Right Wing Hijacks Radio: GOP Wins!

Think radio doesn't matter?  Think again!

Compare these maps representing numbers and sizes of  "Conservative"
"Right Wing" radio stations and "Liberal" radio stations across the USA:


Then look at a map of the 2010 Midterm Election Results:

About 50 million Americans listen to Right Wing Talk Radio.

Now here's the SCARY part:
Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have far more reach on Radio than Fox News.
You won't believe it until you
See These Charts!  

Radio is still the country's number one source of news and information,
but fewer than 10% of the country is able to hear any progressive talk radio.
Those who do tend to vote for more Democrats than those who do not.

How did this happen?
See the story from Broadcast Blues:

Hey, Talkers, Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Fairness Doctrine?

Originally published December 14, 2008 in the Sacramento Bee

     What scares Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and now George Will even more than a Democratic-run government?    The prospect of restoring fairness to the public airwaves.
  
     They have good reason to be afraid.

     It's been well documented that 90 percent of radio talkers are conservative, and 22 percent of Americans cite talk radio as their primary source of news. What's less known is that for more than two years, right-wing hosts have been lambasting the Fairness Doctrine on thousands of radio stations nationwide, convincing unwitting listeners that fairness is unfair, and that localism in broadcasting is bad for communities.

     Pre-Ronald Reagan, that FCC rule said broadcasters had to provide a reasonable opportunity for contrasting viewpoints on issues of public importance. Reagan's Federal Communications Commission threw out the Fairness Doctrine, paving the way for conservatives and Republicans to dominate political speech.   No question it's made an impact on elections: In 1994, when Republicans took the House of Representatives for the first time in 50 years, they made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress.

     Only 10 percent of radio talkers are liberal, and most liberal shows can only be found on small stations.  But independent research reveals that areas of the country that are exposed to progressive talk radio are now starting to vote blue.  "Air America Radio" and the "Ed Schultz Show" have been on the air for four years and are gradually increasing their number of stations.  Is it a coincidence that states which now hear a liberal viewpoint – states like Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Florida and Virginia – all went for Obama?  Or that the surprise swing states of North Dakota, Montana and even Arizona now hear liberal talk?

Citizens United - a Media Reform Issue

December 4, 2010

Because of the widely unpopular Citizens United decision by the Roberts' Supreme Court, which held that corporate funding of campaign ads cannot be limited under the First Amendment, this 2010 midterm election cycle is seeing five times more outside spending than occurred in the last midterm.  As noted in Bill Mann's Huffington Post piece, the real beneficiaries of all that spending are broadcasters  (broadcasters who have a legal obligation to serve the public interest.)

"The people who are making most -- over 90%, by most estimates -- of the money from all the obnoxious and ubiquitous ads this fall have names unfamiliar to most people: Belo, Young Broadcasting, Cox, Fisher Broadcasting, Media General. And big names, of course, like ABC, Tribune, Gannett, NBC Universal."

But there are a lot of other names which are unfamiliar to most people, names like "American Crossroads." "America's Families First Action Fund."  "American Action Network." "Commonsense Ten." (These, according to the Washington Post, are among the biggest special interest group midterm spenders.)

That leads me to question the value of the current idea in Washington that by merely "disclosing" who is funding campaign ads, voters will somehow be able to separate fact from fiction.  As Meredith McGeeHee notes on the Campaign Legal Center blog,
"Congress should take heed of the Supreme Court’s 8-to-1 ruling in Citizens United in favor of disclosure, stating that such disclosure is not only constitutional, but is the expected and indeed necessary counter-balance to the new corporate right to expend unlimited funds in US elections.

"Justice Kennedy’s 8-1 majority Opinion stated on this point: 'The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.

"This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'”
The problem is that outside the Beltway, a majority of people who are watching local TV news peppered with campaign ads don’t even know who George Soros is.  Lindsay Lohan, yes, Dick Armey? Doubtful.  Really, just disclosing who paid for ads is no match for the magic of Madison Avenue Mad Men. 

Hard Stats on Talk Radio

 November 24, 2010

What would happen if one political party could control the message sent to 50 million Americans?  Answer:  We'd get more election results like the one we just had.

See the stats here:     Prepare to be frightened.
"Talk Radio Listeners Liberal v Conservative"

Mobilizing for Real Media Reform!

 November 23, 2010
     There's been a shift in energy since the election, can you feel it?  It's like a big bright light bulb turned on and folks are, maybe for the first time, clearly seeing the media for what it is:  a threat.
     A threat to our communities, a threat to our children, a threat to our democracy. 
     Yes, no question, people are waking up.  I'm getting calls from all over the country from folks who are ready to mobilize to make broadcasters serve the public interest again (like they're supposed to.)
       So let's go!   Watch the Broadcast Blues trailer .  Read some of the pieces I've linked below.


       Get ready to get mad.  Get ready to be inspired.  Get ready to take action.


"Why Did Donna Brazile Use the F-word in Oprah's Magazine? Hint: Rush Limbaugh"  (note: this story made quite a splash recently, it went all the way to Forbes website.  It links to many of the stories below.)
"FCC Doesn't Need No Stinkin' Rules (But Murder By Radio Must Stop")
"Communications Act Redux"
"Hate Radio and the War on Immigration"
 "Save Talk Radio! Really?"
"Radio Speech is not Free Speech!"
"Putting the Public Back Into Public Interest Broadcasting" 
"Boycotting Beck on Fox News"
"Lessons From the Right: Obama Tries to Regain the Message"
"Talk Radio Rules Blue Dog States"
"It's War.  Media War."
          "Citizens United is a  Media Reform Issue"


There's much more, just surf this site.


