyalty and shared goals isn’t revenge, it’s common sense. And besides, Dylan also realized that, “Even the pawn must hold a grudge.”

The problem is not as simple as Lieberman being an untrustworthy weasel who ought to pay a price for his deceit. The problem is that Lieberman was an ineffective chairman even before the campaign. He has long been an advocate of George W. Bush’s policy in Iraq and he refused to hold hearings that would have provided necessary oversight because they might also have reflected poorly on the President he adored. The same is true for other matters under the Committee’s jurisdiction like Katrina, torture, and warrantless wiretapping. Lieberman should have been ousted as chair if for no other reason than that he would not represent the new administration’s priorities.

Senate Democrats have an obligation to manage their institution in accordance with the political aspirations of their constituents. They failed to meet that obligation today. But Dylan foresaw the consequences of failure, and the Lieberman affair is only one instance in recent history that proves Dylan’s wisdom.

    Successful Failures:

  • John McCain failed in the election a couple of weeks ago, yet he is now regarded as an elder statesman who has already met with the President-elect.
  • Joe Lieberman rode on McCain’s failed coattails but gets to retain his committee chair.
  • Hillary Clinton failed in the Democratic primary where she said that all Obama would bring to the presidency was a speech in 2002. She belittled his view that foreign leaders should be engaged with diplomacy. But now she may become the focal point of his foreign policy as Secretary of State.
  • Sarah Palin also failed in the election, yet she is now regarded as a front-runner for 2012 (I hope).
  • Mike Huckabee failed to win the Republican nomination, but was rewarded with a program on Fox News.
  • Corporations like AIG and Lehman Brothers failed to the tune of billions of dollars, and they get handed billions more courtesy of American taxpayers.
  • Now the automobile industry is joining the failures in financial services in line for bailout fortunes.
  • Last, but not least, are the multitude of pundits like Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, William Krystal, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc., who failed repeatedly to make a correct assessment of anything that happened in the last year, yet they keep their media megaphones, and in some cases get promotions and raises.

At some point, reasonable folks will have to wonder why losers are so often rewarded, when more deserving players are snubbed. The benefits of membership in exclusive clubs like the U.S. Senate and the Mainstream Media are clearly lucrative for the lucky few. But the rest of us are saddled with less representative government, more debt, and bigger headaches brought on by louder and stupider commentators.

Those in politics and the press who exercise such disrespect for the people, are going to regret their self-centeredness some day. They are going to learn that we will eventually find alternatives to their protectionist institutions. They can’t fail upward forever because, in the end, “Failure is no success at all.”


New York Times Goes Soft On New York Post

Posted by on November 17, 2008 at 12:48 pm. NO Comments :

In a New York Times column today by Richard Perez-Pena, the case is made that the New York Post’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, has gone soft on Barack Obama and liberals in general. The evidence cited for this ideological tectonic shift is a shallow observation that the Post has not published its usual brand of slander in the few days that have passed since the election. The Times writes…

“Starting the day before the voting, the paper’s coverage of Mr. Obama turned positive, even admiring, sprinkled with gauzy bits about his family life, even urging him at one point to adopt a particular puppy for his daughters. A few days after the election, The Post published a 12-page special section about Mr. Obama, wrapped in that two-page photo of him.”

Anyone who regards this as anything but a convenient post-election holiday from their customary hostility has thoroughly lost perspective. Murdoch is a businessman and the Post is a money-losing rag in the heart of the Democratic haven of New York City. What was the Post supposed to do in the wake of this historic election, publish pictures of Obama in Hip-Hop gear with his arm around Osama Bin Laden? (That’s for next month’s issue).

For the Times to project from that that Murdoch is a secret Obama fan suggests they are taking their own holiday from sanity. Fox News is as vitriolic as ever. As a national network, they are not confined to a single market that is in disaccord with their views. So folks like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Neil Cavuto, are still free to brutally disparage Obama and all Democrats and other liberals. Gary Ginsberg, a Fox News spokesman, made an effort to disguise Murdoch’s prejudice against Obama by saying that…

“Rupert met him, spent a good deal of time with him, and I think he’s been very taken by his intellect, by his ability to inspire and by the opportunity that he has to truly take America in a positive direction on education issues, social issues and others.”

