Timothy Karr Campaign Director, Free Press and SaveTheInternet.com
Posted: September 16, 2009 10:47 AM
What Beck, Dobbs and Limbaugh Are Really Afraid Of
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Can you smell the fear? Switch on cable news or tune in to talk radio and it comes wafting in.
Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck has bottled his own scent. Lou Dobbs’ fear gives off a distinct undertone of racial intolerance. And Rush Limbaugh takes to the air to spread an odor that’s designed to make Americans angry at, well, other Americans.
It’s a fear that’s laced with paranoia, stoked by misinformation and prejudice and fed to millions of people via powerful media. But most of all, it’s a fear of the changes that an overwhelming majority of Americans called for when they stepped into voting booths last November.
Since then, the old guard has fallen into alignment with old media to hijack the public debate over reform, and vilify reformers as anti-American. And to them the most anti-American notion of the lot is the idea that we need to reform the media itself.
"Part of the strategy of this fundamental ‘transformation’ of America is to silence dissent," Glenn Beck said on Fox last month. The "most diabolical, hidden parts of this plan," according to Beck, are efforts to reform media through "localism and diversity" — two principles that have grounded modern communications policy for decades.
Beck was later joined on the program by Rush Limbaugh, who called localism and diversity part of the growing tyranny of the left. This issue is "simply un-American," Limbaugh crowed. "They’re trying to do this back-door route with diversity… to shut you up by shutting us down."
Not to be outdone, Lou Dobbs stated falsely: "When you talk about diversity, [you aren’t] talking about ethnic, racial or religious diversity, [you ‘re] talking about more liberals on the air."
The cloud of media hysteria could have been waved off by more sensible voices on cable’s evening news roster. But few have stepped forward to challenge Beck, Limbaugh and Dobbs, to replace their fomenting with facts. More worrisome, voices of reason seem to be absent from the media "pundocracy" altogether.
While Beck and his ilk want to portray diversity and localism as a dangerous conspiracy to censor, the fact remains that these ideas have been staples of communications policy since the beginning. The central mandate of the Federal Communications Commission — as enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934 — is to promote localism, diversity and competition in the media. This same principle of localism has been a rallying cry for several generations of true conservatives.
Broadcasters get hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies and the right to use our airwaves in exchange for a basic commitment to be responsive to the interests of local communities.
Moreover, the Supreme Court recognized that "safeguarding the public’s right to receive a diversity of views and information over the airwaves is … an integral component of the FCC’s mission."
Sadly, the FCC has failed to live up to this standard. And what mainstream media’s fear-merchants are most afraid of is not censorship, but an FCC that actually does its job — creating more opportunities for people like you and me to participate in media.
We don’t have that now. Washington bureaucrats have allowed powerful media corporations to control the public airwaves and dominate local cable networks. We have reached a nadir where the free press that Thomas Jefferson hoped would open "all the avenues to truth" has devolved into a media system that’s a megaphone for the few.
Beck and Limbaugh, in particular, are two corporate welfare babies who owe much of their existence to this regulatory failure, which handed control of our airwaves to massive conglomerates like Clear Channel and ABC Radio to broadcast their fear agenda via a syndicated network of centrally owned radio stations.
The cable sector that carries Beck and Dobbs’ nightly paranoia is itself a gigantic bundle of government handouts, having built invaluable local monopolies via granted rights-of-way that beam these two into nearly every den in America.
Try calculating what it would cost to get your content across America without a local or federal government clearing your path, and you quickly realize that blowhards like Beck, Dobbs and Limbaugh are three of the nation’s biggest beneficiaries of public largesse.
And while they’re raking in millions in salaries via their government-granted fiefdoms, you, the owner of the airwaves and roads and telephone poles over which they transmit, are getting nothing in exchange.
The ultimate irony of Beck, Dobbs and Limbaugh is that they couch in populist rhetoric a message that, in its very essence, is anti-populist — designed to protect the swindle at the core of our media system’s failure.
And that is why the media’s old guard is targeting the idea that this system needs to change.
In his media and technology agenda, President Obama took up the cause of reform by committing to "diversity in the ownership of broadcast media," and pledging to "promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints."
Obama is right, but he needs to get started on fulfilling that commitment. Winning real change and giving more people a media voice is ultimately the best response we have to fear campaigns.
Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr
***************
From Free Press-
Fear-mongering by the media is nothing new. But never before in our memory has it reached the fever pitch that I see every time I turn on cable news.
And no one in this pack of pundits has been more extreme than Glenn Beck. The Fox News Channel host concocts wild-eyed conspiracy theories, falsely labels people fascists and racists, and has hijacked the public debate over vital national issues.