          We the People are Taking the Media Back!

Hard Stats About Talk Radio

 November 24, 2010

What would happen if one political party could control the message sent to 50 million Americans?  Answer:  We'd get more election results like the one we just had.

See the stats here:     Prepare to be frightened.
"Talk Radio Listeners Liberal v Conservative"

Mobilizing Now for Media Reform!

 November 23, 2010
 
     There's been a shift in energy since the election, can you feel it?  It's like a big bright light bulb turned on and folks are, maybe for the first time, clearly seeing the media for what it is:  a threat.
     A threat to our communities, a threat to our children, a threat to our democracy. 
     Yes, no question, people are waking up.  I'm getting calls from all over the country from folks who are ready to mobilize to make broadcasters serve the public interest again (like they're supposed to.)
       So let's go!   Watch the Broadcast Blues trailer .  Read some of the pieces I've linked below.

       Get ready to get mad.  Get ready to be inspired.  Get ready to take action.

"Why Did Donna Brazile Use the F-word in Oprah's Magazine? Hint: Rush Limbaugh"  (note: this story made quite a splash recently, it went all the way to Forbes website.  It links to many of the stories below.)
"FCC Doesn't Need No Stinkin' Rules (But Murder By Radio Must Stop")
"Communications Act Redux"
"Hate Radio and the War on Immigration"
 "Save Talk Radio! Really?"
"Radio Speech is not Free Speech!"
"Putting the Public Back Into Public Interest Broadcasting" 
"Boycotting Beck on Fox News"
"Lessons From the Right: Obama Tries to Regain the Message"
"Talk Radio Rules Blue Dog States"
"It's War.  Media War."

Here's an Action Item that we're working on for next year.   There's much more, just surf this site.

          We the People are Taking the Media Back!

Mobilize Now for Media Reform!

 November 23, 2010
     There's been a shift in energy since the election, can you feel it?  It's like a big bright light bulb turned on and folks are, maybe for the first time, clearly seeing the media for what it is:  a threat.
     A threat to our communities, a threat to our children, a threat to our democracy. 
     Yes, no question, people are waking up.  I'm getting calls from all over the country from folks who are ready to mobilize to make broadcasters serve the public interest again (like they're supposed to.)
       So let's go!   Watch the Broadcast Blues trailer .  Read some of the pieces I've linked below.

       Get ready to get mad.  Get ready to be inspired.  Get ready to take action.

"Why Did Donna Brazile Use the F-word in Oprah's Magazine? Hint: Rush Limbaugh"  (note: this story made quite a splash recently, it went all the way to Forbes website.  It links to many of the stories below.)
"FCC Doesn't Need No Stinkin' Rules (But Murder By Radio Must Stop")
"Communications Act Redux"
"Hate Radio and the War on Immigration"
 "Save Talk Radio! Really?"
"Radio Speech is not Free Speech!"
"Putting the Public Back Into Public Interest Broadcasting" 
"Boycotting Beck on Fox News"
"Lessons From the Right: Obama Tries to Regain the Message"
"Talk Radio Rules Blue Dog States"
"It's War.  Media War."

Here's an Action Item that we're working on for next year.   There's much more, just surf this site.

          We the People are Taking the Media Back!

Talk Radio Listeners Liberal v Conservative

What would happen if one political party could control the message sent to 50 million Americans?  Answer:  We'd get more election results like the one we just had.

See the stats here:     Prepare to be frightened.
"Talk Radio Listeners Liberal v Conservative"

Mobilizing for Media Reform!

     There's been a shift in energy since the election, can you feel it?  It's like a big bright light bulb turned on and folks are, maybe for the first time, clearly seeing the media for what it is:  a threat.
     A threat to our communities, a threat to our children, a threat to our democracy. 
     Yes, no question, people are waking up.  I'm getting calls from all over the country from folks who are ready to mobilize to make broadcasters serve the public interest again (like they're supposed to.)
       So let's go!   Watch the Broadcast Blues trailer .  Read some of the pieces I've linked below.

       Get ready to get mad.  Get ready to be inspired.  Get ready to take action.

"Why Did Donna Brazile Use the F-word in Oprah's Magazine? Hint: Rush Limbaugh"  (note: this story made quite a splash recently, it went all the way to Forbes website.  It links to many of the stories below.)
"FCC Doesn't Need No Stinkin' Rules (But Murder By Radio Must Stop")
"Communications Act Redux"
"Hate Radio and the War on Immigration"
 "Save Talk Radio! Really?"
"Radio Speech is not Free Speech!"
"Putting the Public Back Into Public Interest Broadcasting" 
"Boycotting Beck on Fox News"
"Lessons From the Right: Obama Tries to Regain the Message"
"Talk Radio Rules Blue Dog States"
"It's War.  Media War."

Here's an Action Item that we're working on for next year.   There's much more, just surf this site.

          We the People are Taking the Media Back!

Are We Talking About the Same Trial?

