Puzzle me this - why does a 24% Republican miniority have the same sway with the press

[ThomWV]

as they did when they were a 60% majority?

You would think that with their shrinking numbers you'd see shrinking public influence, but that does not seem to be the case in the media or the press. They are covered as if every issue was a a 50/50 split.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Maybe just a matter

of the number who are active which may not necessarily have diminished much. :shrug:

[L. Coyote]

24. of how they still OWN the same media as before, unless of course the media is a front

for the government, like CIA front companies!! They act like it.

[pnutbutr]

2. fair and balanced

[Lorien]

3. No fairness doctrine, so the corporate agenda is still being pushed

by those that own the media. The country has never been "center-right" on the issues either, but without the Fairness Doctrine they aren't required to give us the truth.

[KittyWampus]

7. you realize that the "Fairness Doctrine" did nothing more than require a few minutes a day be given

to an opposing viewpoint?

The problem is media consolidation.

[Lorien]

14. I lived with the Fairness Doctrine for years, so I know EXACTLY what it did

media consolidation is not the big issue; break it up, and the ones that will buy the pieces will be every bit as corrupt. There are plenty of banking institutions. How many honorable banks are out there?

A "few minutes"? Hardly. Let's make this clear:

News reporting today:

"Some say that the so called Fairness Doctrine created a police state that curtailed our first amendment rights to free speech"

News reporting when the Fairness Doctrine was enforced:

"Republicans say that the Fairness doctrine curtails free speech, while Democrats maintain that the Fairness Doctrine is needed to restore balance to opinion in the mainstream media, where conservative voices dominate the airwaves. John Doe from the independent non partisan think tank says " our research into this issue does indicate that there has been a substantial narrowing of opinion in the mainstream media since President Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Conservative opinions on the issues are now voiced nine times as often as more left leaning opinions on both network and cable outlets. The voice of the left is nearly nonexistent on talk radio in most markets, with left wing commentators making up less than 10% of the market share. It is possible that by limiting the Left's access to the media the Right has profited politically over the past 22 years".

Another difference between then and now; political opinion was labeled as such. If Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann read a news story about a woman giving birth to eight children nothing would change. If either went into a tirade about how irresponsible the mother was the word "opinion" or "editorial" would appear somewhere on the screen. Back in 1949 the FCC did understand that television and radio were powerful mediums that do have the capability helping to form public opinion. The fairness doctrine was enacted to ensure that these forms of communication would not become propaganda tools for a single party or group. The FCC understood that it was important to differentiate between FACT and OPINION. Most news programming was broken into two segments; the FACTUAL reporting (see the sample, above) which attempted to present as many sides of a story as possible, as factually as possible, and the EDITORIAL segment; usually at the end of the news hour in which different commentators were given a few minutes to voice their views on a news item while the word "opinion" or "editorial" was left on the screen (usually below the commentator or in the upper right hand side of the screen). This reminded viewers that they were watching a biased take on the news-something that would not even occur to most self proclaimed "dittoheads" today.

Many here maintain that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is not needed as long as media monopolies are broken up. While most here would agree that monopolies have caused us harm, it is also important to remember that corporations have historically not done a very good job of policing themselves. Witness the current economic crisis; many different banking institutions of all sizes were involved, and they all engaged in questionable practices because that's simply how business was being done. Bottom line; they could get away with it. Corporate entities will always align themselves with political parties or candidates who will promise deregulation, union busting, lack of environmental oversight and the like, so they cannot be expected to give fair and equal time to those who do not promote their corporations agenda. Like banks, the media requires a bit of oversight. Had it not been for that oversight during the Vietnam war it's hard to say how much longer the war would have dragged on; pressure from the public put an end to the madness. Had the Fairness Doctrine existed during the build up to the iraq invasion would it have been allowed to proceed? Voices were raised against it here and around the world, but were they heard by mainstream Americans? If not, do we still have free speech, or are we all relegated to "free speech zones" where only our neighbors can hear us? The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine muzzled those who would speak against corporate interests, and the results of this censorship has been devastating.

[lib2DaBone]

17. A great question and a concise answer. Thank You.

I'm glad someone out there has "got it". You must have worked in the media? God Bless.

I wonder.. is there any willpower remaining from any of of our CONgress persons, to go back to the Communications Act of 1934 and start enforcing the Law? (We can only hope)

I lost my job of 20 years at the beginning of Clear Channel back in 1990. (Stations were bought and sold every couple of months) and Public Service became a joke on the lips of Roger Ailes.

