Bringing Out the Vast Potentialities of Our Media Media reform -- our most urgent issue
The Foundation Stone of Democracy Ignored
The Foundation Stone of Democracy Ignored
A NATIONAL CRISIS:
Most of the radio broadcasting programs in the United states are unaccountable to the public and highly biased -- completely misrepresenting or omitting the consensus of the vast majority of respected scholars in our country.
In essence, the people have been deprived of their right to self governance, for an uncensored flow of ideas and information is essential for informed democracy.
BACKGROUNDER: HOW RONALD REAGAN UNDERMINED DEMOCRATIC DEBATE IN AMERICA
When radio and TV first began to be aired in American homes, our Congressmen realized that broadcasting can have tremendous influence on public opinion and thought, giving the people a lens through which they see issues -- shaping their worldview.
Thus, many congressmen wanted to ensure that powerful individuals did not monopolize the media as a tool of propaganda, airing biased information to promote their own narrow interests, telling only one side of vital issues that affect peoples lives.
Thus Congress built a strong foundation to ensure that debate on public issues is robust and wide open by amending 315(a) of the Communications Act to include this sentence:
"Nothing in the foregoing [the equal opportunities provision] shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interview, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."
Also, it was established that the airwaves legally belong to the people. Broadcasters are liscensed to use the airwaves to serve public interest.
In the early years, the FCC did not allow broadcasters to use their stations to promote their own political, social or economic views, according to laywers Ralph L. Holsinger and Jon Paul Dilts.
"Rather they are to operate their stations as a sort of community smorgasbord, laden with points of view and political arguments representing all shades of opinion on public issues. No one opinion is to be advanced over another, but all arguments are to be given a reasonble airing."
This regulation came to be called The Fairness Doctrine. It had a "profound impact on the coverage of news for 30 years," said Holsinger and Dilts.
The Supreme Ct. upheld the Fairness Doctrine in 1969 in the Red Lion vs. FCC decision which emphasized that the airwaves are to be "an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail rather than to countenance monopolization of the market."
In a profound blow to free speech, Ronald Reagan's FCC declared the Fairness Doctrine obsolete after receiving a complaint the administration did not wish to resolve made by the Syracuse Peace Council pertaining to a broadcast in which arguments in support of nuclear power outnumbered arguments against it by ten to one.
One of his main reasons for doing so was that the Supreme Court explained in the Red Lion decision that the Fairness Doctrine is justified because of "the scarcity" of radio frequencies. The Reagan administration said that now that we have cable and Internet, it is no longer justified.
THE SUPREME COURT SETS OUT TO RESTORE THE FREE AND BALANCED FLOW OF INFORMATION:
the Supreme Court addressed the issue of scarcity in 1994 in the Turner Broadcasting Decision Vs. FCC. In this decision, the court said: "Although courts and commentators have criticized the scarcity rationale since its inception, we have declined to question its continuing validity as support for our broadcast jurisprudence." (THIS MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT SENTENCE SPOKEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY.)
The court explained that while it would be unconstitutional for the government to intervene to enforce fairness on cable news or in newspapers, the opposite is true in regard to broadcasting. Since the airwaves legally belong to the people, are a scarce public resource and broadcasters are licensed to serve public interest, the government may intervene to make broadcasting serve "the ends and purposes of the First Amendment" by preventing "monopolization of the market."
However, the FCC has refused to resume regulation of broadcasts to ensure that all sides of controversial issues are aired.
No one in Congress or the FCC seems to realize that the Supreme Court ruled on the scarcity of broadcast frequencies and overturned Reagan's justification for abolishing the Fairness Doctrine.
Below are longer excerpts of the two Supreme Court decisions mentioned above:
Red Lion vs. Federal Communication Commssion -- 1969:
"Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the government is permitted to put restrictions on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a hole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters which is paramount. ... It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. ... It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here, that right may not be constitutionally abridged either by Congress or FCC."