That, of course, flies in the face of Murdoch’s own words. The Post endorsed John McCain and Murdoch admitted publicly that he “had something to do with it.” It is extremely unlikely that he has changed his anti-Obama positions from those expressed just last month, and hardly represent an endorsement of Obama’s inspirational abilities:

Murdoch: “[Obama’s] policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960’s socialist.”

In the same commentary, Murdoch also said that an Obama administration would worsen inflation, ruin America’s relationships with other nations, and drive companies to leave the country. That’s funny, I thought that George W. Bush had already done all of that. Perhaps that’s what Murdoch means when he talks about “tak[ing] America in a positive direction.”

The Times went on to mention a meeting held with Murdoch, Obama, and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. It is characterized as “a bid to moderate Fox’s coverage of Mr. Obama,” but that’s just more PR manure. In truth, it was a transparent bid to persuade Obama to appear on their network. For most of the campaign Obama had snubbed Fox News. They were was missing out on the most exciting political story of the year because of their overt bias. Obama reportedly let Ailes have it during the meeting:

“Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome – just short of a terrorist.”

This is the real Murdoch, and the one who will endure over time. The notion that he has grown fond of Obama is naive in the extreme. And the fact that the Times would suggest such nonsense ought to bring them much embarrassment. It is not just poor analysis and shoddy journalism, it is delusional. Yet somehow it is in sync with the media conclusion that despite Obama’s overwhelming victory we are still a center-right country. That’s our liberal media talking.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

John McCain’s Campaign Concedes Fox News Is Biased

Posted by on November 14, 2008 at 4:51 pm. 7 Comments :

In an upcoming article in the National Review, Rich Lowry interviews John McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis. Much of the interview deals with the handling of Sarah Palin, the VP candidate who Lowry says…

“…was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. [Her TV appearance] sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.”

Wiping the drool from his chin, Lowry asked Davis why he booked Palin on Katie Couric’s CBS News program. Davis replied…

“Our assumption was people would not let us release her on Fox or local TV.”

If McCain’s campaign manager can admit that Fox News is a de facto arm of the Republican Party, and that nobody would take seriously a softball interview conducted on that network, why does Fox still try to peddle the myth that they are “fair and balanced?”

After the McCain team nixed Fox for the initial interview, they chose Couric because they were…

“…under the impression the Couric thing was going to be easier than it was. Everyone’s guard was down for the Couric interview.”

Let’s count the stupid: First they presumed that Couric would be easier on Palin because they were both women. Of course, Couric had an incentive to perform at a high level due to her low ratings and expectations. Plus, a woman reporter would actually have more leeway to be aggressive when interviewing a woman candidate. It was political malpractice for McCain and company not to recognize this. And it opens them up to charges of sexism as well because it presumes that a woman reporter would not be as probing or professional as a man.

Secondly, they actually think that the questions Couric asked were too hard for Palin. Their guard was down for such confounding inquiries as, “What newspapers and magazines do you read?” Or, “What does Alaska’s proximity to Russia have to do with foreign policy experience?” If that’s their idea of tough questions, it’s a good thing they kept her under wraps most of the time.

Thank goodness they have Fox News around for the post-election interviews where Greta Van Susteren delved into Palin’s recipe for moose chili.


The Fanatical Fear Of The Fairness Doctrine

Posted by on November 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm. 9 Comments :

Let’s face it – Change is scary. America now has a new President-elect swept to victory on a wave of change. Those on the winning side are anxious to implement a new agenda, but are also wary of the movement being diluted by political cowardice. The losers, however, are struggling to retain their composure as they imagine all variety of horror that awaits.

