NERW: The FCC in Authoritarian Times

[davideduardo]

Maybe. The point of what the FCC is doing is to silence criticism. If you control the media, you control the narrative. So if the narrative only covers one side of the story, then the other side doesn't exist, and the pendulum doesn't swing back.

Well, as a conservative with considerable news background, I can say that the progressive side of the spectrum has controlled the news media for better than 20 years, making traditional sources I used, ranging from CBS to Time Magazine to the New York Times totally unviewable or unreadable.

And, as I said, like many conservative friends in California, I felt I had to register as Independent so as not to be criticized, marginalized and ostracized by the "rightful majority".

We haven't seen an FCC go to this extreme before, including during Nixon. We haven't seen a government throw out reporters from specific targeted media outlets, while granting favors to others.

The rotation of news desks seems, actually, to be very fair. I fact, I think that should be done regularly and even with an independent commission to allocate the presence in briefing rooms, on-site offices, etc., in a n balanced manner.

Reporters are not only being prevented from covering stories, but when they do, they are targeted by the enforcement division of the FCC.

They can cover stories. They just don't get the "front row seats" that folks like the WaPo, NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and the like have dominated for too long.

That's not the problem. That "conscience" is selectively being forced on one group, while there is no reciprocity being done at the other side, in broadcast or online. In fact the goal seems to be for all forms of media to strictly report one side, that of the party in power, with no variation allowed.

If you look at the next White House briefing, I think you will see vastly more progressive / liberal medium reporters than conservative ones.

 

[TheBigA]

Well, as a conservative with considerable news background, I can say that the progressive side of the spectrum has controlled the news media for better than 20 years, making traditional sources I used, ranging from CBS to Time Magazine to the New York Times totally unreadable.

That could be, but not because of FCC enforcement. That's what this thread is about, and that's what I'm talking about. The role of the federal government and the FCC directed by the president to shut down reporting he doesn't like. If reporting has been progressive, it's been because of internal editorial judgement, and the free marketplace. The FCC should not be the news police. That's what they seem to want to be.

I think that should be done regularly and even with an independent commission to allocate the presence in briefing rooms, on-site offices, etc., in a n balanced manner.

I'd be fine with an "independent commission." That's not what's happening here. It's all coming from the president. That's a problem.

 

[davideduardo]

That could be, but not because of FCC enforcement. That's what this thread is about, and that's what I'm talking about. The role of the federal government and the FCC directed by the president to shut down reporting he doesn't like. If reporting has been progressive, it's been because of internal editorial judgement, and the free marketplace. The FCC should not be the news police. That's what they seem to want to be.

And my point is that such a huge percentage of news reporters, writers and journalists in general are not waving a red banner that there is an overwhelming slant on coverage as well as through the individual article writing style So it is necessary to group all classes of media because in things like seating at press conferences and the like they are all consolidated as "media" and not print, electronic and new media separately.

I'd be fine with an "independent commission." That's not what's happening here. It's all coming from the president. That's a problem.

After looking at some of the government expenses being exposed (and, surprisingly, rather well covered in all the media), I'd say that this is welcome.

When I spent most of my time in Latin America (60's through around 2020) I saw so much waste and politically motivated expenses by the U.S. government that I was totally astounded. What I welcome now is that the media seems able to cover this now, even if some of the coverage is tainted by opinion injected via select adjectives and adverbs!

In the decades that I lived in Puerto Rico, I realized that our "national sport" there was politics. From humor to average conversations, everything had a political overtone. And that affected everything from radio morning shows to talk stations to the news/talk stations.

There, I was involved at different times with both of the major all news stations ,WKAQ and WUNO, from the 80's well into the 2020's. One leaned towards the pro-statehood party, and the other towards the Commonwealth status party. Quite simply, each interviewed and talked about more things that appealed to their partisans but without ignoring other aspects; it was a question of weighting.

 

[TheBigA]

And my point is that such a huge percentage of news reporters, writers and journalists in general are not waving a red banner that there is an overwhelming slant on coverage as well as through the individual article writing style So it is necessary to group all classes of media because in things like seating at press conferences and the like they are all consolidated as "media" and not print, electronic and new media separately.