Turner Broadcasting vs. FCC -- 1994:
"It is true that our cases have permitted more intrusive regulation of broadcast speakers than of speakers in other media. But the rationale for applying a less rigorous standard of First Amendment scrutiny to broadcast regulation does not apply in the context of cable regulation. The justification for our distinct approach to broadcast regulation rests upon the unique physical limitations of the broadcast medium. As a general matter, there are more would be broadcasters than frequencies available in the electromagnetic spectrum. And if two broadcasters were to attempt to transmit over the same frequency in the same locale, they would interfere with one another's signals, so that neither could be heard at all. The scarcity of broadcast frequencies thus required the establishment of some regulatory mechanism to divide the electromagnetic spectrum and assign specific frequencies to particular broadcasters. In addition, the inherent physical limitation on the number of speakers who may use the broadcast medium has been thought to require some adjustment in traditional First Amendment analysis to permit the Government to place limited content restraints, and impose certain affirmative obligations, on broadcast licensees. As we said in Red Lion, '[w]here there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish.' Although courts and commentators have criticized the scarcity rationale since its inception, we have declined to question its continuing validity as support for our broadcast jurisprudence. The broadcast cases are inapposite in the present context because cable television does not suffer from the inherent limitations that characterize the broadcast medium."
When abolishing the Fairness Doctrine, Reagan's FCC also argued that the Fairness Doctrine has a chilling affect on free speech, that the FCC should allow one-sided, bias reporting because if you mandate that all sides be told, the broadcasters would simply avoid certain issues and say nothing.
However, the court ruled on this in the Red Lion decision and said: "The Fairness Doctrine in the past has had no such overall effect. That this will occur now seems unlikely, however, since if present licensees should suddenly prove timorous, the Commission is not powerless to insist that they give adequate and fair attention to public issues. It does not violate the First Amendment to treat licensees given the privilege of using scarce radio frequencies as proxies for the entire community, obligated to give suitable time and attention to matters of great public concern."
Moreover, the Red Lion decision makes it clear that the people have a First Amendment right to a Fairness Doctrine, that monopolization of the radio by one point of view violates that right and that our right to receive full information -- full access to the country's rich diverse dialogue -- "can not be abridged by Congress or the FCC" (The Federal Communications Commission):
Here are the court's exact words explaining this: "But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC."
After Reagan's wrongheaded destruction of the Fairness Doctrine, the nature of radio changed. About 2000 programs became yellow journalism -- conservative propaganda of the rich with no effort at balance, in complete abdication of the Red Lion Supreme Ct. decision and Section 315 of the 1959 Communication Act. Only 50 programs in the country are liberal.
"People from other industrial democracies are shocked and puzzled by our right wing propaganda machine," said Dr. Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the graduate school of the University of California, Berkeley and author of the book, "The New Media Monopoly."
Here's a typical example of conservative radio propaganda. A broadcaster said, "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are coming after your pensions and health care!"
That one stung, for just the opposite is true.
Dr. Bagdikian explained that in the years since 1980, "The political spectrum of the United States has shifted radically to the far right. What was once the center has been pushed to the left, and what was the far right is now the center. What was considered the eccentric right wing of American politics is now considered the normal conservative outlook. What was the left is now at the far edge, barely holding its precarious position and treated in the news as a sometimes amusing oddity."
A broadcaster on Fox News, which is a tireless enemy of the Fairness Doctrine, said: "It's a free market. If people want liberal talk radio, they'll turn in to it. Why would lawmakers think about forcing it on stations when the free market has said, 'We don't want to hear that.'"
Is it really true that people don't wish to hear liberal viewpoints? Not too many years ago, for decades on end, most Christians, from one end of the Bible Belt to the other, called themselves "liberal" and voted a straight party ticket for the Democrats.
Today, conservative radio has convinced them they are not liberal, but when you sit them down and ask them what they believe about policy issues, polls repeatedly show that their views are liberal.
Liberal approaches are "super majority issues," said Dr. Eric Alterman, a columnist for the Nation Magazine, a professor of English and journalism, at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, and a professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. I found this when looking at "a series of polling data that goes way back and focuses on the same questions," he said.
Dr. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Princeton University and columnist for the New York Times says something similar: "When self proclaimed moderates are questioned about their views on actual policy issues, those views turn out to be indistinguishable from self-proclaimed liberals."
