Rep. believes Democratic media reform bill may prevent possible 'fascist' takeover of US media

Miriam Raftery | January 21

Raw Story - Rep. Hinchey: New bill would break up media monopolies & restore fairness doctrine; Warns media reform critical to prevent 'end of Democratic republic'

Concerns about monopolies and fears of a possible "fascist" takeover of the US media have prompted a Democratic congressman to push to restore the Fairness Doctrine, RAW STORY has learned.

"Media reform is the most important issue confronting our democratic republic and the people of our country," Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) said at the Free Press National Media Reform Conference held in Memphis, Tennessee last weekend. "This is a critical moment in history that may determine the future of our country…maybe forever."

Hinchey told RAW STORY he plans to reintroduce the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) that would break up media monopolies and restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Reagan administration.

“If Rush shoots his mouth off, he must give equal access to our side,” Hinchey said. “The American public will begin to get both sides or all sides of an issue. That is basic—fundamental to a democracy.”

(...)

Specifically, MORA would restore the Fairness Doctrine, reinstate a national cap on ownership of radio stations, lower the number of radio stations that one company can own in a local market, and reinstate the 25 percent national cap on television ownership, among other restrictions. The bill’s no-grandfathering provision would compel media conglomerates to divest to comply with new ownership limitations.

MORA would also require public interest reports from broadcasters, and require more independently produced programming on TV. In addition, it establishes new public interest obligations to assure that broadcasters meet needs of local communities and requires increased, sustained public input and outreach to give the people a voice in programming.

Media 'con job'

Hinchey faults the mainstream media for failing to tell Americans the truth about “an administration in Washington that has falsified information to people about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an illegal and unjustified attack perpetrated on Iraq. How was it that Congress voted to give the President that authority? And how was it that so many people just bought into it when Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and whatever weapons they had were given to them by the Reagan administration?”

Talk radio has become dominated by shows that are “right wing, even neo-fascist,” he said, adding that even the best newspapers gave readers a “con job” by reporting on false information fed by the administration.

“This should make every single citizen in America deeply concerned,” he told conference attendees. “What lies will they tell in the future to jeopardize this democratic republic or even end this democratic republic? That is the objective of many of those involved.”

Hinchey believes takeover of the U.S. media has been carefully calculated by the “political right wing,” starting with abolition of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which had required that broadcasters give equal time for people who wished to express an opposing viewpoint. It was originally adopted in 1949 due to the rise of global fascism after World War II.

“Fascist government dominated discussions in Europe. They could now broadcast all over and control all information going out. That’s how they took over governments in Spain and Italy,” Hinchey recalled. “The U.S. said the airways should be owned by everyone.”

The Fairness Doctrine required that broadcasters give equal time for people who wished to express an opposing viewpoint. “Under the Reagan administration, the FCC wiped out that rule and said only businesses that operate stations can express their view,” Hinchey noted. Congress passed a bill that would have required the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but that bill was vetoed by Reagan.

“The veto said clearly that this is an idea from the political right wing because we do not want to allow other points of view—because if we allow free and open discussion on the environment, healthcare [and other issues], in almost every case, the right wing will lose.”

Asked whether the Congressman believes there is now an attempt at a fascist takeover of the U.S., a Hinchey staffer noted that Rep. Hinchey’s legislation arose from his concern about increasing concentration of media ownership into the hands of a few individuals and corporations. “Whether or not there is a purpose that includes fascism, we could wind up in a fascist situation if corporations end up controlling information without the government providing some balancing mechanism, such as the Fairness Doctrine,” said the staffer, who spoke on background only and did not wish to be named. “He would also say that the FCC’s recent efforts to weaken media ownership rules in order to enable corporations to own more and more outlets plays into that as well.”

How far would Fairness Doctrine go?

If reinstated by Hinchey’s bill, the Fairness Doctrine would govern all news programs on public airways, including networks as well as cable stations such as Fox or MSNBC, but would not apply to entertainment shows. Thus a broadcaster such as Comedy Central could argue that the Daily Show or Colbert Report is exempt. Requiring multiple viewpoints via a Fairness Doctrine is particularly important in rural areas, where residents may have access to only a single TV station and can’t afford cable, the staffer added.

Similarly, regulation of talk radio programming would be dependent on whether those shows are defined by broadcasters as news or entertainment. But a Hinchey staffer noted, “We would argue that they are providing commentary on news much like what you see at the end of a news broadcast and as such, they should provide time to people providing other views. We are not saying that they should be taken off the air.”

(...)

Hinchey added, “There is a definite role for the public. The American people have got to understand how important this is. Five corporations control ninety percent of radio and TV. They are trying to change the rules of access to let them control the newspapers as well.”

(...)

With Democrats now in control of the House, Hinchey has been named to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee with jurisdiction over the FCC budget. He posed a challenge to members of Congress to pass media reform, asking, “Will we be strong enough to bear this responsibility?”

(...)

[more at link - ES]


Escher Sketch January 22, 2007 - 7:05pm

Fascism - a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. - from dictionary.com

Good story on Hinchley's proposal(of course opposed by the Heritage Foundation), but "fascist" is a word I've heard thrown around in the left too often since the 60's to just spice up a complaint without providing any info.