November 20, 2010

Yesterday, the Bismarck Tribune finally ran a story about the verdict in the Long v North Dakota WSI trial.   The Jenny Michael article says, in part:
Long filed a lawsuit in September 2008 against the state of North Dakota, WSI and several officials involved in the agency, alleging he was terminated in violation of the state’s whistleblower protection law. The list of defendants eventually was whittled down to just the state and WSI.
Um... here is the list of the plaintiff, defendants, and their attorneys, as taken from court documents, and as posted on the courthouse bulletin board every day of the trial:
ATTY. FOR DEFENDANT BAKKE RANDALL BISMARCK ND
ATTY. FOR DEFENDANT ARMSTRONG MITCHELL D BISMARCK ND
ATTY. FOR PLAINTIFF TUNTLAND THOMAS MANDAN ND
DEFENDANT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
DEFENDANT WORKFORCE SAFETY AND INSURANCE
DEFENDANT BLUNT CHARLES
DEFENDANT HALVORSON JOHN
DEFENDANT WAHLIN TIM
DEFENDANT FORWARD ROB
DEFENDANT ANDERSON TAG
DEFENDANT INDVIK ROBERT
DEFENDANT GJOVIG MARK
PLAINTIFF LONG JAMES
EX-REL/A.K.A./F.K.A BLUNDT SANDY
Chad Nodland over at NorthDecoder.com tells me that this list of people were dismissed out of the case, but for some reason, the clerk has not removed their names.  (UPDATE: The Clerk of the Court just called and said ,"those individuals were dismissed out in January 2009 because they were acting in the scope of their employment."  So the Tribune was correct, and I regret the confusion.

Michael then writes: 
“The Risk Management Division and WSI are certainly satisfied with the jury verdict,” said Tag Anderson, director of the Risk Management Division, which deals with financial claims against the state.
It still is interesting to note that Tag Anderson was originally one of the defendants in the case.  And to note that WSI still has not responded to my request for a statement about the verdict.

Interesting, too, that reporter Michael dates Long's request for whistleblower protection as Friday, October 19, 2007.  That is actually the date that the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) executed a search warrant for WSI Communications Director Mark Armstrong's office, the same day Jim Long escorted BCI's Mike Quinn to conduct the search. (Long had, while answering questions to BCI on another matter, provided Quinn with Armstrong's diary, which referenced getting "the secret documents out." That is what triggered the search.)  Long filed his request for whistleblower protection the next day.  WSI's Sandy Blunt returned as CEO the following Monday, as his felony charges had been (temporarily) dropped; Blunt immediately created (he said recreated) a handwritten document of all the reasons he wanted Jim Long terminated.

Michael also writes,
Long, Kay Grinsteinner, the agency’s former internal auditor, Todd Flanagan, a former fraud investigator, Billi Peltz, former human resources director, and Jodi Bjornson, legal counsel for the agency, filed for whistleblower protection during the investigations at the agency.
Close, but not quite correct.  Bjornson filed a document that said she might want to file for whistleblower protection, but she didn't quite cross that line.    But when Michael writes this, she got it right:
Long, Grinsteinner, Flanagan and Peltz were fired from the agency, and Long, Grinsteinner and Flanagan sued for damages.
Grinsteinner and Flanagan settled their lawsuits for $10,000 each. Peltz did not file a lawsuit, and Bjornson still works at WSI.
I think the Tribune could provide a bit more clarity, don't you?  On Monday, please call the Bismarck Tribune and let them know you're paying attention. 

          Bismarck Tribune:  (701) 250-8247

If you value factual reporting, don't just sit there, get busy and complain!  (That's the only way we the people can demand the truth.) But wait until Monday for the regular staff and editors to be available.

More testimony still to input for your reading pleasure, check back next week.

PS  It is snowing today in Northern California, just in case you thought I went to the beach or something!

Let's Restore Real Reporting Back to News .......... (The Non-reporting of Long v WSI is Just the Tip of the Iceberg)

November 18, 2010

I spent the past two and one half weeks covering the whistleblower trial of James Long v State of North Dakota.  The reason I came to Bismarck (where I graduated from high school) to do this was because I became aware of intense local interest in this story.  Indeed, my website has gotten thousands of people reading it since I began this coverage. 
Yesterday, the jury rendered its verdict, and decided Mr. Long had not engaged in whistleblowing activities. (Please scroll below for full coverage.)  


As of this morning, I cannot find a single North Dakota "news" organization which is even mentioning the trial.  That, to me, is the single most disturbing aspect of this entire ordeal.  


For the record, I am a news person.  For more than twenty years, I have worked for CBS, PBS, and FOX television networks, and I've worked for NPR.  I write oped pieces on occasion for McClatchy News, and I frequently post opeds on the national blog, Huffington Post.   I have awards for news reporting from Associated Press, the Radio and Television News Directors Association, the Public Radio News Directors, and I have two Emmys to my credit.  Remember a few weeks back when there was a PR blitz about not flushing your prescription drugs down the john?  That advice came as a result of an EPA study that was conducted over a ten year period starting in 1999.  That study was conducted as a result of a national news story I did in 1998.   


I didn't have a horse in the Long v WSI race.  I don't know Mr. Long, and I don't know the defendants at WSI.  I tried to provide the most complete and unbiased coverage about this trial to the state of North Dakota that I could.  That's what reporters are supposed to do:  report the facts and let the chips fall where they may.


But the fact that local media ignored this story completely is telling.  It tells me they either have so few resources that they can no longer assign reporters to report on real local news, or it tells me they had their own bias, and chose to hush this story up. 