The problem is that without the Fairness Doctrine, the fears of our Congressmen who established broadcasting regulations has come true. The rich have monopolized the airwaves and brainwashed the people.
In effect, democracy has been overturned as millions of people vote for congressmen who stand against their interests -- against controlling healthcare costs, against protection of social security -- against revoking tax breaks for those who send jobs overseas -- against renewable energy -- against decent minimum wages -- against better fuel efficiency standards -- against higher taxes on the rich, which we need to fund social security -- against the day to day fight of EPA lawyers trying to keep our water clean and more and more.
However, the laws we need to restore the foundation stone of broadcasting and the health of our democracy are all there. We need to write our Congressmen and the Federal Communications Commissioners and tell them this is our priority issue. That if we don't attend to this, we can accomplish nothing.
The FCC says they no longer regulate to ensure that all sides of issues are told. However, you can also make complaints and tell them your legal rights to fair and balanced media. Let's transform it into a powerful agency.
If you hear a broadcaster airing false information or not giving full information, you can file a "petition to deny" or an informal objection against the renewal of the license of the broadcaster. You file these with the Federal Communications Commission.
If you live in Alabama, you must file your "petition to deny" by March 1, 2012, since the licenses of broadcasters in Alabama expire April 1, 2012.
Send your petitions to deny to this address:
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Atten: Audio Division,
Processing Team
Mail Stop 1800B
Or, Video Division, Liscense Renewal
Processing Team
Room 2-A665
If you wish to hand deliver your petition:
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
C/O Natek, Inc.
236 Massachusetts Ave. N.E.
Suite 110
Washington, D.C. 20002
__________________________________________________________________
Our most urgent issue.
How Germany Ensures Fairness in Broadcasting
How Germany Ensures Fairness in Broadcasting
In 1971, the Federal Constituional Court in Germany acted to safeguard the quality of programming, insuring that speech is democratically determined -- not market determined. it said:
"As a result of development in television technology, broadcasting has become one of the mot powerful mean of mass communications, which, because of its wide-reaching affect and possibilities, as well as the danger of misue for one-sided propagandizing, cannot be left to the free play of market forces."
The court also said, "Broadcasting is in the concern of the general public. It must be prosecuted in complete independence, in a nonpartisan manner, and be safeguarded against all forms of influence."[BVerfGe, 1971]
In 1981, the court said private broadcasters could only control a channel if the channel is "internally or externally pluralistic."
The court said a program is considered to be internally pluralistic if it provides a diversity of opinions and if its programs are "governed by an independent broadcasting council" with representative from the "socally relevant groups" of sociaty, such as labor unions, consumer groups, environmental groups, professional organizations, churches, sports, culture etc.
These councils supervise the private license holders.
UNESCO (Thte United Natons Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization) calls this "the democratization of culture" and "the democratization of communications."
__________________________________________________________________
It's a dirty dirty system!
Free Air-Time for Political Candidates
Free Air-Time for Political Candidates
"The United States is the only major democratic country that does not provide some free air time to parties or candidates," say Karen O'Connor and Larry J. Sabado in the college text, "American Government: Continuity and Change."
"Politics would be transformed beyond recognition if free air time were given to candidates," wrote Mary McGrory in the Washington Post. "Aspirants could rise up from their knees if they didn't have to spend so much time groveling for funds, 40 percent of which is eaten up with purchasing television time. The average Senate campaign requires $4.3 million; for a House seat, the going rate is $545,000."
Reed Hunt, who was Clinton's Federal Communications Commision Chairman said, "The average Senate candidate must raise approximately 15,000 a week, every week for six years starting the moment he or she is sworn in office."
Raising money for advertising has the potential for deeply corrupting the system. For instance, after the petroleum refining industry gave members of Congress $2,002,703 in 1993-1994, the House of Representatives barred the use of EPA funds to develop, issue or enforce air toxics standards for the petroleum refining industry, according to Joan Claybrook, the former head of Public Citizen.
These standards would have reduced hazardous emissions from 190 petroleum refineries by 68 percent and reduced total hydrocarbon emissions by some 750,000,000 pounds per year, according to Claybrook.