Speaking of losers, the most notorious amongst them are pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc. Their losses are not confined to being on the wrong side of public opinion in the recently concluded election. They are also losing listeners and viewers who are rapidly awakening to the dishonesty and hostility wafting through the conservative media’s airwaves. Fox News, once a runaway leader in cable news networks, is now threatened by upstart MSNBC, who has emerged as a surging second place competitor, and even beats Fox with some frequency. Radio’s problems are much deeper, facing stiffer competition from television and new media.

The response to this changing marketplace, however, is not to retool the product and search for new ways to connect with an audience. The tunnel vision of right-wingers like those at Fox is inhibiting self-awareness and ironically gaining fans amongst liberals who are happy to see them shrinking their own audience. Harold Meyerson at the Washington Post observes what he calls “the Palinization” of the Republican Party:

“During the campaign just completed, you guys focused on Barack Obama’s allegedly Muslim and alien roots and socialist ideology; meanwhile, in the real world, unemployment rose, foreclosures soared and Wall Street went flooey […] And the way your flock sees it, the modifications that Republicans need to make to become competitive again in American politics — acknowledging a need for state intervention to make the economy work, backing off the primitive religiosity, embracing a more tolerant pluralism — amount to nothing less than heresy.”

In a feat of denial, though, the conservative punditry is barreling headlong into a campaign of fear-mongering and frightful tales of censorship. They believe, and hope to persuade others, that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress are surreptitiously plotting to reinstate the dreaded Fairness Doctrine that their hero, Ronald Reagan, vanquished 20 years ago. Should that happen, they say, their little ideological monopoly of the air will come crashing down. The main problem with their scare tactic is that there is neither substance nor truth in it.

Stephanie Mencimer has nicely summarized the situation for Mother Jones Magazine:

“In 2005, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to bring back the doctrine. Conservatives dubbed the measure the “Hush Rush” bill. Then last year, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said publicly that he thought the Fairness Doctrine should be revived, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), after noting that talk radio was overwhelmingly conservative, suggested that Congress hold hearings on the political imbalance […] But Hinchey’s bill went nowhere, Feinstein never held hearings, and the issue died down after President Bush in March threatened to veto any attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine.”

What’s more, Obama has explicitly stated his opposition to the Doctrine on multiple occasions. That hasn’t stopped rightist enterprises like the National Review, the Center for Individual Freedom, and WorldNetDaily from spreading fabricated stories about conservative voices being kicked off the air. The prospect of this happening is not only false, but pointless. As Mencimer notes, the territory allegedly being fought over has been declining in value for years:

“Conservative talk-radio hosts love to position themselves as the victims of liberal media conspiracies, and the Fairness Doctrine gambit certainly fits the bill. But there is little substance behind the overheated rhetoric. Most Democrats have little interest in a big legislative fight over government regulation of the ever-shrinking sphere of broadcast media.”

And Obama recognizes this himself:

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

Obama’s position correctly describes the field of battle as encompassing issues of corporate consolidation, diversity, independence, and open access to new media. Let conservatives whine about imaginary assaults on their dying medium. They can have it. And if they want to shiver in the shadows, pretending that rabid liberals are coming after them, that’s their prerogative.

Like I said above – Change is scary. But it is also necessary. The media world is changing whether we like it or not (we like it). If effective media reform is implemented, the problems facing progressives (and conservatives for that matter) will work themselves out. If ownership caps are enforced, more diverse voices will have access to the airwaves. If anti-trust law is enforced, more independence will be exercised by commercial media. Support for network neutrality and public broadcasting will provide opportunities for alternative media.

That’s what reform is about. That’s what change is about. It’s only scary if your melded to outmoded technology and institutions that profit from corporate domination and propaganda minded government agencies.


Progressive Media In The Obama Era

Posted by on November 11, 2008 at 5:20 pm. 1 Comments :

With the election over, prognostications about the new administration of Barack Obama, and the fate of the losers, began in earnest. Almost simultaneously, speculation arose concerning the direction and prospects for the media in general, and the cable news networks in particular. The conventional wisdom (always conventional, rarely wise) is that Fox News will thrive in the role of a voice for the opposition and MSNBC will struggle for lack of drama. This analysis presumes that audiences respond only to conflict and that the Obama victory will put conservatives on edge and liberals to sleep.