Today I look at the current crop of "Newsies" out there.. and I just want to puke. David Gregory, Bill Hemner, Laura Ingram, David Brooks, Tucker Carlson. Is it any wonder we don't get any real "News"? I nominate Ron Christie for 6 o'clock Anchor.. a very handsome man.

Then again.. thank god for Rachel Maddow, Keith Oberman, Amy Goodman. (I was a BIG fan of Molly Ivins.. miss her dearly)

I hope somewhere in America people wake up and realize that the airwaves are "Public Property".. not the playground of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. Unless we restore the Fairness Doctrine... we are truly "screwed".

[Lorien]

22. Thank you! I'm saddened that Walter Cronkite has no heir

I don't want conservative or liberal anchors; I just want the news-as much of the story as possible-presented in as unbiased a fashion as possible. Yes, I've worked for one of the major media owners and I have many friends in the news industry. One of them is the news director for a local PBS station and she honestly does her very best to be as unbiased as possible...but the managers at PBS are all Republicans so they insist that she isn't too hard on the GOP. I can't imagine that she would have ever have been able to have done a real investigative story on election fraud, for instance. As the airwaves are public property the public-all of us- SHOULD be fairly represented. It's very disheartening to me that those who grew up during or after Reagan just don't get it. They swallow the GOP talking points on this issue and regurgitate them every time the Fairness Doctrine is mentioned. They've become unknowing soldiers for the power elite because they honestly don't understand the issue.

[KittyWampus]

27. That was "concise"? It didn't address the FACT that the Fairness Doctrine did nothing to address

the matter of equal time.

The Fairness Doctrine as it actually existed only required a few minutes a day.

That's it.

No matter how many words the other poster wants to devote to their own opinion and ramblings.

Furthermore, if we are going to forgo actual facts about what the Fairness Doctrine actually was- Alan Combes proved that if you mandate equal time any media outlet can easily find a punching bag.

[Lorien]

30. Read up. The Fairness Doctrine WAS about equal time

do a little research and educate yourself...oh wait, a couple of paragraphs is too much to digest. Guess that you'll just have to stick to non factual sound bytes from Fox news instead. :eyes:

[KittyWampus]

26. your long winded reply still avoids the FACT that the Fairness Doctrine only required a few minutes

a day given to an alternate viewpoint, as I stated.

And as far as your opinions go, Alan Combes proves just how useless trying to enforce an updated "Fairness Doctrine" would be. Even if you mandate that every media outlet provide equal hours to the day to Left/Right, you can always find a tool. Want another example? Harold Ford.

[Lorien]

29. No, you are ignoring the FACT that it was about EQUAL time

just how young are you? Do you honestly have NO MEMORY of the difference the Fairness Doctrine made in the news media? Why are you such a willing soldier for the Right Wing and their corporate masters?

[Echo In Light]

4. This is the strategic framework used by the M$M: present 2 sides, BOTH right-wing, w/one as moderate

That way it sends the signal to the public mind: this far, and no further. It makes either 'side' (which is actually just ONE side) appear no more credible than the other. Clearly this is a preferred tactic of a media apparatus that is anything but "watchdog."

It likewise prevents genuine progressive/liberal/leftist views and ideas from even being considered, so that when people are exposed to them from some marginalized source, those views/ideas seem WEIRD ... and being terrified of what others may think of them, many will avoid that label at any cost.

[Johonny]

25. I think it's more than that

They were showing in Obama's first month more Republicans had interviews than democrats by a pretty wide margin on almost all of TV news. They simply get more than the roughly 50/50 split you would expect from side/side television. I think it has to do with Republican ideas being very simple and very lock and step. This makes for very easy TV. The MSM for the most part doesn't do reporting, does almost no fact checking and it's clear most of these programs anchors don't understand the topics they are presenting. For them the Republican side will always be easier to report on.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Because the handful of Big Boss OWNERS of the M$M are die hard GOP Robber Barons of the 21st Century

Unfortunately we have "an intelligent and accommodating guy" (Third Way? :( ) instead of someone to give the FILTHY RICH GHOULS the boot OUT of power to run our Government.

We need another FDR. Until then, the rich will get FILTHY RICHER and the rest of us will fight over the scraps.

The M$M is the mouthpiece and propaganda arm for The Ruling Elites ... they "manufacture consent" and give us unwashed masses "bread and circuses."

Until THE PEOPLE get poor and angry enough it's like stealing candy from a baby, i.e., the rich fleecing the middle and working classes TO INCLUDE having them fighting all their "for profit" WARS. :grr:

[blm]

12. the fascists didn't buy control of broadcast media in the 80s and 90s for nothing...

