A ruse by any other name

Old media and new or alternative media are one pair of names by which we feel our way toward a workable description of America's info-saturation on politics and public affairs in the 21st century. The two groupings supposedly compete not only for market share, but also for the upper hand in how people interpret the news. Websites, blogs, and talk radio are usually put in the "new" category. But where then do PoliticsWest.com and its Gang of Four blog, where I'm a contributor, fit in? Being creatures of the Denver Post, an "old" conventional newspaper company, they are thus hardly adversarial to it. Maybe a more useful map emerges if we group the voices by viewpoint, rather than by their technology of delivery or sociology of organization.

This occurred to me when Mike Rosen of KOA and the Rocky Mountain News, lecturing in Colorado Springs last week for the El Pomar Foundation, gave a perceptive and fair-minded hour's discussion on bias in the media. (Don't take my word for its fairness; Prof. Tom Cronin of Colorado College, an eminent political scientist and proud Democrat, said he agreed with 80% of Mike's observations.)

On the matter of terminology, Rosen said he never uses the "mainstream media" designation that has become commonplace among many conservatives, me included, because it implies that the viewpoint of the New York Times, CBS, AP, Newsweek, NPR, and their ilk is in accord with America's mainstream or centrist attitudes -- whereas he believes those old-media organs are well to the left. I of course agree, and will try to switch from referring to the MSM and instead start using Mike's preferred term, "dominant liberal mass media."

The NYT's liberal slant has seldom been more obvious than in its current embarrassment over the apparent $100,000-plus discount from standard ad rates that was given MoveOn.org for the Sept. 10 full-page blast against General Petraeus. This glaring departure from profit-maximizing business practice disproves the left's pet notion that the Times is equally as committed as Fox News to some conservative status quo because both are "corporate media." Such was the argument at Rosen's speech from one "Steve the Socialist," a favorite on-air foil of his who lives in the Springs and showed up for the event.

Mike exposed its lameness by pointing out that the only alternative to a corporate business organization and ownership model for the news media would be a government ownership -- and how would Steve like that? Point made, game over. Their exchange recalled a classic Daniel P. Moynihan sally that Mike had quoted earlier, to the effect that in countries where the press is full of good news, the jails are often full of good people.

The MoveOn subsidy scandal is one more reminder that whatever name you give "them," old media or mainstream media or dominant liberal mass media, they have an unadmitted bias problem. Their professed objectivity is but a pretense -- a ruse which, by any other name, still smells.

[Cross posted on PoliticsWest.com]

Post wrong on Rove

The verdict on President Bush, his departing strategist Karl Rove, and Republican political hopes is hardly as settled or as negative as one would gather from the purple prose of last Wednesday's Denver Post editorial, "Rove's departure testifies to a weak administration." What's weak is the pun on White House staffers' proper refusal to testify (get it?) about their confidential advice to the chief executive, under oath to a fishing expedition of the legislative branch. Rove hasn't given and won't give an inch on that principle; sorry, Democrats.

As for the editorial's line of argument, if you can call it that, who says failure will be Bush's legacy? A strong economy, six years without another 9/11 attack, and 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan liberated from tyranny and given a fighting chance at self-government, add up to a pretty respectable term of stewardship over the nation's highest office. Karl Rove helped Bush achieve all that, after helping him become the first presidential son ever to win the White House twice, after helping him become Texas governor in a stunning upset over Ann Richards, darling of the liberal media.

Not bad for a pudgy, bespectacled wonk of humble Denver origins. The other Colorado-born guy who figured prominently in Election 2004 was Sen. John Kerry, last seen windsurfing off the Cape; sorry again, Democrats.

Much of this long-winded piece reads less like political analysis than like Dennis Kucinich revving up the Netroots. Count the bromides: (1) Bush isn't low in the polls because his "failed policies... are legion," he's low because of Iraq, period. (2) The war wasn't "politicized" by Rove; war is inescapably political in a democracy like ours. He merely pointed out the obvious in noting that the American people don't want a repeat of our humiliating "cut and run" Vietnam defeat.

(3) Despite the editorial's gibe that those words now sound ironic, the irony really goes the other way as Congress has time and again recoiled from mandating an Iraq pullout. Rove didn't script the recent spectacle of top Democrats worrying aloud that US gains on the battlefield will hurt their party politically. And (4) it's untrue that "the situation in Iraq has never been more grim." Under Petraeus it's getting less grim by the day, hence those nervous Dems.

Post editors even harrumph at the sinister Rove for (5) "controlling the message as always, and placing it in [the Wall Street Journal's] friendly hands." What was he supposed to do: announce his resignation on Air America? Or maybe give Keith Olberman an exclusive? Come on.

