Obama, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News

[SHRED]

---

Lying on the public airwaves and misleading millions on critical issues is considered "free speech" when in reality it is speech that reduces and enslaves people's analytical thought processes down to gutter, hate filled, knee-jerk emotionalism.

---

Published on Thursday, November 13, 2008 by The Huffington Post
Obama, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News: A Look at Media in 2009

by Josh Silver

Ask just about any public interest advocate concerned about the dismal state of media and journalism, and they will tell you that Obama's media policy platform is excellent: the beginning of what could be the most public interest friendly administration in presidential history. Part of this optimism stems from Obama's understanding that Internet and technology are the cornerstone of a 21st century economy and society. Another part comes from the competence and integrity of the media and telecom advisors working on his transition team. And another comes from his direct experience.

Obama-the-candidate commented several times that voters' false views of him -- that he's a Muslim, a socialist and unpatriotic -- were fed and spread by Fox News and their cohorts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham in the far-right media. Obama understands that they are the special sauce in Karl Rove's toxic recipe to discredit progressive policies and politicians, and divide Americans with wedge issues.

~SNIP~

Olbermann and Maddow's increased popularity is moving the range of debate on cable from center-right to left-right, but radio is still overwhelmingly right-wing, and the changes at MSNBC fall far short of a comprehensive, long-term solution to thecrisis of journalism. Newsroom layoffs mount across television, radio and newspapers, and omission has become the greatest threat. There is virtually no in-depth coverage and analysis on television of Iraq and Afghanistan, poverty, the environment and the other critical issues facing working Americans. And despite the explosion of the Internet, 45% of American homes still have no high speed Internet, while some 65% of Americans still cite TV as their primary news source.

~SNIP~

Take a walk through rural Ohio as I did this Election Day, and working-class voters are watching Fox, reading empty newspapers running on a bare-bones staff, and listening to radio's right-wing hate-fest. In today's media environment, we must face the fact that if not for the financial crisis and a disastrous GOP vice-presidential pick, this election might well have been McCain's.

CONTINUED:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/13-6

--

[randr]

1. We need more teeth in libel laws

Free speech can not be stifled. Lies can be.
Political candidates should have the right to sue and there should be criminal consequences for lying. The sort of bullshit spewed daily by these anti-American facists pollutes our political dialog and threatens our democracy.
If one of these ideologues want to brand candidates with lies they need to be held accountable.
The lies on Faux news throughout, and especially in the days preceding the election, where akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded public space.
Call them on the bullshit with real libel laws that threaten their well being and see how fast they shut their clammy mouths up.

[mwooldri]

6. Agreed... Libel laws need teeth over here.

Over in the UK it's far easier but then maybe too easy. One TV celebrity took newspapers to court for libel because they said he was going to retire.

Mark.

[lib2DaBone]

2. We have anti-trust laws already in place...we need to use them.

We need to use the RICO Statutes and Anti-Trust to stop the media cartels. No more Clear Channel Radio. No more Fox News. Monopolies in any other sector would have been attacked long ago... yet the Republicans are allowed to control the news media.

It must stop!

[clear eye]

5. I usually believe in determined reform, but

in this case POLITICIANS WILL NEVER, NEVER DISMANTLE MEDIA CARTELS. With their ability to shape public opinion it would be political suicide. It's not just Republicans hanging back.

Citizens' groups may have some success with measures such as reinstating the fairness act, so the stations would have to air rebuttals for every one of wingnut commentators' lies, or limiting the length of political campaigns and requiring equal, free time on major TV networks for all serious candidates (opposed by all media corporations because of loss of paid political advertising). Even those things would be difficult, but not impossible.

If Anti-Trust and RICO Acts could be enforced re: the media, what about the conspiracy of large corporations to deny advertising revenue to Air America even when those corporations had paid for advertising with the parent corporation of some of the stations? On a level playing field it would be easy to prove a violation of free speech rights leading to severe harm.

At least with Obama, we'll retain net neutrality.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. The effort to counter Limbaugh should NOT be through regulation or lawsuits

The way to counter Limbaugh is LOCALLY with grass roots efforts to make advertisers quit advertising.

Limbaugh's show is on hundreds of stations. The deal is that Limbaugh's production company splits the advertising time with the local station. The national ads are sold by the production company and the local ads are sold by the local station's sales force. It is these LOCAL advertisers that must be held to account by LOCAL Democrats. It is the LOCAL Ford dealer that has his ads appear on Limbuagh's show that has to be approached with a sustained, public boycott for sponsoring hate radio. It would seem to me that if these local advertisers knew that there was an active effort to inform Democrats in the local area NOT to buy at any business that advertises on Limbaugh's show, they would rethink their advertising. In short, Limbaugh can and should be countered by making his show radioactive to local advertisers.

As far as Limbuagh's national advertisers, they are mostly flim-flam medical cures and other products solely designed for the most ignorant in America. Being as these advertisers are more like spammers, they would welcome a boycott effort for the publicity. The effort must be local.

Legislating or regulating Limbaugh will not work and only give him more stature among his brain dead followers.

[SHRED]

4. Yes but...

...how then do we deal with the current monopolistic ownership of our airwaves?

---

[clear eye]

7. Wrong. The advertisers have made their position clear.

Practically all large radio advertisers conspired over the course of a single month to bar all future advertising on Air America. Copy and paste the following image file of the memo into your address bar: mediamatters.org/static/images/item/hp-aa-20061031-lg.jpg (I'm not posting it into this reply because it creates an oversized image.) No boycott forced them to take that position. The aggregate of other wingnuts, some much more "respectable" than Limbaugh, who propagate vicious lies that go unrefuted on most stations has more influence than Limbaugh. Of course, Fox cable TV station is more influential than the radio, but they reinforce each other.

A boycott of Limbaugh would require lots of time and energy and accomplish exactly nothing long run to diminish hate radio. On the other hand, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which is a regulation, and very effective while it lasted, would force stations to air rebuttals of every lie their commentators uttered. That would make station managers think twice about airing programs containing multiple inflammatory lies. The number of rebuttals they would legally have to air would be unwieldy in the extreme.

By allowing "micro" (very weak signal) radio stations to be licensed for a much reduced fee and broadcast their extremely local signals between the bands of the large licensed stations, the Republican majority FCC has been claiming that the opportunity to hear all viewpoints has been achieved. This is in practice absurd for a bunch of reasons. For one, who can listen in their car to a station whose signal reaches only a few blocks? For another, most micro licenses are issued to college age broadcasters who are only interested in broadcasting a few favorite cult music groups. By definition, the micro licensees can't be part of a larger network, and certainly can't afford outside produced political programming. Most importantly, the producers of micro stations almost always run out of money and energy in a very brief time.

We will soon have a majority Democratic FCC. New, helpful regulations may be more attainable then.