Our concerns are not about partisanship; they’re not about left versus right. They’re about the media’s responsibility to tell the truth. And it’s why tens of thousands of Free Press activists signed our "Glenn Beck Doesn’t Speak for Me" letter. Now, Free Press and ColorofChange are working together to make the media’s smear merchants pay the price for their attacks.
ColorofChange has asked all advertisers to pull their sponsorship from Beck’s nightly program. More than 62 advertisers have listened, and the show’s advertising revenues have plummeted — making Beck a growing financial liability for Fox.
Please help us keep the pressure on by signing ColorofChange’s call to action:
http://colorofchange.org/beck/hold/?rf=fp
Some say that we should just ignore Glenn Beck’s media circus and it will go away. But Beck’s attacks have actually harmed people. We need to tell Beck and his bosses that their efforts to stoke fear and prejudice come with consequences of their own.
Working together, Free Press and ColorofChange hope to send a clear message to other media as well: As we make critical decisions about the future of health care, the environment and our economy, we can’t let our media system be overrun by hysteria and misinformation.
Beck has a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants — and we’re not asking for him to be silenced. But he doesn’t have the right to a cable news show funded by millions in corporate ad dollars. News media that have no sense of responsibility to the truth need to be held accountable, and they can be.
It’s up to the public to speak out.
Thank you,
Josh Silver
Free Press
www.freepress.net
James Rucker
ColorofChange
www.ColorofChange.org
Oh come on Cindy! This is beyond ridicules.
Comunist propaganda, some of the people are in fact big Thugo Chavez admirers, so is Obama regulation zar.
The biggest falacy is that somehow federal regulation helps. Of course, since the goverments “own” the airwaves, the regulations help.
Well, why not just privatize the frequencies?
No, instead they go and hide into the regulations to promote divestity, in other words, to get more media outlets to be like CNN; ABC; NBC or CBS, just mouthpieces of the DNC.
Well folks, that is the same things Chavez is doing south of the border, and so Kirchner in Argentina.
To quell dissent in the name of “diversitiy and localism”.
I never has hear Glenn Beck, I do not even have Fox News, but I do belive now he is telling the truth, it sounds too much like Chavez to be just a coincidence. I heard Obama diversity Zar is a great fan of Chavez.
Harvey Dent Says:
“I never has hear Glenn Beck, I do not even have Fox News, but I do belive now he is telling the truth, it sounds too much like Chavez to be just a coincidence. I heard Obama diversity Zar is a great fan of Chavez.”
…and people wonder why America’s political system is so messed up! As lies become facts in a matter of a few rambling sentences in the minds of people who haven’t a clue as to what is being discussed.
Man I do have a clue, I know what that groups stand for, they are great fans of Chavez, and since Im a foe of Chavez, they enemies of my enemy are my enemies.
After Kennedy and JBJ the politics of Democrats in Latinamerica have been mostly pro comunist. I live there most of the time so I know that well.
Hey, Glenn Beck, Rush, Sean, Bill might be morons or not, but they are a small minority.
If people listen to them is becasue the mainstream media has become so lame and predictable that many people has stopped caring anymore.
So they went for the shock jocks.
So Rush made some Americans be angry at other Americans? Too bad, lest play we are the world instead. So Glenn Beck is a bit nuts, so what. And yes Lou Dobbs is a bit of a xenofobe, but the left has no articulated the goods of inmigration, other that “diversity” (there are great economic arguments for inmigration but those are only for the Wall Street Journal). And yes, Sean is a moron, and Bill seems to be a cynic. So what?
Freedom of speech is not about letting people say what you like but what you do not like.
Shall the enemies of my enemy are still my enemies but the friends of my enemies might be my enemies too.
The fact is that what the fuck was to do this
“The central mandate of the Federal Communications Commission — as enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934 — is to promote localism, diversity and competition in the media.”
with the original purpose of the First Amedment after all?
Note the Orwellian double speak here:
“And what mainstream media’s fear-merchants are most afraid of is not censorship, but an FCC that actually does its job — creating more opportunities for people like you and me to participate in media.”
So the FCC cutting other people frequencies and broadcast oportunities so more “diverse”, “people like you and me”, read Obama supporters, read left wing constituency has more “opportunities” to broadcast is not censorhip but broadcast redistribution. Double speak. Free Press my arse.
Same argument as Chavez, lifted verbatim from his speeches.
“As we make critical decisions about the future of health care, the environment and our economy, we can’t let our media system be overrun by hysteria and misinformation.”