There is some merit to this theory, but, us usual, it is too narrowly drawn to be enlightening. If contrarian politics were paramount then Fox would not have flourished during its early years of the Clinton administration, which it opposed, as well as the Bush years that followed, which it embraced. A common misconception about the success of Fox News is that it was driven by its conservative point of view. The only role ideology played was that it funneled all of the right-leaning viewers to one channel, allowing Fox to score higher in Nielsen ratings. The larger truth is that it transformed stodgy news delivery into thrill-inducing combat and soap opera. They created an us-vs-them, hero narrative that feeds on the same zealotry as a religious cult.

The race for president provided ample opportunity for the sort of melodrama upon which the new generation of cable news networks thrive. Fox took full advantage of this promoting, and even creating, friction where it otherwise would not have existed. Who can forget (despite how desperately we try):

  • William Ayers
  • Rev. Jeremiah Wright
  • Samuel “Joe” Wurzelbacher (the Plumber)
  • ACORN
  • Drill, baby drill
  • Elitists
  • Flag pins
  • Muslim Madrassas

The irrelevance of these phony issues is confirmed by how quickly they have vanished from the news scene. The campaign season stirred the pot, but the conclusion of the campaign is not the end of controversy. We are still mired in war, a collapsing economy, a climate crisis, and a multitude of other critical affairs that will define the next four years.

Nevertheless, cable news is going to have to undergo a post-election makeover. Brit Hume has already left the building. Some reports from Fox News insiders suggest that they will be taking a softer approach toward the President-elect (don’t believe it). Keith Olbermann’s Countdown contains segments like “Bushed” and “McCain in the Membrane” that will need to be retired. Political contests will likely play a smaller role in his program and others, and the void will have to be filled by something else. In the search for new themes, I would like to suggest one that is ever-present and exerts an overdue influence on American politics and culture: the Media.

There will always be political, social, and global controversies. They will erupt between and within party affiliations. The one thing that ties them all together is that they are fodder for interpretation by the media. The characterization of ideas can be instrumental in their acceptance or rejection by the people. Ideally, news organizations would be neutral providers of information and analysis, but those days may be long past. The modern era of television news seems to have irreversibly digressed into partisan advocacy. Even Fox News, the home of the “fair and balanced” fallacy, seems to have abandoned that pretense. Chairman and CEO, Roger Ailes was asked by Broadcasting and Cable Magazine about their post-election prospects:

B & C: [W]ill the news side of Fox News face an apathetic audience, compounded by being on the losing end of a national election?

Ailes: There may be certain elements of our audience that turn away between now and the inauguration. I think cable numbers overall will drop, although there is a fascination with Obama.

Notice that Ailes doesn’t object to the question’s premise that Fox was “on the losing end” of the election. The reality of Fox’s bias is so well established now that he doesn’t even bother to refute it. If Ailes’ response isn’t validation enough, listen to his executive VP, John Moody, from the same article, describing Obama as…

“…a once-in-a-lifetime politician and that means he’s smart enough to know that, despite his prescient 2004 speech, there are red voters and blue voters. And he wants to reach out and get the red ones, too.”

Here we have Moody blithely confessing that Fox is the venue for conservative viewers. This is something that Moody and Ailes would have vehemently denied in the past. Today it is treated as a foregone conclusion. That’s what makes observation of the media such a rich vein for the sort of melodrama that excites cable news programmers and viewers. The presentation of the news is so narrowly focused and poorly produced that it invites criticism, sarcasm, and ridicule.

This is where progressive media can excel. The Rupert Murdochs of the world aren’t interested in self-examination or improvement. They have an agenda to pursue and they won’t let a little thing like truth get in the way. Witness the inveterate lying of folks like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity. Liberals are generally more predisposed toward ethical oversight and, thus, make better watchdogs. With the decline of political content in the news cycle, this would be an opportune time to jump headlong into media analysis and criticism.

