12
Jun
Talk Radio’s Last Stand?
The email alert read “Breaking from Newsmax.com,” the conservative online news site that also publishes Newsmax Magazine. One item in particular caught my attention: Special: Will President Obama Ban O’Reilly, Rush?
One click, however, reveals this ‘breaking’ news is simply old wine poured into a “special” new anti-Obama bottle: a ridiculous recycled report entitled “Talk Radio’s Last Stand,” offered with a subscription to Newsmax magazine and a “Dynamo Emergency World Band Radio” — all for just $35!
Leading hard-right conservatives, led by their talk radio “shock jock” shock troops, have been worrying aloud about the supposed return of the long-defunct Fairness Doctrine ever since their stunning success last year in defeating bi-partisan immigration reform. The latest salvo is the Newsmax report, headlined “Battle for Talk Radio: Powerful Foes Want to End the Gabfest,” which cleverly combines the usual talk radio tropes of pugnacity and victimization. The text of the “special offer” supplies the details:
“The 2008 election has yet to be decided, but one thing is clear: If the Democrats win the White House, expect an all-out attack on talk radio. Political talk, as we know it, could end. If they win, Rush, Imus, Savage, Beck, and dozens of other major hosts will be muzzled by using federal regulations to control political talk. So, what’s their plan of attack?”
As Newsmax sees it, “leading liberals in Congress, the Democratic presidential candidates, and even some Republicans speak openly of their plans to end conservative talk radio using federal regulations. Their weapon: a revived Fairness Doctrine, which would once again require stations to air divergent points of view — a clever ruse that makes station owners leery of airing controversial talk-radio hosts fearing law suits and federal sanctions. With a new Fairness Doctrine, you could see many top conservative radio hosts canned.”
As further evidence, Newsmax offers “an exclusive interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly,” assuring us there is “no question” a plan is being hatched. “The far-left kooks will try, but they will fail,” O’Reilly says.
Well, the far-right kooks like O’Reilly are certainly succeeding once again in ginning up outrage and false controversy — while simultaneously pushing up their ratings. As detailed in my new book “Shock Jocks: Hate Speech & Talk Radio,” this putative threat to the First Amendment simply isn’t real – nor is the far-right’s existential fear that conservative talk radio will somehow be wiped from the media landscape…
What is real is that the Reagan-era demise of the doctrine was in fact “the decision that launched a thousand lips,” as Los Angeles Times reporter Jim Puzzanghera once phrased it. “The move is widely credited with triggering the explosive growth of political talk radio.” But when a handful of politicians mused about its reinstatement “after conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage helped torpedo a major immigration bill,” Puzzanghera noted, the result was an “armada of opposition on the airwaves, Internet blogs and in Washington, where broadcasters have joined with Republicans to fight what they call an attempt to zip their lips.”
Most progressives are of course suspicious of the right’s newfound ‘issue,’ and many, like radio talk show host Ed Schultz, rightly characterize talk of a reinstated Fairness Doctrine as a “straw man” invented by conservatives. “They have 450 right-wing talkers in America,” Schultz says. “They all read off the same talking points.”
As the trade journal Broadcasting and Cable noted, the Fairness Doctrine had “long been the province of communications-law texts and history books.” The original doctrine required broadcasters –- who must obtain a license to use the publicly owned airwaves — to present issues of public importance in a balanced manner. Since the doctrine was an attempt to ensure that coverage of controversial issues by broadcasters be balanced and fair, and since it hadn’t been enforced in two decades, the sudden and fervent talk show opposition to it seemed odd at first blush. After all, don’t conservatives regularly claim an interest in being “fair and balanced”?
Nevertheless, merely the perceived possibility of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine has led many conservative commentators to paint that possibility in near-apocalyptic terms. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for example, called it “an assault on the First Amendment,” and accused Democrats of wanting to wipe out conservative talk radio. “They want to kill it because every time we have an extended conversation with the American people, liberalism falls apart and its ideas collapse,” Gingrich explained. America’s No. 1 radio talker, Rush Limbaugh, even went so far as to suggest that, instead of imposing a “Fairness Doctrine,” perhaps a “Truth Doctrine” should be imposed to control all news outlets other than talk radio.
