How Did Our Free Press Get Broken, And How Can We Repair It?

[AuntiePinko]

Ask a Liberal: Advice From Auntie Pinko

Dear Auntie Pinko,

The utter shamelessness of the corporate media is incredible. I go online and read newspapers and magazines from other countries, small and independent e-zines and paper periodicals that publish online and get a TOTALLY different view of the world. I think that one reason America has become dumb enough, collectively, to elect Geedub not once, but twice, is that we’ve had corporate pap shoved at us for so long.

But I don’t remember it always being this way. It seems like once upon a time networks put a lot of money and effort into their news coverage and tried to cover real news, not just pageants and “if it bleeds, it leads” tabloid stories. And there were a lot more independent stations on television besides just the “Big Three” networks, and a lot of independent local radio stations, and in big cities there were more than one newspaper.

Today I turn on my radio and just about every single station is a “local affiliate” of some national network or chain or conglomerate. There’s only one newspaper in town and most of its stories are syndicated or copied from other newspapers owned by the same conglom. And it seems like I hear the same stories and the same analysis and the same comments from every talking head and reporter and newscaster. No one asks the hard questions and stories that “rock the boat” are as rare as compassionate conservatism.

Auntie, what happened? When did we lose our noisy, chaotic, arguing, disagreeing, competing, imaginative media? And if the Democrats win the election, is there any way we can restore the freedom of the press?

Disappointed in Detroit


Dear Disappointed,

We lost our free press in stages. From 1949 to 1987, the Federal Communications Commission upheld a policy called “The Fairness Doctrine,” which required the owners of broadcast media stations to act as “public trustees,” obliged to present contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public interest. They were also required to seek out and address issues of concern to their local communities. Coupled with limiting the number of media outlets that any one person or company could own in a single market area, these requirements helped ensure that broadcasters would be held accountable for how well they served the interests of the whole public, not just their owners’ or stockholders’ bank balances.

There was a down side to the Fairness Doctrine. Some broadcasters claimed that it functioned more as a limit on their freedom than an assurance of public interest. And even today we can see the Achilles’ heel of the “balanced viewpoints” concept when some broadcaster attempts to present “contrasting opinions” on everything. (“And here to present the case for NOT repairing the potholes on Main Street is the Chairman of the Auto Repair Shop Owners’ Association.”)

In the 1980s, talk radio hosts like Mr. Rush Limbaugh claimed that the rule infringed on their freedom and the capacity of the then-new format to grow. Although this claim was repeatedly debunked (in 2002, a lawyer in Eugene, OR, studied the commercial talk radio stations in his town and found that there were 4000 hours per year of Republican and conservative-targeted talk shows and not a single hour of Democratic/liberal programming,) the Reagan Administration appointed FCC administrators who stopped enforcing the Doctrine. By 1987, broadcasters had convinced the FCC that the force of competition was sufficient to ensure that they would guard the public’s interests, and the Doctrine was formally abandoned.

That might have worked had we strengthened and maintained the limits on media ownership, ensuring robust competition in all media in every market. Instead, we have been steadily chipping away at those restrictions, with the result that it is now possible for one media company to own a large majority of the media outlets in a given area, and to present only the views of which that company’s owners approve. In response to this steady deregulation, big companies have gone on buying sprees, snapping up independently-owned radio stations, newspapers, and television stations. The big companies have consolidated further with mergers and leveraged buyouts, until a shocking majority of all America’s “free press” is controlled by a very few mega-corporations.

A Democratic victory could start the process of restoring our free press, but it will not be easy. Re-imposing limits on media ownership now that those opposing such limits have already acquired such vast resources of wealth and power will be a daunting challenge. And even if Democratic legislators have the backbone for such a move, there are major logistical challenges to be worked out regarding how divestiture might proceed, just exactly what assets (tangible and intangible) would be required to be transferred, and how new owners would be qualified. And what recourse would be available if a particular media outlet is offered for sale as part of a divestiture effort, and no qualified buyers emerge. And many more fiddly but critically important technical issues to be determined would make such a law a major undertaking, sure to be highly controversial, and sure to have unintended consequences. (And we might not like all those consequences.)

The Legislative Branch, however, has no direct control over Federal bureaucracies such as the FCC, which are under the Executive Branch. The only influence Congress has lies in the House’s ability to approve the Commission’s budget, and the Senate’s duty to “advise and consent” to the Executive’s appointment of leaders. It’s very unlikely that with only these tools at hand, a Democratic Congress could influence the FCC to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine. The alternative would be to pass a law requiring the FCC to enforce such standards, and I have no doubt at all that Mr. Bush would veto such a law. That is probably not a fight that Democratic leadership would choose to pick, with so many other fights looming.