Either way, it's a sad day for We the People who depend on the press to shine a light on government affairs.


So, today, people of North Dakota, I am asking for your help in restoring real accountability to the news and to the government.  I am asking for your help in restoring facts to reporting, and to defining a clear line between news and opinion.  


There are two things I'm asking you to do.  First, take a bit of time to understand what's happened to our news over the past thirty years.  Let me please refer you to a story I did a few weeks back called 
"Why Did Donna Brazile Use the F-Word in Oprah's Magazine?  Hint: Rush Limbaugh"I've provided a ling to the Huffington Post version of the story, but you can find it on my blog, and this one became so popular it even hit Forbes.  It links to much of the writing I've done on this topic over the past year.


You'll also notice a link in the upper left corner of this website, which invites people to host screenings of Broadcast Blues.  Broadcast Blues is a film I made which connects the dots as to why our media has gone awry, and what We the People can do to take our media back.   The film has not been available for public screenings until just this week - a happy coincidence, I think!    


Will you please host a screening of this film?  Maybe in your local church or library, or maybe just in your living room.  There are many North Dakota stories in this film, but please understand that the implications are national.  Why is the country so divided?  Why do we shout at each other rather than listen to each other?  Why are facts being trivialized?  Why are news organizations ignoring real news - like the Long V ND trial?


I spent the past two and a half weeks on the WSI trial; I spent the past thirteen years on the larger issue of the media.  So how about it, North Dakota, will you work with me to really make a difference in this great country?


Thanks, North Dakota, I've enjoyed my time being back in my home state.   Special thanks to Chad Nodland over at NorthDecoder.com for his help in these past weeks and his commitment to bringing sunshine to North Dakota fifty two weeks a year.


Sue

Media First, Last and Always

Yes, I am covering the whistleblower trial of James Long v State of North Dakota, (scroll below for daily updates,) 

But Media Reform is my number one issue, so I am leading with that.  I'll change up articles every day or so... no new content, but maybe a few new ideas for you!
 
It is interesting to note that a lone man is taking on the entire state of North Dakota, that for a time, every law enforcement agency in the state excused themselves from conducting proper internal investigations, and that the local newspaper, the Bismarck Tribune, has not sent a reporter to the courtroom. 

Here's a link to a story about the last trial I covered.  It was Strange v Entercom.  Murder by Radio. This will make you mad.

FCC Doesn't Need No Stinking Rules... but "Murder by Radio" has Got to Stop!

North Dakota Press Ignores Long v North Dakota

Absolutely amazing...

A whistleblower is suing the state of North Dakota, and the newspaper in the state Capitol, the Bismarck Tribune, is not covering the story. 

Today's paper is covering three other trials:  Chandra Levy's, Tom Delay's, and Elizabeth Smart's.  But a trial that impacts local communities throughout the entire state? (Not to mention the fact the whistleblower and offending agency are right in Bismarck, reporters can walk to this trial...)

It's a sad day for journalism. 

Glad I am fighting the good fight.    More on the trial ... later today.

How the FCC Can Negate Citizens United

October 29, 2010

Because of the widely unpopular Citizens United decision by the Roberts' Supreme Court, which held that corporate funding of campaign ads cannot be limited under the First Amendment, this 2010 midterm election cycle is seeing five times more outside spending than occurred in the last midterm.  As noted in Bill Mann's Huffington Post piece, the real beneficiaries of all that spending are broadcasters  (broadcasters who have a legal obligation to serve the public interest.) 

"The people who are making most -- over 90%, by most estimates -- of the money from all the obnoxious and ubiquitous ads this fall have names unfamiliar to most people: Belo, Young Broadcasting, Cox, Fisher Broadcasting, Media General. And big names, of course, like ABC, Tribune, Gannett, NBC Universal."

But there are a lot of other names which are unfamiliar to most people, names like "American Crossroads." "America's Families First Action Fund."  "American Action Network." "Commonsense Ten." (These, according to the Washington Post, are among the biggest special interest group midterm spenders.)

That leads me to question the value of the current idea in Washington that by merely "disclosing" who is funding campaign ads, voters will somehow be able to separate fact from fiction.  As Meredith McGeeHee notes on the Campaign Legal Center blog,
"Congress should take heed of the Supreme Court’s 8-to-1 ruling in Citizens United in favor of disclosure, stating that such disclosure is not only constitutional, but is the expected and indeed necessary counter-balance to the new corporate right to expend unlimited funds in US elections.

"Justice Kennedy’s 8-1 majority Opinion stated on this point: 'The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.

"This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'”
The problem is that outside the Beltway, a majority of people who are watching local TV news peppered with campaign ads don’t even know who George Soros is.  Lindsay Lohan, yes, Dick Armey? Doubtful.  Really, just disclosing who paid for ads is no match for the magic of Madison Avenue Mad Men. 

So We the People are caught in a trap.  Elected officials spend 75% of their time doing what?  Fundraising.  Which means they are not spending their time doing the jobs we sent them to Washington to do.  Billions of dollars are being poured into candidates coffers – and you can bet special interest strings are attached.  And then – this is the kicker - most voters have no clue that televised ads can outright lie to voters.   (Yes, most people think that truth in advertising laws apply to political ads; they do not.)