(6) With a closing flourish of unconscious irony at their own expense, the editors --who saw Rove's candidate beat the one they favored in 2000 -- laugh off his prediction that George W. Bush will rebound in public approval and that the GOP will elect his successor next year. Har har, what does that dolt Karl Rove know about politics?

Final bromide (7): The absurdity of his forecast, you see, is demonstrated by Bush and the Republicans having lost both houses of Congress last year. Case closed, Dems win, don't even bother holding the election. But there is the little matter of history. FDR lost big in both houses in 1938, then won big for a third term in 1940. Harry Truman lost Congress in 1946 and was reelected in 1948. Eisenhower lost Congress in 1954 and was reelected in 1956. Reagan lost the Senate in 1986, then saw Bush the elder, his VP, win handily in 1988.

So that's four contrary cases in 70 years, two D and two R, for the editors' allegedly clinching indicator of a sure Republican loss in 2008. But never mind, these guys ignore troublesome data with the aplomb of the IPCC global warming claque.

My bottom line from all this is that, first, the Post shouldn't bother submitting this particular editorial for a Pulitzer, and second, Americans should thank and congratulate Karl Rove for selfless service to his country.

Mr. Rove, like his friend and boss Mr. Bush, exemplifies the best tradition of the Man in the Arena, about whom Theodore Roosevelt spoke so memorably. Indeed, something tells me TR will get along splendidly with both W and Karl when they all meet some day, up at the big Bully Pulpit in the sky.

A radio entrepreneur dissects the Fairness Doctrine

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This was worked out in Colonial and Revolutionary times with the correct assumption that the government would almost never be neutral. Freedom of Speech has always meant… Absence of Government Control.

The Fairness Doctrine Defined: Government requirement that when a certain position on a controversial issue of public importance is broadcast, the broadcast licensee is required to present the other side of the issue.

Fairness Doctrine History: The Radio Act of 1927 created the Radio Commission (later becoming the Federal Communications Commission or FCC) and its successor the 1934 Communications Act created a government system of granting licenses for publicly owned broadcast frequencies. The major condition attached was to “operate with public interest.” The FCC was charged with enforcement.

Starting in 1929, the “public interest” condition was interpreted as requiring that a licensee provide “ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views on all discussions of issues of importance to the public.”

Over the years this developed into the Fairness Doctrine and became an integral part of FCC mandate. In 1949, the FCC issued two requirements regarding Editorials on Radio… “Broadcasters must give adequate coverage to public issues and this coverage must accurately reflect opposing views on the issue.”

In 1959, Congress amended Sec. 315 of the Communication Act with the Equal Time Provision… “The licensee that allows one candidate to use the broadcast station shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office.” It also stated that nothing in the amended Section 315 relieves Broadcasters of the “obligation” to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.”

From 1959 to 1981, The FCC consistently interpreted the 1959 Amendment to Sec. 315 as codifying the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, in the landmark 1969 Red Lion Case the Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court cited “scarcity of stations and codification of the Fairness Doctrine” as the primary reason for the decision. The Court also stated “the decision could change if it was demonstrated that the Doctrine reduced rather than encouraged discussion of public issues.”

Interestingly in 1974, a law imposing an obligation of fairness on newspaper editorials was declared invalid as applied to print media in Miami Herald vs. Tonilla. Print media has no Fairness Doctrine.

In 1981 the FCC, perceiving changes in the conditions cited by the Supreme Court in Red Lion, asked Congress to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. No action was taken. In 1985 the FCC determined the Fairness Doctrine was not codified in 1959. In 1986, the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the FCC by ruling that the 1959 Amendment did not codify the Fairness Doctrine.

In 1987 the FCC formally abolished the Fairness Doctrine on grounds that: (1) It did not serve the public interest. (2) The scarcity of media issue had disappeared. (3) It violated The First Amendment.

Since 1987, broadcasters have operated without the Fairness Doctrine and talk radio has flourished. During this time there have been many calls by public figures for reinstatement and bills have been repeatedly introduced in Congress to codify the Fairness Doctrine… all with huge public negative reaction.

In 1988, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but it was vetoed by President Reagan. In 1991, with massive grassroots support, President Bush threatened to veto a similar bill, thus stifling a second attempt on Congress’s part to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. In 1993 the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had acted in a reasonable manner in abolishing the Fairness Doctrine.

Since the 2006 elections, the almost daily cries from legislators to bring back the Fairness Doctrine has reached high fever pitch… as if something as significant as the 2008 election outcome depended on it. No doubt this will intensify. There are two ways the Fairness Doctrine could be brought back: Either the FCC simply reinstates it, or Congress codifies it.

If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, history indicates these things (and more) will happen:

1. The First Amendment, which these days seems to be the number one target, will again be significantly depreciated, further eroding our Freedom of Speech.