Scrutiny of the press has the added benefit of expanding the audience base because those who are skeptical of the press are a diverse group. An honest appraisal of reporters and pundits will appeal to a broad swath of news consumers. Evidence of this is the popularity of a couple of programs on Comedy Central. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report demonstrate the appeal of programming that takes on the press. Many analysts misconstrue these shows as political satire, but that is not an accurate characterization. They are media satire programs. Everything they do is less a statement on policy than it is a statement on the absurdity and incompetence of the people who bring us the news. It is also noteworthy that conservative attempts at this endeavor have all failed miserably.

Drawing attention to the media is also fertile ground for effective reform. It is potentially the most powerful avenue for political change. Every issue that faces citizens and their representatives has to be disseminated through the media apparatus. So whether it’s healthcare, education, taxes, energy, etc., it is the press that will shape much of the public’s view. The more light that is cast on the press, the more likely they will modify their behavior. So if cable news figures like Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Campbell Brown, and even Fox’s Shepard Smith (who has been known to take swipes at his net’s coverage), step up and challenge their industry, they could have more impact, and do more good, then if they merely assume the posture of another kvetching pundit.

The next few weeks will tell whether the press has learned anything, whether it is interested in self-reflection and reform, and whether it is capable of fulfilling its traditional role as a check on a government that would much prefer to work in secret. This will also be an outstanding time to have media watchers illuminating the stage and exposing the imperfections and deceits of those who purport to inform us. Let’s hope they heed the call. Because, now more than ever, we need an open, honest, and diverse fourth estate to document the progress of what may be the most astonishing political achievement in this nation’s short history.


A Boycott Of Fox News By Conservatives

Posted by on November 7, 2008 at 1:41 pm. 5 Comments :

Bloggers on Free Republic, AKA Freepers, are mad as Hell and they aren’t going to take it any more. The treatment of Sarah Palin by Fox reporter Carl Cameron and others has incensed them to the point where they are vowing never to watch again. I’ve compiled some of the comments from the site for their comedic value:

  • I propose that we punish the FOX Network for its hatchet job on Sarah Palin. For one week beginning at 3:00 PM today no one tunes them in. We will demonstrate the power of conservatives when their ratings plummet dramatically. Will you join me? [FYI: their boycott will have no affect whatsoever on the ratings unless a significant number of them are Nielsen families]
  • I’m done with Teevee. Let them all go to hell.
  • I am with you all the way my friend…i hope FOX goes off the air…hate em now…
  • It would be easy. Nearly every show on FNC is unwatchable these days. ….for quite a while, in fact.
  • fauxNEWS – We Distort, You Comply
  • too late………I wrote them off months ago
  • GO TO EVERY RIGHTWING BLOG AND TELL THEM TO TURN OFF FOX.
  • Tell him he’s no better than the “smear merchants” and “bombthrowers” he holds in such contempt. Allowing Carl Cameron to spew unmitigated hearsay and garbage without one shred of supporting evidence or fact makes O’Reilly just as bad as the supermarket tabloids.
  • Life without FOX is good.
  • It’s not a secret that 81% of Fox News reporters and employees donate money to the Democratic party – that’s a crazy high number for an allegedly conservative TV channel. It’s no secret to the gay community that Shepard Smith is “one” of them.
  • FOX now SUX bigtime! 🙁
  • Screw them too. I have watched very little since their recent maniacal swerve left.
  • If FOX wants me back they will bring on Glenn Beck and Rush. I have had it with weasels like Hannity and O’Reilly.[Beck is on the way]

And finally, there was this insightful thought from a a true afficianado of the arts:

This thread would do really well at Daily Koz. They think this is a great idea. They even have the artwork ready…

Yes, that’s my artwork posted by a Freeper. Thanks veritas2002. And thanks for joining the boycott everybody.

Update: The folks at RedState are weighing in as well with Operation Leper:

We’re tracking down all the people from the McCain campaign now whispering smears against Governor Palin to Carl Cameron and others […] We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you’ll see us go to war against those candidates.