Really, considering that broadcasters are only licensed if they serve the Public Interest, shouldn't the public be served somewhere in this equation?  Can't the FCC, as a condition of stations' licenses, require free airtime for debate or access to the publicly owned airwaves?

The answer is yes.  But as in every case of the public interest v the corporate line, it's an uphill battle.

McGeeHee said in an interview Wednesday that "an aggressive FCC, if it properly interprets public interest obligations, has enormous amounts of power to make broadcasts responsive to the political system."   But any FCC action would likely be challenged in court, and "the Roberts' Supreme Court, given Citizens United, will likely not look kindly at that.  Broadcasters will argue that this would essentially be the government controlling speech."

Well, who is controlling speech now?  Giant corporations who are in bed with broadcasters who, rather than serving the public interest, think they have a license to print money.  According to a 2002 FCC study, TV broadcasters are earning as much as 46 percent profits.   Although they argue
otherwise, they can provide real public service at election time and keep shareholders happy also.

Isn't it time the controlling agency, the FCC, defines and enforces the public interest obligations the broadcasters are mandated to follow?  Isn't it time for the public to get real free speech over their own airwaves?

And wouldn't Free Airtime essentially negate Citizens United?

President Obama, it's your FCC.  Make it work.

NPR Gets it Right!

October 22, 2010

Last week, after it was made public that NPR had ordered its reporters not to attend any political rallies, including the upcoming John Stewart "Rally to Restore Sanity," my inbox was filled with disgust from liberals.  This rule, they felt, violated the reporters' right to free speech.

This week, after NPR dismissed Juan Williams for giving his opinion on Fox News regarding Muslims, my inbox is filled with disgust from Conservatives.  They too believe that NPR is violating its former reporter Williams' right to free speech.  (Interesting to note that upon Williams' firing, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint immediately started calling for federal defunding of NPR; they were silent after the earlier NPR missive.)

Both the liberals and the conservatives are missing the point.  National Public Radio is taking the correct stand to preserve journalism.  Reporters have their own opinions and biases, of course; we all do.  But if one is going to be an analyst for one of the largest and most respected news organizations in the country, it is important to remain emotionally detached and neutral.   It means analyzing news, not offering personal opinions in the public arena - of any kind, at any time.  Williams clearly crossed that line, and had been forewarned by NPR for years about so doing.

So far, NPR is the only news organization which has made this fundamental stand for journalism.  They deserve our support.


Full Disclosure:  I worked with Sacramento's NPR station, "Capital Public Radio" for six years until I embarked on making a documentary film that blows the whistle on broadcasting, "Broadcast Blues."   Station management was always very careful to present both sides of the story and to follow CPB guidelines for fairness and equal time. (Because NPR receives public funding, they are required to follow rules very similar to the old Fairness Doctrine - see story below.)  At this point, I do not believe NPR would allow me to report for them;  I clearly have a point of view.

And that's okay.  Facts are facts, opinions are opinions (although mine are at least based in fact.) But news organizations do their audience a public service by building a clear firewall between the two.

Bravo to NPR for taking the correct stand.  Let's hope more do.

Great NYTimes article on this topic:
   http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/nprs-schiller-says-juan-williams-was-fired-because-of-ethics-guidelines/

Why Did Donna Brazile Use the F-word in Oprah's Magazine?

October 16, 2010


In the October issue of O magazine, the DCCC's Donna Brazile did the unthinkable:  she used the "F" word - in Oprah Winfrey's publication, no less.  Eyebrows are being raised across the political spectrum.

Okay, not that "F" word, but one that is far more controversial:  Brazile says her top priority is to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine." She says she'd like to require "holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in an honest, equitable, and balanced fashion."

To the uninitiated, bringing Fairness to the public airwaves – radio and TV - is a no-brainer.  But to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and an army of 550,000 amassed to keep the nation's radio airwaves under "Conservative" control, this could be a call to arms.  Is it possible that the Democratic establishment is finally ready for a fight to take control of their message?

Okay, time for a bit of history. 

Our elders will remember a time when radio was America's number one source of news and information.   And they remember being horrified at how Tokyo Rose and our enemies used the radio to promote hate and propaganda. 

So they watched as the Federal Communications Commission and radio station owners worked together to prevent propaganda from ever being broadcast in these United States of America.  This coaltion of government and business put the "Fairness Doctrine" in place to ensure a healthy, reasoned discourse so critical to our democracy. 

The thing is, radio is still America's number one source of news and information.   . More people listen to radio than watch television, read newspapers, or go online.   Nearly fifty million people in the U.S. listen to talk radio.

But Fairness?  Equal Time? Reasoned discourse?  Those went out the window in 1987 with – drumroll, please – President Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was, of course, a consummate media man.  Not simply the star of B movies like "Bedtime for Bonzo," Reagan also hosted television's "GE Theater."  The so-called "Great Communicator" then went on to become President of the Screen Actors Guild, profiting from programs while robbing actors of royalties.  

More than any president before or since, Reagan understood the power of TV and radio.  So it's no coincidence that President Ronald Reagan, by fiat, eliminated fairness in broadcasting.  He knew what would happen if one side – his side – could control the message. 

(It's interesting to note that after Reagan's action, both houses of Congress immediately passed bills – co-sponsored by Newt Gingrich - to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  But both Reagan and George Bush the First vetoed those bills.  For the 2009 documentary film I made on this topic, "Broadcast Blues," Gingrich refused to answer questions about why he's changed his tune.  No great surprise: put simply, Gingrich must understand that Republicans can win elections only if they can control Radio.) 