Once again, I'm not talking about seating at press conferences. I'm talking about actions by the FCC. The FCC is trying to use its station licensing power to control news coverage by ABC, NBC, CBS and public broadcasting. That shouldn't be the role of the FCC. The FCC should not be the news police. Yet the chairman believes it is.

 

[davideduardo]

Once again, I'm not talking about seating at press conferences. I'm talking about actions by the FCC. The FCC is trying to use its station licensing power to control news coverage by ABC, NBC, CBS and public broadcasting. That shouldn't be the role of the FCC. The FCC should not be the news police. Yet the chairman believes it is.

And if essentially all the significant media has news content controlled, written by and delivered by people of one single inclination, then it is likely that any "acts of excess" are going to come from them.

 

[TheBigA]

And if essentially all the significant media has news content controlled, written by and delivered by people of one single inclination, then it is likely that any "acts of excess" are going to come from them.

So you believe the government and FCC should control that? Maybe hire people based solely on their political party and not on ability?

That's what we're talking about here. The FCC has decided it should be the arbiter of news judgement.

If so, shouldn't those quotas also apply to Fox News and talk radio? They're not being targeted by this FCC.

If not, isn't that a form of DEI and affirmative action for conservatives?

 

[leethalweapon]

I'm curious, does news need to be viewed with a left or right lense? Is there a centre line anymore, or has society as a whole, driven by media, moved right?

 

[TheBigA]

I'm curious, does news need to be viewed with a left or right lense? Is there a centre line anymore, or has society as a whole, driven by media, moved right?

That's a good question. The first administration put out this idea of "alternate facts." So to them, there are no facts, just interpretation.

That's also the view of FCC chairman Carr, who wants to reinterpret laws based on achieving a certain outcome. He wants to apply the law in a way that hurts one side of the media, while leaving the other side alone.

If the New York Times or MSNBC can make a business reporting the way it does, shouldn't that be good enough? Or do we need the FCC to tell them what to cover?

In my view, as someone who spent some time in the news business, there's a lot of news that is neither left nor right.

 

[davideduardo]

So you believe the government and FCC should control that? Maybe hire people based solely on their political party and not on ability?

No, I did not say that and do not believe that. What is important is that news be covered in a "fair and balanced" (even though that is a Fox positioning statement, it is used here as a general term.). If news media is inaccurately reporting news with the intent to bias public opinion (and, of course, that is a very subjective statement), then it should be regulated.

That's what we're talking about here. The FCC has decided it should be the arbiter of news judgement.

There are enough cases in prior years of actual news stories being suppressed... with the "Laptop" being the stellar example... that some type of investigation into the media is warranted.

If so, shouldn't those quotas also apply to Fox News and talk radio? They're not being targeted by this FCC.

Of course oversight should be applied to anything broadcast on licensed radio and TV stations. For those who dealt with license renewals in the 60's and 70's, this is not a new thing.

If not, isn't that a form of DEI and affirmative action for conservatives?

I don't want to get into a DEI discussion; for 50 years of my career I was a minority myself. In Ecuador, I belonged to a group that was less than 1% of the population, so I have a good degree of understanding of an old concept that just has new initials today.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm curious, does news need to be viewed with a left or right lense? Is there a centre line anymore, or has society as a whole, driven by media, moved right?

Good point.

In much of my career, I have owned stations or worked for ones in nations that have more than 3 significant political parties. In those places, there are stations that favor each major perspective. All report the news, but the emphasis on things that favor the partisans is strong.

 

[leethalweapon]

In my view, as someone who spent some time in the news business, there's a lot of news that is neither left nor right.

I have been with my employer for nearly 20 years, and have heard the station go from centre to the right.

Good point.

In much of my career, I have owned stations or worked for ones in nations that have more than 3 significant political parties. In those places, there are stations that favor each major perspective. All report the news, but the emphasis on things that favor the partisans is strong.

Here in Australia, concentration of media would suggest the most news outlets lean right. As I said in an earlier post Murdoch's near monopoly of tabloid newspapers hasn't helped the media balance debate. Even the publicly funded ABC has been accused of straying from it's charter as the public broadcaster I put that down to previous management installing conservitive journalists/hosts into key programs. Even the most mundane news article seems to have been politicized.