.

[surrealAmerican]

6. It's very simple, really.

That 24% just happens to include their bosses.

[Echo In Light]

8. On the upshot, there's actually been a lot of headway in this topic once deemed a conspiracy theory

It apparently took the blatant, brazen media cover ups and mass deceptions of the Bushco era ... but at least many more now realize how the M$M works, and who it works for and what it works against

[BlooInBloo]

9. Fair & Balanced = Affirmative action for republicans.

[madrchsod]

10. "money,money,money, it`s always sunny, in a rich`s man`s world"

[Mr. Ected]

11. I Had the Same Question

How is it that the media continues to fawn on the Republicans after they've long since been marginalized?

I thought that the media was only interested in showing a profit.

How in God's name is preaching to the minority a profitable venture??

[stubtoe]

13. Maybe eventually they'll figure it out.

In the meantime they're clinging to the notion of being "opinion shapers".

[Lorien]

15. Simple. They want to form opinion. That's why Reagan did away with the

Fairness Doctrine. This is NOT just about ratings and ad revenue. If it were, Air America would be in every market. Reagan knew that the Right's positions on the issues were unpopular. The only way to create mass acceptance of unpopular ideas was to muzzle and marginalize the voice of the Left. If one opinion dominates and is repeated often enough, people will accept it as the Truth. This is about power, deregulation, ownership and the "culture wars", which ultimately are a bigger prize than ratings.

[The Gunslinger]

16. They own the press

and the rest of the media.

[chollybocker]

18. They ARE the 24% percenters

and they like to play with themselves on television.

[spanone]

19. if they played like it was 3 to 1, nobody would watch. it wouldn't be a horserace

just like the election....they played it like it was close


it was a mandate

[TheMachineWins]

20. The media sells their propaganda by pushing "tension"

The tension is created by having 2 conflicting sides, regardless of the legitimacy of 1 of the sides or the legitimacy of the very premise; the fight is being sold, not the ideas. It's pure propaganda, so escalated in scale that many people don't even recognize it as a big lie.

[Kievan Rus]

21. Because they have most of the $ in this society

Money talks. Most wealthy people are conservative Republicans.

[anonymous171]

23. Class bias. nt

[SoCalDem]

28. They never WERE a 60% majority.. They were never more than the dirty-30

Look at the anti-Clintonites during impeachment.. it always hovered about 30%...BUT their saturation in media has been OVER-represented for THREE DECADES, and with no oppositional voice, the appearance of majority was all they needed..

They are the puffer-fishes of politics..

Media moguls are republican, their sponsors are republican (for the most part)..Media is , first and foremost, a BUSINESS..

Republicansism is ALL about repeating the lie, and then repeating the lie, and then repeating the lie, so when they SAY they are a majority, or we are a 50-50 nation or we are a christian nation, or that "most people" think this or that, it's just their puffer-fish routine....but unfortunately, a LOT of people sit out, when it comes to politics, and many others are gullible, so that's how we end up where we are:(

[QueenOfCalifornia]

31. It's the money

the Rupert Murdoch's of the world (all 3 or 4 of them) control the media... and they want big business to kill us all off so they can look down from their McMansions and not have to see any of the little people...

It's the money.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. They own the media

It is that simple

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Jennicut]

34. Cause most of em are filthy stinking rich and the other half are stupid.

I count my poor dear lovely parents in the stupid part. I love them but boy are they brainwashed by Rush and Glen Beck. The rich ones control the media.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

38. You need to

take your parents radios away. Have Fox News blocked (use the little kid blocking feature.)

Now.

[Jennicut]

40. LOL. They are 61. Maybe in twenty years they would not notice that. I endure Faux news when I go

over there. They are the nicest people. Wonderful Grandparents to my little girls. But low taxes and small govt. is all they care about. At least my 87 year old Grandma voted for Obama.

[redqueen]

35. The M$M is in bed with the enemy. Has been for nearly a century.

Seriously... anyone who thinks they're genuinely only trying to serve the public interest is only deluding themselves.

[dysfunctional press]

36. because what passes for modern journalism is just another business...

and republicans(and to a quickly growing degree, democrats) are the party of business.

we'll start to see more parity in the coverage as more and more democrats get on board with the program and learn how to play ball like the big boys. or something like that.

[BoneDaddy]

37. Easy

The media love a good fight and have to keep the conflict between ideologies going.

[redqueen]

39. Apparently people are still not seeing this...

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press... They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. "An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917