And control it they do, and not just by promoting unfair one-sided propaganda and hate to the exclusion of all other ideas (and facts.)  In 1996, Republicans passed an Act of Congress so a few pro-GOP corporations could own all the nation's radio stations to spread their lies.   By 2007, according to a Free Press /Center for American Progress study, 90% of talk radio was conservative; that study was done before the downfall of Air America Radio, so it's likely that today 95% of the country has no opportunity to hear a progressive or Democratic message.   

Think about that.  Just five percent of the nation can hear the Democratic message on the most dominant form of media in the country.  Small wonder that Democrats have been complaining they can't get their message out; they don’t have access to the microphones. 

This paradigm is not about ratings.  I've debunked that theory  both in Broadcast Blues and McClatchy's Sacramento Bee, only to draw the ire of Rush Limbaugh.  (Wish I had his microphone.)  And it is not accidental.  According to former right wing author turned conservative misinformation critic David Brock of Media Matters, the "Conservative Movement" is lying to the country intentionally.  

It's created a culture shift, especially in midwestern and Blue Dog states.  For example, in what was once Gephardt country, former Missouri Democrats turned Republican now hush progressive views in local meetings from AA to the PTA.   The fictional oral history promoted by Talk Radio has turned into group think;  group think has turned into Tea Parties. 

So why is Brazile starting to talk about the Fairness Doctrine? 

Perhaps because there are only three ways to restore true fairness and balance to the publicly owned radio airwaves. 

First, local communities could challenge stations' licenses through the FCC.  There is a movement going on to do just that,  but it's not likely to work on issues of talk radio, at least not yet.

Congress could rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act  so persons – corporate or real -  can own only 40 stations nationwide, as they did in 1995, rather than 1200, as they can today.  Any bets on that happening, especially if Republicans take control of Congress? 

Or President Obama could take a cue from the Reagan administration and bring back elements of the Fairness Doctrine:  Equal Time, no personal attacks, free airtime for political candidates, local community programming.  Imagine what that would do for democracy.  (Imagine the outcry from the Conservative Elite!  That's what scaring Dems so.)

One thing is certain:  We the People are ready to do battle on this issue.

Democrats, are you?


--------------------
Shameless plug:  I'm coordinating a new effort to empower communities to hold local radio and TV stations accountable by challenging their licenses.  Please vote here to bring this session to Free Press' National Media Reform Conference!

Thank You for Voting for Real Media Reform!

Thanks to you, my suggested session for the Free Press National Media Reform Conference, "Empowering Local Communities by Holding the FCC Accountable" received the most votes in the competition in the Politics and Policy track!  This means it is very likely that we will be holding this panel, which is the first step to reminding the FCC who they work for:  We the People. 
     We will focus on creating a national, managed, publicized means of challenging broadcasters' licenses nationwide, working with existing regional media reform groups and Community TV and Radio.  It will be a brainstorming session to bring interested parties and funders together to create a new FCC Empowerment Project which will truly put the Public Interest back ahead of the corporate interest in broadcasting.
     We will use the case of the Sacramento Entercom station which killed a mother of three in a reckless water drinking contest as the initial case; that will garner nationwide publicity and will pressure the FCC to act in removing KDND's license. 
     The FCC has ignored We the People for long enough; it is time to get their attention on this critical issue of broadcast licenses.  Don't forget, stations get licenses for free - only if they serve the Public Interest. 
     Please see the Murder by Radio story - below on this blog - to learn why this case is so important. 
The full list of proposed sessions can be found here, see what other sessions are likely to be in the April Conference: http://agenda.freepress.net/

We the People are Taking the Media Back!

THANK YOU AGAIN!  

FCC Doesn't Need No Stinking Rules.................... but "Murder by Radio" has Got to Stop!

September 7, 2010

Wow.   The FCC just fined a radio station $4,000 for getting a date wrong in some radio contest rules.  If that infraction is worth four grand, whatever will  the FCC do to the
station which killed someone because it failed to give contestants any rules at all?

Will the FCC find that such a 'murder-by-radio' did not, in fact, serve the "public interest" which broadcasters are supposed to uphold in exchange for their free license to use our public airwaves?

DJs at Nassau Broadcasting's WWEG-FM, "106.9 The Eagle" in Myerson, MD had broadcast rules that a Father's Day contest would be open "through June 13, 2008." But the contest actually ended June 12, apparently depriving would be contestants of their right to enter. Two years later, the FCC is punishing WWEG for violation of Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules, which state that broadcast licensees must "fully and accurately disclose the material terms" of any contests that it conducts, and "conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised."

Okay. Let's now contrast that swift accountability in the public's interest, against what happened when Sacramento's Entercom Communications station, KDND, the unfortunately nicknamed "107.9 The End", didn't follow its own rules when it ran a water drinking contest which resulted in the January 2007 death of a mother of three, Jennifer Strange. This is a case where a jury found the station liable for Strange's death, awarding her family more than $16 million, even as the corporation who has been granted the broadcast license has yet to face a single sanction from the FCC…

Upon reading comments about the award, I find that public opinion is leaning heavily against the family; most people seem to think that Jennifer was stupid for drinking two gallons of water, and is responsible for her own death. Of course, most people did not sit through the trial. I did. Here's what really happened…

It was bad enough that just a month before they sponsored the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest, the "Morning Rave" DJs went on the air and made fun of the death of Matthew Carrington. Carrington was a 21 year old college student at Chico State who died in a fraternity hazing incident from - guess what? Drinking too much water. "Water Intoxication," they call it.