UCLA professor of law Daniel Hays Lowenstein says the great majority of campaign contributions are bribes "made to influence legislators."
The Supreme Court gave us a mandate to fix our dirty system. In the Buckley decision, the court said "facilitating communication by candidates with the electorate and freeing candidates from the rigors of fundraising" meet the general welfare clause.
Here the court was applying the principle to the public financing of campaigns. But certainly the principle would apply to free air tie for candiates as well.
__________________________________________________________________
Uninhibited and robust debate can be nurtured
A Look at the Amazing Media System in Sweden and What It Brought About
A Look at the Amazing Media System in Sweden and What It Brought About
Media reform should be our priority issue.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Good Media Can't Find Good Funding
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Good Media Can't Find Good Funding
__________________________________________________________________
There is a huge information deficit among Republicans.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: How the Media is Not Adequately Informing the Public
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: How the Media is Not Adequately Informing the Public
__________________________________________________________________
An attack on neutral, unbiased news reporting
Enriching the Diversity of Opinons and Solutions
Enriching the Diversity of Opinons and Solutions
The country is rich in scholars who have immense potential to enrich our political debate.
I would like for our scholars to all learn to use Premiere Elements or Movie Maker to learn to put together high quality videos with music in the background, images (either still images or video clips) and narration.
There could be a forum similar to google groups where Scholars and concerned citizens could post high quality video clips -- comments on a discussion topic.
These clips might be submitted to a panel made up of our college professors that select the best of the best each day to be aired on a public television program put on the internet.
__________________________________________________________________
An attack on neutral, unbiased news reporting
Republicans Seek to Cut Funding for Public Radio and TV
Republicans Seek to Cut Funding for Public Radio and TV
House Republicans voted again to cut off public funding for National Public Radio, which would bring about repressive conditions that smother creativity and independent thinking by making journalists depend on businesses with vested interests, along with others, for their support.
"I'm a strong believer in the free market," said Rep. Doug Ramborn, R-Colorado. "I'd like to see NPR rework its business model and begin to compete for all of its income. NRP already receives a huge amount of funding from private individuals and organizations through donations and sponsorships. NPR can and should be entirely supported with private sources."
The measure must be approved by the House, which is controlled by Democrats who are standing strong against cutting off public funding of NPR.
"For those who claim they don't want content to tbe one way or the other on the political spectrum but to be honest and fair, right wing Republicans are trying to impose their view of what NRP shoudl be saying in the content of their programming," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D - Calif.
Already, the PBS Newshour is receiving funding from Chevron, Intel and BNSF Railways for funding, which is frowned on by many of the nation's communications scholars.
The health of democracy is reliant on independent media.
__________________________________________________________________
Counteracting hidden agendas and bias in news reporting.
False Information in Focus on the Family's Coverage of Health Care Reform
False Information in Focus on the Family's Coverage of Health Care Reform
Below is an excerpt from Focus on the Family's Family News in Focus, Nov. 1, 2010:
Paul Howard with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research: "The federal government will be spending more on healthcare. It is not going to fix any of the long term problems we 've got in the healthcare sector."
Steve Gurdol: "Analysts agree that the new health care law is the primary cause of the rising rates."
John Caldera of the Independence Institute: "Soon health insurance companies will have to have no pre-existing conditions and no way that they can decline anybody. Also, insurance companies will have no maximums to pay out. That all translates to you paying more for insurance."
FACT CHECK: The federal government is not expected to be paying more for healthcare.
The health care bill passed by Democrats, without Republican support, contains four cost control mechanisms that were devised by twenty-three prominent economists, including Nobel laureates and members of both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Here are the economists that devised the cost control mechanisms:
|
|
The cost control mechanisms the economists devised are not only projected to prevent double digit premium increases, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that these cost control mechanisms will also reduce the federal budget deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years and $1.2 trillion over the following decade.
There are many other serious problems the new health care legislation will address. Click here to read House Minority Leader Nancy Pelois's summary of how the plan will function.