Other conservative voices, such as Joseph Farah of the WorldNetDaily.com web site, followed Limbaugh’s lead and began warning explicitly of an impending “war on talk radio.” In an article in the August, 2007 issue of WND’s Whistleblower magazine, Farah wrote, “Though most Americans aren’t yet aware of it, talk radio – from Rush Limbaugh to the local talker in small-town America – is under major attack.” Farah drew a direct link between talk radio’s success in mobilizing opinion against the immigration bill and what he and other conservatives saw as a frontal assault on their main medium of expression. “And no wonder: Last month radio talkers presided over a minor American revolution when they urged millions of citizens to successfully oppose the immigration/amnesty bill that the president and both political parties had been pushing relentlessly,” Farah wrote. “It went down in flames – a devastating blow to the political establishment.”
“Now it’s revenge time,” Farah concluded, articulating the conventional conservative wisdom. “If radio talkers, in conjunction with the Internet, can mobilize Americans to oppose the political elite with regard to immigration, what kind of effect might they have on voters during the critically important November 2008 presidential election just around the corner? The fact is, powerful forces in and out of politics feel extremely threatened by this one part of the mass media that overwhelmingly champions traditional American values… They want talk radio crippled before it does any more ‘damage.’”
Now that Barack Obama is set to be the Democratic nominee, conservatives are trying to pin the allegedly impending ‘assault ’on talk radio directly on him. But even a cursory look at the elements of the Newsmax ‘special report’ demonstrates that this supposedly current ‘controversy’ is comprised mostly of leftovers such as “the Don Imus skirmish,” and is focused more on Hillary Clinton (“Laura Ingraham’s dire forecast about a Hillary Clinton presidency”) than Barack Obama:
* Why the Don Imus controversy was the first skirmish in a bigger war
* Hillary Clinton’s secret role in getting Imus fired
* Why Imus calls Hillary “Satan” and vows revenge
* Talker Glenn Beck’s chilling prediction for freedom of speech
* Why liberals can’t win ratings in radio — but conservatives do
* Naming names: powerful Democrats who favor the Fairness Doctrine
* Media Matters’ “blacklist” of conservative talkers
* National Public Radio’s tilt to the left
* Talk radio and the “new McCarthyism”
* GOP Rep. Mike Pence’s campaign to stop the Fairness Doctrine
* Clear Channel’s strategic moves to “appease” Democrats
* The supposed adversary that saved Air America
* The lawsuit that threatens political talk radio, and
* How Democrats can re-impose the Doctrine — without congressional action
Not surprisingly, this concerted conservative focus on the possible return of the Fairness Doctrine seems more devoted to stirring up the base than combating any real danger. Most informed political observers believe there is scant possibility that the fusty doctrine will ever be re-imposed – and even less chance that even if it were, talk radio would be “eliminated.” But to conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Joseph Farah, and the Newsmax team, the battle for talk radio is actually existential, about everything, or at least everything that matters: “America is short on leadership right now,” Farah says. “Radio talk show hosts, who every day belt out the truth that no one else in the broadcast world dares to speak, are the closest thing today’s Americans have to real leadership. Eliminate talk radio and America goes down the tubes.”
Here’s a link to my recent article on talk radio in McClatchy Newspapers’ Sacramento Bee. http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/927485.html .
Why are conservatives so afraid to have an actual debate?
June 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pmI find people limiting free expression to be abhorrent. If I limit your speech who is next. That aside a quick rundown on the talkers show they know how to stroke demographics which radio lives and dies by.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pmThe right wingers operating under heavy screening can give an impression of mastery of the air waves when all they are doing is making smoke.
Talk radio can be tremendously powerful, when it covers unspoken stories, take the immigration issue which may well upset some apple carts this November.
The whole issue was shoved under the fence by media . Even when the Latino gangs started sport killing Black people it we kept quite a nasty little secret that some thirty five million slaves had been imported to insource union, construction, trucking, food preperation, supermarketjobs. Even the unions were co opted by the administration and the Kennedy’s. The streets of LA, Washington, Denver and Newark are running with blood. Hit and run is the way to determine nationality of the offender. Kids have to fight for lawn mowing jobs and when caught no suits ever go to jail, just the poor slaves on the bottom.
