Walden defends unfair conservative control of airwaves
In an article about the possible return of the Fairness Doctrine, The Oregonian has this bit from Oregon Congressman Greg Walden, a Republican who inherited some radio stations:
If you want to be accurate about how talk radio really works, consider the corporate blacklists that decide who gets the advertising dollars. From Media Matters last October:
In the Oregonian article, Walden also tries to justify the complete imbalance on the public airwaves by pointing to satellite broadcasts and the internet as evidence that no change is needed. While it's true these new mediums have opened things up, it's also true that you can't surf the web while driving to work (or at least you really shouldn't.) And really, comparing the internet to AM radio is just facile. One is push and one is pull.
But the real issue is that the public airwaves belong to the public, and are licensed to companies like Walden's to act in the public interest. Why are the rest of us being forced to support political speech we disagree with? I thought that was a big no-no in the conservative pantheon of absolute principles, but I guess not so much when it plays in their favor.
Walden also complains about how horribly burdensome it was for radio stations to sort out how to put opposing views on the air, to which I must reply "cry me a river." Yes, it would be difficult to find someone to oppose Rush Limbaugh, as there would likely be over 10,000 applicants, but some things are worth the effort for the common good.
There's an old saw that goes "freedom of the press belongs to those with the presses," and it gets a little tiresome when legacy media owners like Walden think they deserve special treatment just for being born. Forget the Fairness Doctrine, if we wanted to stick it to people like Walden we would have a 100% estate tax on media properties, as after the first generation the quality of ownership almost always declines. I'd imagine our readers can think of a few examples in Washington state.
Among the five stations Walden owns is KACI, which airs conservative talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan. While the stations offer some local, objective news reporting, they don't balance the conservative talkers with liberal shows.Ah yes, the marketplace. That completely unfettered, absolutely pure abstraction that exists mostly in the fevered imaginations of ideologically pure Republicans.
Walden acknowledges the rightward slant of talk radio but attributes it to consumer demand.
"Is it more conservative than liberal? Yeah," Walden said. "Are there a lot more country-western stations than polka stations? Yeah. Listeners make these determinations. The marketplace decides."
If you want to be accurate about how talk radio really works, consider the corporate blacklists that decide who gets the advertising dollars. From Media Matters last October:
An internal ABC Radio Networks memo obtained by Media Matters for America, originally from a listener to The Peter B. Collins Show, indicates that nearly 100 ABC advertisers insist that their commercials be blacked out on Air America Radio affiliates. According to the memo, the advertisers insist that "NONE of their commercials air during AIR AMERICA programming." Among the advertisers listed are Bank of America, Exxon Mobil, Federal Express, General Electric, McDonald's, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and the U.S. Navy.I'm no lawyer, but I bet during the New Deal that sort of thing would have been met with swift action by the Justice Department. Of course, we don't really have much of a Justice Department any more, so that's kind of out. But it sure is neat how conservatives get to claim the market supports their ideology while using corporate power to enforce it, making such a beautiful circle for them.
In the Oregonian article, Walden also tries to justify the complete imbalance on the public airwaves by pointing to satellite broadcasts and the internet as evidence that no change is needed. While it's true these new mediums have opened things up, it's also true that you can't surf the web while driving to work (or at least you really shouldn't.) And really, comparing the internet to AM radio is just facile. One is push and one is pull.
But the real issue is that the public airwaves belong to the public, and are licensed to companies like Walden's to act in the public interest. Why are the rest of us being forced to support political speech we disagree with? I thought that was a big no-no in the conservative pantheon of absolute principles, but I guess not so much when it plays in their favor.
Walden also complains about how horribly burdensome it was for radio stations to sort out how to put opposing views on the air, to which I must reply "cry me a river." Yes, it would be difficult to find someone to oppose Rush Limbaugh, as there would likely be over 10,000 applicants, but some things are worth the effort for the common good.
There's an old saw that goes "freedom of the press belongs to those with the presses," and it gets a little tiresome when legacy media owners like Walden think they deserve special treatment just for being born. Forget the Fairness Doctrine, if we wanted to stick it to people like Walden we would have a 100% estate tax on media properties, as after the first generation the quality of ownership almost always declines. I'd imagine our readers can think of a few examples in Washington state.