Even on the fateful morning of the Wii contest, "Morning Rave" host Trish Sweet said ,"Can't you get water poisoning and like, die?" To which Peter Inzerillo (gag guy "Fester") started talking about "that poor kid who died," only to be cut off by the other on-air hosts. (Contestants were sequestered in the lunchroom and were not allowed to hear those remarks, or the listeners calling in to warn the on-air personalities of the pending danger of hyponatremia.)

So the DJs clearly knew they were promoting a dangerous stunt; they just did not bother to tell the contestants of the danger. And so the issue of "contest rules" became the lynch-pin of Plaintiff attorney Roger Dreyer's case.

See, KDND had a release form, and it also had contest rules, but those two documents were not the same. When contestants walked into Entercom's lobby that cold January 2007 morning, they were handed a generic "Release for All Claims Including Personal Injury" form to sign, which was so vague that the judge instructed the jury that under California law, that document was insufficient to constitute a waiver.

But Promotions Director Robin Pechota had drafted a set of contest rules that said "participants acknowledge participation may be hazardous and involve physical contact." That set of rules, however, was kept hidden. Station manager Steve Weed testified he'd never considered giving rules which actually spelled out hazards of the contest - to the contestants.

Those rules also indicated that contestants would drink eight ounces of water every fifteen minutes. (Last one to hold their wee - wins!) Problem was, too many people were holding their wee, and the morning drive program was scheduled to end, so the DJs (and possibly the promotions department) took it on themselves to change the rules, more than doubling the amount of water contestants would drink. This, they reasoned, would get people peeing much quicker, and the contest would end while their show was still on the air.

Trouble is, eight ounces of water every fifteen minutes is considered safe; twice that amount is deadly.

You would think they would have figured that out as contestant after contestant fell ill, suffering severe headaches and vomiting into wastebaskets, all while the callous KDND staff took their pictures. Even after the contest, when Mrs. Strange told the Morning Rave crew she was too ill to drive home, they abandoned her to the station's lobby.

She did drive home, then died alone in her house a few hours later.

Oh yes, then there was the rule that in any contest involving physicality, medical personnel be present. None were.

This is a case where radio contest rules really mattered.

So if getting a date wrong in a radio contest rule is worth $4,000, what's this reckless violation of the public trust --- one that resulted in the actual death of a contestant --- worth? How about stripping KDND of its broadcast license? In theory, broadcasters get licensed only if they serve the "public interest;" surely there was no public interest being served in this case resulting in the death of one of its listeners who participated in one of its on-air contests.

FCC rules say there must be a pattern of activity to strip a broadcaster of its license. Does that mean KDND will have to become a serial killer to pay the ultimate price?

FCC, we the people are watching you closely on this one.

Full coverage of the Strange v Entercom trial is at www.suewilsonreports.com  

Florida: Weak Election Audits Only, Thank You.

August 5, 2010

In Sarasota, Florida today, a four year long battle over real election accountability has come to a bitter end.   

Way back in January, 2006,  Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections started gathering petitions to qualify a charter amendment to appear on the November ballot, calling for paper ballots and mandatory audits of those ballots to verify proper functioning of voting machines within Sarasota County. They succeeded, but in August 2006, the battle began: Sarasota County Commissioners, the Supervisor of Elections, and the Florida Secretary of State joined together to file a lawsuit against SAFE, positing that the measure conflicted with state law and therefore their election accountability measure should not appear on Sarasota's ballot.  SAFE won that case in September 2006, the referendum went on the ballot, and the measure easily passed with the help of voters of all political parties.

Current Florida law allows for only two percent of precincts to be audited, and the audit could apply to as little as only one item on the ballot.  (And that's only after election results had been certified, when it's too late to change the results.)   

Sarasota County's charter measure put real teeth into election accountability:  it required an audit of 5 percent of precincts to be completed before certification.   The audit was to be performed independently, and would include every item on the ballot.  

But in the land of hanging chads, state election officials challenged the will of the voters in a protracted court fight which went all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.  The good news for voters was that in February of this year, the high court decided in favor of Sarasota's rigorous election audits.

But lawmakers, spurred on by election officials, went back to the drawing board, and in April, just two days before the end of the legislative session, passed a sweeping elections bill, preempting counties from having more rigorous election standards than the state.  Again a court battle ensued, again a ruling issued, this time by Circuit Judge Charles Roberts, who this time sided with the state.

Today, Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections decided to throw in the towel over its court case, but met with the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners to get the Commission to adopt a resolution calling for continuing use of voter verified paper ballots for all voters of Sarasota County (as long as they are approved by the Florida Secretary of State.)  The commission voted to move forward on SAFE's request.

SAFE President Kindra Muntz says only the battleground for safer Florida voting  has changed, and that the group will now focus on changing state law to provide for more rigorous voting audits for all of Florida.  "We suffered a setback when the State gave all powers over elections to itself in HB131, but we must press on for verified elections statewide, to preserve democracy in Florida and in this country. Voters need to know their votes count as cast. We need meaningful audits of ballots vs. machine counts at the very least. Democracy can't function with computerized voting and internet voting with no hard copy ballots.  To what anonymous programmer will we be pledging allegiance?"