 

[TheBigA]

If news media is inaccurately reporting news with the intent to bias public opinion (and, of course, that is a very subjective statement), then it should be regulated.

By whom? Who makes the judgement that the coverage is "inaccurate." The FCC believes it should make editorial decisions. Is that right?

Keep in mind, there was a time in the 60s that some news departments covered the civil rights marches with the intent to affect public opinion. Local governments in the south told radio & TV stations not to cover those demonstrations. Was that ethical? When ICE is deporting illegals, should the news departments in those cities turn a blind eye, or only report those deportations as being a good thing? And isn't that simply bias towards the other side?

There are enough cases in prior years of actual news stories being suppressed... with the "Laptop" being the stellar example... that some type of investigation into the media is warranted.

The laptop is a great example. At the start, that was an exclusive story owned by the NY Post. Any reporting of it had to credit the Post, and had to accept its version of the story. The Post refused to allow any independent confirmation of the laptop or the data on it. The laptop wasn't discovered by the police. It was in the possession of the president's attorney. In that way, it was a biased story, intended to promote the election of the sitting president. At that time, several news organizations stayed away from the story. Even the VOA, controlled by the president, referred to the laptop as an "October surprise." The story wasn't confirmed until the laptop was turned over to the FBI. But as for news coverage of the story, there's no need for FCC investigation. The timeline is a public record.

Of course oversight should be applied to anything broadcast on licensed radio and TV stations. For those who dealt with license renewals in the 60's and 70's, this is not a new thing.

But as I said, they're not being fairly applied. Is that OK?

 

[gr8oldies]

As someone who has actually owned, run, managed and programmed radio stations in over 20 other countries, I have a different opinion.

Whether it was in Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, the Dominican Republic or even nations like Pakistan where there are radically different cultural and social values... and even, sometimes, moral values, I find the de-radicalization of media in the U.S. to be healthy.

And like most "pendulum swings" in American government, things will go back to the mid-range after a bit of "excitement" by the current conquerors of the White House.

I see American journalism totally dominated by the liberal or left attitude. I've been following the elections (yesterday, in fact) with my daughter in Ecuador where the son of a friend seems about to win a second term; the press (online, on the air and print) has just as big a conservative voice as the socialist and liberals do. I saw that in my decade of dealing with the Peronistas and their opposition in Argentina, and over the last 40 years with the totally #1 all-news-talk morning show, "El Gobierno de la Mañana" in the Dominican Republic.

But I do not see that here. In fact, as a conservative living in California, I found it frightening for others to learn my position; friends and I registered as "Independent" to avoid criticism or even being fired. I've never seen anyplace in the world where thinking differently from the majority was actually dangerous.

To clarify, when I had to leave Ecuador and my dozen or so stations it was because of an extremist government, not an elected one. And my "partner" at our associated newspaper was disappeared (yes, in some countries that is a verb) and never seen again.

As to comparing the current U.S. government positions with Hitler, the Nazis and Germany in the 1930's, I call foul. Without revealing too much even now, in the 60's I worked with Israeli intelligence to help find Nazis hidden in Ecuador under new identities. One of my engineers had been in the French Resistance and another has lost all his family when he fled Czechoslovakia; along with an undercover Mossad operative we tried to see if local German businessmen were contacts for Martin Bormann, supposedly living at the Brazil-Ecuador-Peru junction in the Amazon Basin.

I heard more real Nazi stories from survivors than can be imagined. None sound anything like what I am seeing today. None.

Sure, there will be excesses. But I welcome a sense of conscience being forced on CBS, NBC and ABC. I can not watch news on any of those networks, and have not been able to for over a decade. Having programmed the most listened to news and talk station in all the Americas, as well as two all news station in Puerto Rico and the totally dominant news talk station in the Dominican Republic, I know about "flavoring" news stories; the use of biased or jaded adjectives or references to totally unrelated news items are two common methods used by much of the U.S. media today.