This story was suppressed by the drug running Republicans and the vote and nanny hungry Democrats.
Talkers in Denver, DC and LA spoke up and were dismissed as racist as if illegal had become a race.
Liberals missed their chance to to work on a real solutions to the problems because they allowed themselves to be stampeded by such sordid groups as LaRaza, who have Klan ties.
This threw a life line to Republicans who did not have one stone left to throw at Obama.
Universtiy fellows (journalists) do not understand working people in America, they have become Agnew effet.
Silencing one’s opponents is not the way to win an argument any more than shouting people down. One ought to reserve the right to be offensive to those who disagree.
Returning to the “Fairness Doctrine” is equated to elimination of free speech? What nonsense.
Is free speech represented by a monolithic corporation like clear channel putting Limbaugh on hundreds of stations without having to turn over the microphone to a person who can inteligently speak to the same question?
Is free speech represented by Clear Channel’s boycott of the Dixie Chicks records because they exercised free speech in slamming the White House moron?
The right simply fears that forcing a station to provide both sides of an issue will prove that most of the right wing shock jocks are liars and distorters of the news, and that they are there for people who are to lazy and too stupid to search real sources of news to mold their opinions.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pmNo one is against the “rights” right to spew the hate it so greatly enjoys, the Fairness Doctrine would not in anyway do away with their right to be hateful (and stupid). What the Fairness Doctrine would do is not allow them to spew their hate with out giving the opposition EQUAL TIME to counter their message. For individuals like those in hate radio and Fox News, this would be the kiss of death they fear. So, if you bla bla bla hate, expect someone to want the same amount of time and the same time of day to put the lie to what you’ve said.And that would REALLY make life difficult for them.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pmI was a television News Director back when the Fairness Doctrine was in play. It was fair to EVERYONE, and every view point was heard.
Great idea to bring it back !!!!!!
If anyone doubted that 90% or more of radio positions are held without merit by pro imperial-presidential extremists, miscalled right-wing conservatives, observe this outpouring.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:14 pmThe ostensible cause was the suggestion that a doctrine slaling for “fairness–one of the statist’s own favorite meaningless buzzwords–would be aimed exclusively against their illegal, immoral and unAmerican monopoly over radio airwaves, held these five decades.
Observe the kneejerk totalitarians at work. After falsely and deliberately claiming “liberal” bias in the media for over 50 years, now they suddenly see their very real stranglehold on broadcast airwaves threeatened.
So, what is their response to the fearful idea of ‘fairness”–they who have substituted this collectivistic nonsense term for “justice”, ever since the Eisenhower era of pureile misgovernment?
Terror.
As well it should be. If US citizens had to pay for non-fiction, and if it were regulated as to the form of statements, leaving legal content alone, perhaps these same shock-jock philosophical dropouts from the mental second grade would still be handed a living–by the 22% who stillagree with their exploded myths, unaccountable attitudes and shadow agenda of opinionated mentally-troubled rantings.
But, in a real “marketplace” of lives and information–wouldn’t it perhaps be likely that those who have NOT been part of the right-wingers’ pseudo-religious and postmodernist wrecking of our Constitution, of our government, foreign policy, economic institutions, marketplaces, definitions, educational and training systems, non-fiction, publishing, artistic and justice systems–would
be in a majority of cases sane minds, i.e. those NOT responsible for the disaster?
That’s what these disconcepted unrealist bullies, liars, slanderers, knee-jerk totalitarians and psuedo-moralizing loudmouths fear, I claim–that any one mind such as mine, or anyone else’s who is a scientist knowing what they have falsely pretended to know, would be permitted to confront them on ategorically equal terms, and so reveal their ideas for what they ahave always been–the failed ideas of minds too dishonest or else to stupid to be able to deal with reality successfully in any sphere of human conduct.
“Fairness” is a word for totaliatrain nonsense; but equal time is what these neocons really fear–and what every American interested in restoring the rights of individuals, what the right-wing Supreme Court in denying their existence recently called “one party” rights, should most desperately desire.
Am I missing something here? Why would an organization which claims to be ‘fair and balanced’ object to a reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. They already claim to be presenting both sides of the issues so, what’s the problem?