SAFE is expanding its efforts to call for state and national legislation regarding paper ballots and mandatory audits of machines. 62% of states in the U.S. do require voter verified paper records; 36% require audits.

Hate Radio and the War on Immigration

 July 26, 2010

     Unless the courts prevent it, the contentious Arizona immigration law Senate Bill 1070, which gives police power to racially profile people of color, will go into effect Thursday, July 29.  Both friends and foes of the law are girding for battle, and the war of words is escalating.  Language from opponents of the law like the Border Action Network, which plans protests and acts of civil disobedience in Arizona and across the country, is measured: they promise "civic engagement campaigns all over the state encouraging people to register to vote and to vote by mail." The language from SB1070 supporters, however, is more virulent: a press release from Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project states they are rushing a delegation of lawmakers to the border. "We will be accompanied by armed Minutemen. Our guests are appraised of the situation and have made additional safety arrangements as well. The day of picnics and ice cream at the border is over," says Gilchrist. 

     Anti-immigrant rhetoric is ramping up on the public airwaves as well.  On July 10, Arizona Republican Sheriff Paul Babeu told listeners of the openly "pro-white" Political Cesspool radio show they should apply for his department's "posse" program.  (It is worth noting that, according to research from Media Matters,  Babeu has appeared at least 18 times to promote the controversial law on Fox News, while two Arizona border sheriffs who spoke out against the law have never been invited to appear.)  The Clear Channel radio station in Columbus, Ohio has been running the following contest:"610 WTVN would like to send you where Americans are proud and illegals are scared, sunny Phoenix, Arizona! You'll spend a weekend chasing aliens and spending cash in the desert, just make sure you've got your green card! Win round trip airfare to Phoenix, hotel accommodations, and a few pesos in spending cash." Rush Limbaugh, predictably prevaricating on 600 radio stations, has targeted Flagstaff's City Council for their opposition to the law, resulting in death threats to council members.  The list of hate radio rhetoric goes on and on and on.

     Perhaps that's why Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) at the recent Netroots Nation convention (aimed at the progressive blogosphere) in Las Vegas told me he is targeting the media as a significant factor in the escalating war over immigration reform.  "You've got Dobbs, you've got Beck...  Dobbs for six to seven years has consistently been demonizing every immigrant as a criminal."  Talk radio falsehoods such as increased border crime and beheadings in the desert are typical.  "When people think that is 'news,' it's a problem," Grijalva says. "We're closed out of that media.  There is no equal time."

     The issue of media consolidation was a theme at the convention. Sen. Al Franken, (D-MN), told the audience in his keynote, "Resisting this trend towards media consolidation, resisting attacks on net neutrality – we should throw ourselves behind these causes with the same energy and urgency that we showed in 2006 and 2008."  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV),  echoed those sentiments, deriding media consolidation and encouraging the bloggers to fight for net neutrality and "keep calling out the Right Wing on misinformation."

     Tuscon Congressman Grijalva brought up Congress' rewrite of the Communications Act as a needed solution to the media misinformation problem.  The 1996 rewrite of the Act deregulated radio ownership, changing the rule which capped radio ownership at 40 stations per person (corporate or otherwise,) and allowing companies like Clear Channel to buy unlimited numbers of radio stations.  (Clear Channel snapped up 1200 stations at the time, and programmed most of them with "Conservative" Talk Radio.)  The current rewrite, led by Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Rockefeller (D-WV) and Reps. Waxman (D-CA)  and Boucher (D-VA), is mainly focusing on issues of net neutrality and broadband.  "As we struggle with the Communications Act," say Grijalva, "it's all about new media.  We need to take this opportunity to fix what's wrong with old media."

Immigration Reform: A Victim of Misinformation?

                                                                                                                                           July 10, 2010

A diverse group of conservative, mainly Republican religious leaders are touring the country in support of comprehensive immigration reform.  Their goal:  to target Republicans who can be convinced that immigration reform is a moral imperative. 

In a conference call Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform held Wednesday in Miami, moderator Juan Hernandez said their group has been meeting privately on the Hill with Republicans in the House and Senate who said they needed President Obama to pave the way for reform.  Now that the President has made his speech on immigration, pressure is racheting up on both sides of the aisle.

Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) said that a bipartisan working group in the House has developed a bill that calls for increased resources at the border,  employer sanctions, and an earned path to a green card.  Diaz-Balart says that if the House were to pass the bill, it would provide arguments for the Senate, but says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refuses to bring the bill to a floor vote.  "The speaker - who has the ear of the President, needs to allow a vote."

Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the working group includes some "heavy hitters" on both sides of the aisle, but noted that when he met with Pelosi, the Speaker said Democratic House members are not willing to put their seats on the line when a bill would face almost certain defeat in the Senate.

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, says Republicans are divided between their short term objectives for 2010 and their long term objectives for 2012.  "The Tea Party may win 2010 , but lose in 2012.  A tea party without chips and salsa is no party at all."

Rev. Guillermo Maldonado, Senior Pastor of El Rey Jesus, the largest church in Miami,  blames misinformation for the divide, saying that many Republicans falsely believe
that Hispanics want open borders and amnesty.  "I believe there's no good information to them.  This is what most Hispanic leaders are talking about."