2. The political party in power will use the Fairness Doctrine to silence critics as was well documented during the Kennedy and Nixon administrations.

3. Many leading broadcast licensees will see their licenses at risk and will play it safe by imposing strict speech control.

4. The national and local robust town hall meetings known as talk Radio will quickly become mundane, dull and milk-toast-like and mostly disappear.

5. Religious speech will be threatened by new government guidelines regarding what constitutes controversial and public issues… issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.

6. The overwhelming majority of the time the public will hear only the Liberal viewpoint presented as “fair and balanced” by the three major TV Networks, the vast majority of newspapers and the major magazines. Déjà vu!

Media Scarcity: Media access has dramatically changed since the 1969 Supreme Court Red Lion case. Today there are many more radio stations, even in small communities, satellite radio, internet radio and the internet itself, plus an abundance of FM stations which were few in 1969. Everyone agrees scarcity is no longer an issue.

Conclusion: The Fairness Doctrine’s frontal assault on Freedom of Speech not only trashes a vital part of our Constitution but does great harm to our country, nationally and locally by stopping a healthy public debate that is essential in our common search for truth. Preventing the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is… A HILL TO DIE ON!

Stuart Epperson is Chairman of the Board, Salem Communications Corporation. Among Salem's many media properties across the country are 710 KNUS, the flagship station of Backbone Radio, and Townhall.com

Swarmed by mouthy Marines

It's said we Navy guys don't get on well with the Marines, but the USMC stands high with me. Look at the example of men like General Peter Pace, or our own Major Mike Coffman. All the more disappointing when I took friendly (or maybe not) fire this week from two tough-guy Marines displaying more bark than brains. First, Anthony Corpora (actually a Navy medic but serving with the 2nd Marine Division) called me a terrorist for saying we shouldn't reward illegal aliens with college scholarships.

Next, Bob Newman, the retired Marine gunnery sergeant who does weeknights on KOA, made me out a villain for saying the State Capitol shouldn't be a closed fortress, notwithstanding the madman shot there by a bodyguard after threatening Ritter.

My heated rebuttal to his criticism then proved me, according to Newman, a politically correct liberal and hater (yeah, right). It seems the Gunny isn't used to anyone pushing back at his bombast.

The Newman rant as given online the day after our on-air discussion is reprinted below. For proof that it was a discussion, not a tirade or a meltdown or any of the other descriptions he's given since, listen to the full segment here. Young Mr. Corpora's tongue-lashing of me via email on 7/16 is reprinted below the Gunny paragraph. Gotta love those Marines.

[Summary from Bob Newman's page on 850koa.com, as posted 7/17 in reference to his 7/16 show]

"DENVER POST'S ANDREWS CONDUCTS HYSTERICAL PERSONAL ATTACKS ON GUNNY BOB Former State Senator Had Voted For Lax Security At Capitol After 9-11 Went Wild When Gunny Challenged Him"

"In one of the most embarrassing displays of liberal immaturity, poor judgement and refusal to accept responsibility for one's callous and deadly actions ever heard on the "Gunny Bob Show," Denver's by far-and-away top-rated evening news-talk program, former Colorado State Senator John Andrews, a former president of that body, went beserk on the program Monday evening after the Gunny had the temerity to challenge him on his vote to drastically reduce security and safety at the state capitol after 9-11. That vote helped allow would-be killer Aaron Snyder to walk right into the governor's offices and announce he was there to take over the state government. Seconds later he pulled a gun, which is when an on-the-ball Colorado State Patrol officer beat him to the trigger. Launching into repeated tirades that included personal attacks on the Gunny for pointing out that this lack of security could have cost Governor Ritter and many other people their lives, the politically correct Andrews' hateful fit of rage is now available here."

[Email from active duty serviceman who objected to my comments in an AP story about scholarships for illegals, Rocky Mountain News, July 16, 2007]

"Dear JOHN, My name is Anthony Corpora, I am a Navy Hospital Corpsman actively serving with the 2nd Marine Division and I am completely intolerant of bigot ass agendas like yours. I apologize for not signing my name previously, but after reading such a disgusting article with your quotes on it, in my opinion, I figured you need to know that you are an a**hole. Not only am I a hispanic whom is serving for YOUR freedom, but there are many latinos serving that are not US Citizens. Up until recently, I was not a US Citizen, only recently that I decided to naturalize, however the point is there are others like me that are only "Permanent Resident" status. I am simpathetic to those that are here undocumented because they want a better quality of life and many of my fellow Marines and Corpsman have parents or relatives that are undocumented, but people like you with such an elitist ass atitudes (that desperately need someone to come along and kick the ever loving s*** out of you) keep harassing the latino community of the United States.