Hinchley himself only says (on the current US media):

"Talk radio has become dominated by shows that are “right wing, even neo-fascist,” adding that even the best newspapers gave readers a “con job."

The unknown quoted staffer, given a leading question by Raw Story using the word "fascist", plays along enough for this piece to put the F word out there in the headline.

It's a perfectly good story- it doesn't need the pickle.

(More info on the Fairness Doctrine here. Related history: The Murrow Doctrine)


"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"

nymole January 21, 2007 - 11:27pm

the headline exaggerates that statement.

Technically, if you want to define Fascism, ask Benny.

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State--a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)

Yet if anyone cares to read over the now crumbling minutes giving an account of the meetings at which the Italian Fasci di Combattimento were founded, he will find not a doctrine but a series of pointers… (p. 23)

"It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!... I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism." (p. 24)

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).

Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

The Labour Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council ofr Fascism on April 21, 1927)—(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic] (p. 133)

The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)

Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.

( ... Link ... )

Now on the other hand, the meat of the article is exactly the strategic step that needs to be taken; getting it out there in an "over the top" way is part of moving the Overton Window on this proposed policy shift, which will unfortunately be fought in the teeth of the media that cover it.

Escher Sketch January 21, 2007 - 11:47pm

that make some people start reading and others stop - as are other "over the top" attempts to get attention for an issue and shift its framing at the same time.

The attempt to reinstate the fairness doctrine has certainly got the hackles of the right up, in any case.


"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"

nymole January 22, 2007 - 12:21am

It's one of the keystones of their strategy. Just think what it will do to poor old FOX.

They'll be stringing nets below the windows.

Escher Sketch January 22, 2007 - 12:52am

Good image, Escher. ROFL.

The floggings will continue until morale improves. - Anon.

Chickadee January 22, 2007 - 11:21am

have come from Bush-Cheney and the state-controlled media. There has been a lot more talk of "Islamo-fascists" than there have been others using the f-word to (accurately) describe the inclinations of the current administration.

chalo January 23, 2007 - 6:11pm

This bill is a great idea. True "Fair and Balanced" would do this country a great deal of good. I don't know if there is any chance it will gain traction? I think it might be a fairly a done deal in the House. The Senate may be a whole different kettle of fish, Joe Leiberman and all.

Mark January 22, 2007 - 1:27am

From Memphis Commercial Appeal, January 21, 2007
By Joe Hayden

What’s the difference between a journalist and a conservative? Journalists distrust government, unless they work in Washington. Conservatives distrust government, unless they’re running the government. People who are traditionally skeptical of centralized political power, you see, often change their tune once they enter those corrupting corridors.

The current movement for media reform is the latest in a recurrent cycle. There were also loud calls for reform during the muckraking era of the early 1900s, and for similar reasons — a fear that independent journalism was being co-opted by the mighty business firms of the day. That trust-busting spirit arose because citizens feared certain voices were being excluded from the marketplace of ideas.

Before America was even a nation, in fact, we had been warned by Benjamin Franklin. In a 1731 editorial, “Apology for Printers,” he wrote that “the Business of Printing has chiefly to do with Men’s Opinions,” that newspapers needed to air them all, and that some of those views were bound to offend some of the people some of the time.

That helps to explain the strong political passions at last weekend’s National Conference for Media Reform. I talked with a smart University of Memphis student there who said that while he was enjoying the programs very much, he didn’t care for some of the Republican-bashing he had heard. I agreed with him that much of the criticism of President Bush that attendees spouted was either off the subject or childish or both. But I think that it also was the natural result of the squelching of dissidence over the last five years, of smearing patriots who criticized the rationale for war in Iraq, of marginalizing people with different viewpoints and shutting them out of forums as though they were unworthy of public debate.

Think that’s an exaggeration? Consider this. Jeff Cohen, a cable news producer who has worked at Fox, CNN and MSNBC, tells a frightening tale of what happened to the short-lived program hosted by Phil Donahue. Despite being the most-watched show on MSNBC at the time, it was pulled from the air in February 2003 because, according to internal NBC memos, executives were nervous about having an open war critic as a host while other networks were waving the flag and yelling for war. Even before network officials gave it the ax, though, they had micromanaged Donahue’s show. They insisted that one liberal guest be “balanced” by two conservative ones, that two liberals be “balanced” by three conservatives, and that Michael Moore alone required three war supporters! This is the liberal media?

More at link

adrena January 22, 2007 - 6:50am

Stuart Noble has concerns about Hinchey's MORA bill and makes some other suggestions:

Electronic Renaissance or Digital Dark Ages?

quiet Bill January 23, 2007 - 8:09am

According to a Los Angeles Times editorial awhile back, studies show that consumers benefit from more news and public affairs programming when broadcasters are allowed to partner with local newspapers (where allowed). In fact, it is likely that more local newspapers will be able to remain alive and competitive if broadcasters are allowed to take ownership. This is why broadcasters are asking the FCC to modernize the outdated rules currently in place.

L

Working with National Association of Broadcasters; http://www.nab.org

Locale January 26, 2007 - 4:29pm

According to a Los Angeles Times editorial awhile back, studies show that consumers benefit from more news and public affairs programming when broadcasters are allowed to partner with local newspapers (where allowed)..

Escher Sketch January 26, 2007 - 4:57pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.