However, a Democratic Congress could lay some very significant groundwork for future change by turning a strong light of scrutiny on the performance of the FCC in enforcing existing laws. and on their policy-making procedures. A clear picture revealed to the American people of just how completely our media is under the thumbs of a few corporate owners, and how that control affects what Americans see and hear, might give future Congresses and Presidents the momentum required for real change.

We might also find some allies in unexpected places, if we work strategically. Many citizens’ organizations that are quite conservative in focus and policy agenda are still concerned with the issues of access to a free press. They are well aware that public sentiments and biases swing back and forth, and would not want to be locked out of the public discourse in some future time of prevailing liberal sentiment. The current debate about keeping the Internet free of corporate control is a good example of this. A genuinely free and fair press benefits everyone except those who want to subvert democracy for their own profit.

I certainly hope that if the election returns a Democratic majority to the House of Representatives, our Democratic leadership prioritizes this issue! It is the foundation on which much of our efforts to restore the Constitution and the democratic process must rest, if they are to be sustainable. The only issues equal in urgency (in my opinion) are the full restoration of our Constitution, and stemming the hemorrhage of lives and resources in the futile, destructive, immoral conflict in Iraq. There are other urgent issues —the national debt, securing Americans’ retirement, rescuing public education, enabling access to health care, restoring America’s policy influence in the world— and I hope that a Democrat-controlled Congress can make progress on many, if not all of these priorities. But rebuilding the free and fair press that is such a vital element of our democracy should be one of the most urgent and important things on the “to do” list. Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko, Disappointed, and I hope you won’t be disappointed on November 8th!

P.S. A reminder to all my DU friends and readers: GET OUT THE VOTE! DO WHAT YOU CAN! America needs all of us, now!

[snot]

1. Ok, so how about what we CAN DO -- NOW:

HR 550 is a start; even more urgent at this point is to preserve net neutrality.

Re- HR 550, see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x21930 :

Democrats Move to Re-Regulate Media

<snip>

Two liberal House members who recently have been critical of what they view as attempts by conservative Republicans to take over America’s mass media and public broadcasting have now introduced a sweeping bill that would re-regulate radio and TV back to the days before the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

The Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 (MORA) is co-sponsored by Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. and Diane Watson, D-Calif. In a written announcement, MORA is described as legislation “that seeks to undo the massive consolidation of the media that has been ongoing for nearly 20 years.”

The measure would restore the Fairness doctrine, reinstate a national cap on radio ownership and lower the number of radio stations a company can own in a local market. It also reinstates a 25% national television ownership cap and requires stations to submit regular public interest reports to the Federal Communications Commission.

<end of snip>

link: http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/189

Whoever controls the elections, the media, Congress, and education, controls everything.

[bemildred]

2. Don't patronize them.

Don't buy newspapers, don't watch TV, don't buy magazines. "Tune in, turn on, and drop out" as we used to say. Without an audience the MSM is nothing, nothing at all. The internet is free and uncensored. (True, it's very noisy, and full of liars, but so is the MSM ...)

[hatrack]

3. The free press was discovered dead on the living room floor

It was lying in a pool of its own aspirated money.

[nxylas]

4. How many is very few?

a shocking majority of all America’s “free press” is controlled by a very few mega-corporations.

Can anybody put a number to that? I'm one of those annoying people who likes quoting statistics.

[annabanana]

5. I am saving this thread.

I will send it to all my (Democratic) representatives on the Hill on 11/8! There is a lot of work to do to begin to fix the mess our Country has gotten into.

[status quo buster]

6. Media in the "free" market

In our perverted corporate state what is truly interesting is that audiences are moving and the free (well almost) Internet is killing off newspapers and cable TV (which is not free) is killing off free broadcast networks, with some help from the Internet. Advertisers are clearly shifting to the Internet.

[grasswire]

7. dear Auntie Pinko

The independence of our "free press" in the arena of the Washington Press Corps eroded when the White House Correspondents Association ceded its authority to credential White House correspondents to the WH press office, after the end of WW2. From that time on, increasingly so with this administration, the WH has used access to its press briefings as a way to intimidate reporters.

If authority to credential correspondents were returned to this peer authority WHCA, and if it were understood that the WH had no power in and of itself to deny access to credentialed reporters, then reporters would be free to report freely.

Additionally, I have been advocating for a Peoples Bill of Rights for White House-Media Transparency that would set standards for behavior of the WH and the correspondents. No phone calls from political operatives to beat up on reporters. No punishing of reporters. A prescribed number of press conferences each year, with no questions submitted in advance. Etc., etc., etc.

Peoples bills of rights work for other professions -- why not this critical juncture of journalism and politics?