"You are not an American, YOU SIR ARE A TERRORIST AT BEST! You think you are serving your country, but really the only thing you are serving is a brand of domestic terrorism on the very workers that contribute and build this country with hard labor and lower wages that they are quite content with. If you want to serve your country sir why don't you answer the call of duty like all of us in the military instead of hiding behind that false conservative agenda you call reforming the country" you coward. Nobody along the border states; Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and Florida wants the fence. Hell, there is a border town in Texas that has an ordinance against Immigration and Customs Officials from operating within the town and they speak both spanish and english. As a matter of fact, the very state by which you reside in (Colorado) has had a latino community long before you got there, so why don't YOU GET THE HELL OUT? Though this may be just passionate opinion on my part, you should note that there are a lot of us latinos here to stay and bilinguals like me that have college degrees that can communicate to both english and spanish speaking parties that can definitely send a clear message about people like you.

"Do you know how dumb you are? Instead of worrying about hispanics why don't you worry about China instead, thats the real threat for the future not the people that are building this country. I never thought that I would have to re-educate degenerates like you, but I guess life is tough like that. My homework assignment to you is for you to read the Art of War and maybe you can finally get a clue. I hope you enjoyed this letter ass clown. Sincerely, HM2 Corpora

Mesmeric power of 'white racism'

A black American reflects on the Imus affair By Joseph C. Phillips (joseph@josephcphillips.com)

When I was a boy, my father charged me with cleaning up a mess in the bathroom. Thoroughly disgusted, I tried every way I knew how to avoid touching anything. The delay angered my father until finally in exasperation, he hollered, “You are going to touch much worse than that in your life!” He was correct. I have in my life touched much worse. The lesson learned was in all things we must keep our perspective.

Following an off-color joke about the Rutgers women’s basketball team that fell terribly flat, radio host Don Imus was fired from his program at MSNBC and a short time later was also released from his contract with CBS radio. One need not like Don Imus or approve of what he said in order to wonder if perhaps the punishment and the accompanying hysteria didn’t exceed the crime. On the other hand, we are living in a nation whose moral equilibrium has been turned topsy-turvy. And the culprit is not hip hop music or the hypocrisy of the post civil rights establishment. The moral offense that supersedes all other considerations is white racism and the guilt and victimhood that accompany it.

A woman in Seattle is caught on video tape in a drunken, profanity laced tirade in which she calls an Arab convenience store clerk “un-American” and “Gandhi.” She then grabs him by the throat committing a battery. Once sober and facing charges, she releases a statement assuring the witnessing public that she is not a racist. No matter that she is a sloppy drunk, with a mouth like a sailor and a batterer, she must make it clear that she is not a racist.

A sitting United States senator must defend himself against charges that 20 years ago he used the N word. Imus hasn’t changed his act in 15 years. For Leslie Moonves, CBS CEO, to feign surprise at the content of the Imus in the Morning program strains credulity. What did change is the now very public possibility of being tagged with the label of racist.

The exploitation of that fear is what is known as the race hustle and few are as adept at it as the reverends Sharpton and Jackson. But hey, don’t hate the player, hate the game! Both men are free to pass judgment on issues of race in spite of their own transgressions because their blackness makes them immune to charges of white racism. This immunity along with the amazing ability to be in front of every microphone in sight is the only source of their power.

A nation blind to race and focused on character and virtue is frightening to men like Sharpton and Jackson. The only virtue they possess is their rather deft wielding of the sword of white racism. Disaster for Sharpton and Jackson would have been if the Rutgers team had issued a statement along the lines of, “We don’t know who this clown is, but we are not going to allow his ugliness to distract from the beautiful women we are and the positive things we are doing.” But the power of white racism was too strong and they were lulled into victim hood replete with emotional hand wringing, claims of lives scarred and seasons ruined and appearances on Oprah.

They will in their lives experience much worse.

This sword, of course, cuts both ways. The Teflon that shields the race hustler offers similar protection to the rap artist. The real irony is the very thing that accuses whites is the same thing that makes the identical language in much of the popular culture intractable. As deplorable as we may find the language, our protestations gain little traction because they do not carry with them the weight of white racism. The black community cannot bring to bear the same deadly weapon on members of its own community. That is the real sad and unfortunate realization of this entire affair.

For our own sake, the conversation that will happen following the fall of Don Imus must at some point include the end of white racism. At some point, we must find a way to assuage our guilt over America’s original sin without destroying the foundations of our culture and falling further into the multi-cultural abyss. That is not an argument in favor of incivility or ugliness. It is, however, a plea for some perspective. ----------------------------- Denver native Joseph C. Phillips is a Hollywood actor, a syndicated columnist, a regular on Backbone radio, and the author of He Talk Like a White Boy, available wherever books are sold.