June 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pmAdditionally, wouldn’t they be glad to see the radical left-wing stranglehold on MSM broken?
Radio stations don’t want the “fairness doctrine” implemented because it would require them to give equal time to programs like Air America that nobody wanted to hear. Air America found out the hard way that advertisers don’t want to pay for broadcasts that has no audience. The stations would be required to broadcast this left wing line under the fairness doctrine and be a financial drain because they have had trouble finding advertisers for left wing talkers.
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pmAir America has an audience which is growing, not shrinking. Over the air radio stations and TV stations are supposed to be serving the public good. Advertisers notwithstanding, that means the radio and TV stations have an obligation to present a fair and balanced point of view when it comes to politics. You may not like to hear views other than your own and those who agree with you but our country is supposed to be stronger because of our great ability to hear all views. What Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, Ingraham and all others of their ilk fear is the loss of their show if the fairness doctrine is restored. Their talk shows are political in nature and nothing else; radio stations have gotten around providing equal air time by echoing the sentiments often expressed by Rush: “Aw shucks, folks! Ah’m jus’ an entertainer.” Uh huh, right. And Fox News is fair and balanced when it comes to politics. If you believe that, they are lying to you and you’re lying to yourself if you believe their lie. Of course, Fox News is provided by satellite/cable and therefore not regulated by FCC laws. The right winged fasothugs of radio are looking to the possibility of jumping to satellite radio should the government reinstitute the fairness doctrine. But, the move to satellite radio would shrink their audience numbers and more than anything else, the fasothugs need you to hear their venomous ragings, they need you to spread their lies amongst the rest of the public. Some may opt to stay on the AM band, not being able to come up with the money to be given a spot on satellite radio. And being careful as to what they are saying politically, less the radio stations have to offer minute by minute air time for a rebuttal. You have nothing to fear, Roy. You’ll still be able to hear your fasothugs one way or the other but you’ll hear other voices as well. Not everyone who is a liberal agrees with those on the extreme left. I certainly don’t agree with everyone who calls theirself a liberal. And I know that not everyone who is a conservative agrees with those on the extreme right. Our country is strong because we can disagree but there should be no place for “my way or the highway” brand of politics. Of course, that brand of politics is what those on the extreme right want: their way and nobody else’s way. They are a blend of the politics of fascism and communism. Voices of dissent should always be our country’s strength and not its weakness.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pmCougar. The purpose of most radio stations is to make a profit. I know PBS is supported by donations and federal funds but for the most part radio stations are interested in programing that will attrach advertising dollars and that certainly is not Air America programs. If Rush Limbaugh lost 90% of his audience, he would still have more than Air America. The left wants to implement the fairness doctrine because they have been unable to compete in the free market. Even though Chris Mathews has been on the air longer than Hannity or O’Reilly, his audience is dwarfed by either. If left wing talk radio was viable, the free market would support it and it would not need to be subsidized or forced to be carried by the fairness doctrine.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 pmRoy, I understand radio and TV stations are out to make a profit, which is good for them. That said, the radio and TV stations still have to adhere to the FCC rules that they serve the public interest. That rule is supposed to mean that over the air stations can’t favor one group over the other, no matter how popular or unpopular a group may be. We are a Republic and not a Democracy: the rights of the majority can’t trample on the rights of the minority. But, that is exactly what has been happening with AM radio’s refusal to grant equal air time to people or groups opposed to the views of Limbaugh and Hannity and all the other extreme right winged conservative talk shows,because Limbaugh and company refer to themselves as entertainers. They’re not entertainers: their purpose is to be the mouthpieces and cheerleaders for the far right and their ideas. AM radio would not be looking at the possibility of the government reimposing the fairness doctrine if they had lived up to their duties to provide equal time. But, they are to blame for their own troubles in either not providing equal air time or holding Limbaugh, Hannity and company and the corporations responsible for the things they have said. I don’t see Limbaugh and company going away any time soon, not even if the government reimposes the fairness doctrine. The worse case scenario might be that Limbaugh and company might have to talk about something other than politics. The worst case scenario might be that the radio stations