__________________________________________________________________
Is Beverly LaHay's concern for America or for health insurance companies?
Concerned Women for America Spreads Misinformation About Health Care Reform
Concerned Women for America Spreads Misinformation About Health Care Reform
The website for Concerned Women for America said, "Over the next decade, ObamaCare is expected to add $10 trillion to America?s already staggering debt."
The website also said, "ObamaCare is the government's biggest attack on economic inequality in three decades," adding that the legislation "contains $670 billion in tax increases."
FACT CHECK: The increases in taxes and fees in the new health care legislation do not increase economic inequality because they do not fall on the middle or lower income families.
Since 32 million additional people will now be able to go to the doctor, hospitals, medical professionals, manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, hospital equipment etc. will be reaping far more revenue and can afford to pay higher taxes and fees.
The super rich will also be charged a medical tax. This will pay for the subsidies for those who can not afford the cost of health care premiums.
And, as mentioned above, 23 prominent economists, including Nobel Prize-winning economists, have come together to devise four schemes to control the cost of health care. See the chart above.
This is projected to contain the spiraling cost of premiums while reducing the federal budget deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years and $1.2 trillion over the following decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
__________________________________________________________________
The people need access to accurate information and objective, nonbiased reporting.
Phylis Schlafley's Eagle Forum Spreads Misinformation about Health Care Reform
Phylis Schlafley's Eagle Forum Spreads Misinformation about Health Care Reform
Click here to here an ad spread by Eagle Forum opposing health care reforms enacted by the Democrats without Republican support.
__________________________________________________________________
And the rich laughed all the way to the bank.
Biased Deceptive Propaganda on Christian Radio
Biased Deceptive Propaganda on Christian Radio
Click Here to hear a broadcast aired on Christian Radio in Birmingham, in which the broadcaster says that "democratic party policies do not help the poor. They hurt the poor. ... Republican policies help the poor more than democratic policies do."
That is not true. Democrats not only help the poor -- they help the middle class as well.
Republicans are for "rugged individualism," which means you stand alone and can get no help from the government, whereas, progressives are for collectivism where we look out for one another (largely using high taxes on the super rich. Afterall, the gains in productivity have mostly been enriching those at the top -- not the workers. Spreading this money around will increase spending and stimulate the economy.)
__________________________________________________________________
Digging at the roots of our lack of progress
Jerry Mander Discusses Media Concentration
Jerry Mander Discusses Media Concentration
Dr. Jerry Mander, Pres. of the International Forum on Globalization, is one of the nation's most respected scholars.
__________________________________________________________________
A book by Ben Bagdikian
The New Media Monopoly
The New Media Monopoly
Dr. Bagdikian's book, the New Media Monopoly, courageously investigates how the media, almost without exception, is owned by a small group of self-serving wealthy individuals and corporations with vast interests to protect.
What we are left with, he said, are "vast silent domains where the ruthless demands for ever-increasing profits crush journalistic enterpise and block adequate coverage of the news."
Dr. Bagdikian is a Pulitizer Prize-winning journalist, emeritus dean of the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and a former editor of the great Washington Post.
Below is a link to the preface and the first chapter of this book.
Click here to see the preface and the first chapter of The New Media Monopoly.
Click here to read an interview with Dr. Bagdikian on Public Broadcasting Service's Frontline.
__________________________________________________________________
A book by Joe Conason
Big Lies: The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts Truth
Big Lies: The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts Truth
The New York Times best-selling book "Big Lies: The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts Truth" exposes the lies and hypocrisy behind conservative propaganda, such as their concern for morals and their claim that they know how to run the economy.
__________________________________________________________________
A book by Robert Chesney
Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times
Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times
This book shows how the media has become a significant anti-democratic force in the United States and, to varying degrees, worldwide.
Robert W. McChesney is the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In 2002, he co-founded Free Press, and served as its president until April 2008.
Below is a documentary video that is also called "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" which features Dr. Chesney along with Dr. Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of media studies at New York University who directs the Project on Media Ownership.
__________________________________________________________________
A war against the people
Pres. Carter Discusses Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and the Tea Party
Pres. Carter Discusses Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and the Tea Party