OK, the whole idea that any media that isn't reporting nothing but MAGA talking points is "liberal" is kind of ridiculous. I don't hear any advocacy on the air for the corporations that own these networks to be nationalized. All of the networks bent the knee to Trump, starting with Joe and Mika. In some locations, literally nothing but Fox News and right-wing talking points gets through. Those are repeated at church and family gatherings.
I was even at a family gathering for the eclipse in April. You may recall that Easter coincided with Transgender Awaremess Day, which has been on March 31 since 2009. A proclamation was signed by the President's office, as it had been for several years. Right wing media went with "JOE BIDEN SIGNED THIS PROCLAMATION JUST TO P O CHRISTIANS ON EASTER!!!". I was still hearing that a few weeks later.
If you say you had to register as an independent in California because people would look down on you, try being a Democrat or Democrat-leaning in a red state. We didn't we could safely put a Harris sticker on our car in Tennessee, especially with my wife often driving in the dark. Democrats are completely disenfranchised except for a few city races. The GOP gerrymandered Nashville out of representation.
Outside of something like "Democracy Now", I hear nothing truly "progressive" on the airwaves.

 

[yeoldeschool]

But I do not see that here. In fact, as a conservative living in California, I found it frightening for others to learn my position; friends and I registered as "Independent" to avoid criticism or even being fired.

You and many others. I'm reminded of the countless articles I've seen over time about conservatives in Hollywood, in particular, having to lead almost clandestine lives to keep their jobs and reputations in tact. Three examples found just now in Google, one going way back:

1992 - https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/31/style/hidden-hollywood.html
2011 - https://www.reuters.com/article/lif...rs-bemoan-intolerant-hollywood-idUSTRE70U06Y/
2014 - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/ted-cruz-address-hollywoods-secret-681838/5

I've never seen anyplace in the world where thinking differently from the majority was actually dangerous.

It's a standard feature of theocracies, and politics is now a religion for many in America. You alluded to the effect when you mentioned it being the national pastime for Puerto Rico. I wonder what gets higher Nielsens here these days: the World Series, or the State of the Union address.

 

[TheBigA]

I wonder what gets higher Nielsens here these days: the World Series, or the State of the Union address.

Not a fair comparison, since the World Series is exclusive to one network, while the SOU is carried on all nets, non-exclusive.

However, the fact is that 2024 world series had an average of 14 million a night, and the SOU reached 32 million.

Yesterday's Super Bowl was seen by 126 million. A new record.

 

[davideduardo]

Not a fair comparison, since the World Series is exclusive to one network, while the SOU is carried on all nets, non-exclusive.

However, the fact is that 2024 world series had an average of 14 million a night, and the SOU reached 32 million.

Yesterday's Super Bowl was seen by 126 million. A new record.

I don't care much for baseball, but any game is going to be more interesting and fun to listen to than a State of the Union address.

I think one of the things that helped Trump win was that he did not give speeches... he chatted with the audience and improvised, often wildly. He could have been on a barstool and not a stage, and that made his presentations engaging. On analysis, he just rambled and verbally meandered, but people liked that much better than scripted speeches.

And, if we analyze Trump's approach, perhaps we see why liberal talk radio never succeeded while right-wing talk did and does. The liberal hosts, particularly on Air America, were so intense and they sounded like they were campaigning or holding a strike vote for a labor union. And they did not chat with the listener, they lectured.

 

[TheBigA]

And, if we analyze Trump's approach, perhaps we see why liberal talk radio never succeeded while right-wing talk did and does. The liberal hosts, particularly on Air America, were so intense and they sounded like they were campaigning or holding a strike vote for a labor union. And they did not chat with the listener, they lectured.

That's been the approach to conservative talk for the last ten years. Especially the big syndicated ones like Mark Levin and Dan Bongino. All lecture.

 

[davideduardo]

That's been the approach to conservative talk for the last ten years. Especially the big syndicated ones like Mark Levin and Dan Bongino. All lecture.

I agree as far as some of the current batch of nasty hosts. Levin both lectures and screams at us. Bongino should spend some time on a bong and chill.

 

[radiofan2023]

Don’t forget Dave Ramsey who (at least when I stopped listening to him several years ago) used to browbeat his callers about how foolish they were to be charging things on their credit cards.

 

[101tm]

That's been the approach to conservative talk for the last ten years. Especially the big syndicated ones like Mark Levin and Dan Bongino. All lecture.

Levin’s screeching tone has pegged the audio level almost or exactly to distortion on many news/talk stations I’ve heard him on he gets so loud.