would be forced to drop the extreme right wing conservative talk shows if they don’t want to provide equal air time. Sure, if they have to provide equal air time for dissenters, it would cut into their profit margins. But, such would be their choice for carrying shows dealing in politics. You may believe Limbaugh’s views and Hannity’s views and your views are shared by the majority of the 300+ million people but the extreme right is on the fringe as is the extreme left. If Limbaugh and the others were to lose their shows tomorrow, they’d find other ways to be heard. But, what makes me wonder is what do you (and others on the extreme right wing fringe) have in common with Limbaugh and the others, beside your conservatism? Limbaugh has amassed quite a fortune speaking from his bully pulpit. It’s a good bet that Hannity, O’Reilly and Beck (whom I actually like, along with Neal Boortz) likewise are wealthy because of speaking from their bully pulpits. But, what have they done for you or your neighbors? They’re not hurting because of the high gas prices, which in turn has led to higher food prices. They fret and worry over people they see as being cheats on collecting welfare. One would think Limbaugh would have some sympathy for someone on welfare, since he was once himself but he rails the loudest of all. Many of us are struggling because of the high prices but all is good with the conservative voices.They support our billion dollar addiction to war in Iraq, which weakens our dollar, which drives up the price of a barrel of oil and drives up the price at the pump. It’s all good: conservatism seems to be more about keeping things as they are instead of trying to ease the stress the majority of our citizens are going through. The conservatism espoused by Limbaugh and Hannity opposes the government doing anything to help people, whether that’s something in the way of making sure people don’t starve, don’t lose their homes because greedy homeowners got loans from even greedier banks, building new highways or repairing old highways - I love it when I hear a conservative talk about states’ rights, that the state should be building their own roads. The problem with that scenario is that the majority of states don’t have the funds needed to build billion dollar highways. The only way they could raise the funds would be through raising taxes but for some, that could mean taking every dollar and every cent made by someone living in their state. And why does conservatism seem to care more about the wealthy keeping more of what they have earned, all the while being okay with the government taking more from those who make much less? Not every person who is poor is on welfare but they may have to give up more of their money. Conservatism, as practiced by the far right, is all about “Me and mine but not you and yours.” It’s okay if the federal government awards a multibillion dollar contract to a defense contractor or bail out a once profitable company but conservatism recoils in horrow at the thought of our government finding a way to provide health coverage for every single citizen. Conservatism wants social security switched over to being run by private companies at a profit to those companues. Social security needs to be fixed but privatization isn’t the cure, it’s the disease. Social security wouldn’t be in the shape it’s in now if our politicians had kept their sticky fingers out of the social security cookie jar. But more than anything else, conservatism, make that fascist conservatism is all about destroying the ties that binds our country. The question I have is when will you say enough is enough? Gas was expected to peak arouund $4 per gallon, now it’s $5 per gallon, some projections a year from now estimate $10 per gallon. There are people right now who can’t get by on what they’re earning because of the high prices. And the number will only go higher, skyrocket in fact, as the price climbs higher and higher. But, hey, it’s all good: Rush and Sean are telling you everything is beautiful and that you should ignore the symptoms of the heart attack that is going to strike our country and kill it. It’s all good, really, it is!
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pmHi Mr. O Connor, I saw your interview on the PBS program hosted by Emily Rooney Greater Boston recently and thought you did a good job presenting your take on Hate Radio which has for many years now poisioned the radio airwaves.Even here in Boston ,so called Liberal sanctuary all the talk shows have right wing conservative extremist anti first amendment Hate Spewers and even the Sports Talk hosts express in lockstep with the Rush Limbaugh led gang of hate mongers!Where has the FCC been in all this?? The public airwaves are to be used for the public interest and not defiled by the HATE MONGERS now on the radio. John Healy
July 11th, 2008 at 10:18 amspeaking of “shock jocks” is mancow mentioned in your book?
July 14th, 2008 at 8:03 pmwhats all the fuss for talk radio is DEAD
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 ami dont know where rush and co get ratings from but just ask yourself how many of his fans you know ..i know of only one (one guy)out of dozens of friends and hundreds of coworkers in fact i know more
npr fans…i know its not a scientific method but they claim to have this huge nationwide audience so ive been taking my own poll…now i wonder whos really writing
the paychecks for the hatemongers ——–it sure isnt listeners