Because we all know the left always has the monopoly of truth, honesty and never, ever lies, never. Only the right lies. Just ask Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, and yes Jimmy “Chavez makes honest elections” Carter.
“Beck has a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants — and we’re not asking for him to be silenced. But he doesn’t have the right to a cable news show funded by millions in corporate ad dollars. News media that have no sense of responsibility to the truth need to be held accountable, and they can be.”
Chavez will be proud, in Venezuela he has said, “well there is freedon of speech but the airwaves are owned by the Goverment and the goverment will asign the airwaves to the people that uses honestly and do not spread lies about the goverment”.
Again, I do not like Glenn Beck but he has the right to say what he wants and the sponsors to sell space on his program instead of being intimidated by the Obamistas.
Here is a fairly balanced article on Glenn Beck by TIME/CNN.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924348-3,00.html
Since I have never seen his program other that some of the Penn Jilette interventions as a pundit (!) but I do find her Obama/Soviet Anthem hilarious (and sadly prophetic regarding to him) I have no personal opinion.
I’m surprised to know he is a mormon.
I was su
I simply have to go back to this statement…“I never has hear Glenn Beck, I do not even have Fox News, but I do belive now he is telling the truth, it sounds too much like Chavez to be just a coincidence. I heard Obama diversity Zar is a great fan of Chavez.”
It’s fine to have opinions on the world — but to admit you don’t know what you’re talking about, rather defeats having a reasoned debate. Perhaps you might try watching Beck’s show, along with watching the other nighttime programs on Fox News, before making judgments on the network and its hosts and how ‘truthful’ their statements and analysis of complex issues are.
Yet this again, speaks to my original statement that part of the problem with American politics, is that segments of the populace are not as informed as they think they are. They watch cable news, or listen to the radio; but that’s just it…they passively listen and never engage their minds or seek out other sources to better understand the complex issues facing the world. I often laugh to myself over how Rush’s fans PROUDLY call themselves ‘ditto-heads’ (as in, yes Rush…I agree 110% with what you just said…no need for me to investigate or think for MYSELF…I’ll just agree with ANYTHING you say about the world…”).
No wonder people like Rush make such a hissyfit about the ‘Fairness Doctrine’. For if there was really a government mandate for ‘equal time’ on the airways, he might lose some of the power he and other conservative radio people have gained…as they wouldn’t own the debate on radio 24/7 unchecked.
How many of Beck’s fans know he’s a recovering alcoholic, suffers from ADD and hyperactivity, has a family history of suicide and mental illness (much less that he converted to Mormonism upon moving to Utah early in his life). How many of his fans know he got his start in radio from winning a DJ contest, or that he dropped out of college. Better yet, does any of his history bear on his present activities? Should it? Might one ask why a college dropout, former rodeo clown, ex-top 40 radio DJ, with a history of mental illness should have such a large platform in which to voice their opinions?
Or put it this way — if that SAME person walked into a TV/Radio studio with a resume with those details, should they be hired to host a political opinion show? The way in which this nation treats someone who simply had sex on camera, makes you wonder how THAT person is a notch above a leper, and yet Beck and his baggage makes him a ‘hero of the people’ because he’s asking dopy questions about the government (questions that I dare say, even Tanner Mayes, Sasha Grey or Brian Pumper could ask).
Again, for a political party that is always talking about the ‘power of prayer’ and how we should be judged on our ‘actions’ not our ‘past’ — the Republicans sure to tend to ignore one’s past when it’s politically expedient, and use it when it politically serves their interests.
Thusly, we’re supposed to ignore Rush Limbaugh’s past history with drug abuse and the law (all of which files contrary to his public statements about abusing drugs), Rep. DeLay’s ethics problems with lobbyists, Col. Oliver North’s illegal activities (Iran/Contra), O’Reilly’s sexual harassment of a staffer, Bush Jr.’s DUI & spotty Air National Guard records (not to mention his battle with alcohol and cocaine) — but we’re never supposed to forget that Clinton got a BJ from a pudgy intern, Sen. Byrd was once a high-level KKK member, Sen. Edwards screwed around on his wife while she had cancer, Hillary’s Whitewater dealings, and now that Obama was a ‘community organizer’ familiar with ‘left wing’ literature.
For a guy like Beck who claims to just be ‘asking reasonable questions’ about a whole range of issues (but let’s be honest, he’s not asking a lot of those questions about Republicans or Conservatives) — why can’t his critics do the same about him? Or for that matter, when did the ‘truth’ become exclusive to one political philosophy?