Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Propaganda: TV and Radio




If you lived in Germany during Hitler's time, you would have had a reason to think the media was biased. The Nazis controlled all the newspapers and the new media: radio.

The Nazis produced a radio for their own mass market, and made it difficult for people to listen to distant broadcasts. Also it was forbidden to listen to foreign radio stations. This kind of live, instant mass communications had never before been available, and the Nazis made the most of it.

Now moving to North America at the end of the twentieth century. "Over 70 percent of Americans believe that there is a great deal or a fair amount of media bias in news coverage" (according to Pew, 2004).

Well, in 1949, after the experience of the Nazis, the US introduced the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting which applied to radio and the even newer Television. There were several parts to this doctrine, which varied somewhat over the years. But in 1987, under Ronald Reagan, the Fairness Doctrine was dropped. Meaning that media outlets are not required to give equal time to opposing points of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

But there were still two rules that remained in effect. The "personal attack" rule, where stations had to notify such persons within a week of the attack with an offer to respond on their station. The "political editorial" said that if the station endorsed a candidate with editorial comment, the opposing candidates be notified and allowed to respond.

In 2000, the remaining two rules were dropped. Since then, owning media outlets is an efficient way push propaganda out to a mass market at minimal cost.

Considering the experience of the Nazis was the reason for the Fairness Doctrine, it's not surprising what would happen when it was dropped. Now we have Fox News channel on cable TV, and Clear Channel Communications on radio. Fox launched October 7, 1996 and is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It has now attracted the largest number of viewers of a cable news network. Another highly political media is Clear Channel Communications, a radio network based in San Antonio Texas. Lowry Mays, currently chairman, is a George W. Bush supporter. Clear Channel hosts right wing talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity,and a slate of other right wing pundits. Clear Channel is the largest radio broadcaster in the USA, with 900 stations.

Although many people attack Fox News as a right wing biased outlet, Fox claims to be fair and balanced, and they claim that it is the other media outlets that are left wing biased. Clear Channel Communications as far as I can tell makes no claim to be fair or unbiased.

Either way, it does seem to me that there is an appetite in the USA for a news outlet that has only one side of the story. There is a human need for an easily understood point of view. Evangelical pastors also tell their flocks that the mainstream media is left biased, and that only certain stations like Fox News are fair. Hitler, of course didn't want to take that chance and simply made it illegal to listen to any other stations.

3 comments:

  1. Columbia Journalism Review maintains a very interesting list of Who Owns What in terms of stations owned by the major media companies (includes Canadian companies).

    ReplyDelete
  2. This Columbia Jornalism Review page "Who owns what" goes a long way towards being able to predict that some media outlets will be better than others. The CBC, for example is an "independent" crown corporation, and receives government funding, although obviously it recieves some advertising revenue. Global News is owned by Canwest, which owns the National Post. So I would assume Global News standards of journalism would not be much better than The National Post. Although some people don't trust the government funding aspect, the CBC strikes me as having better sources, fewer opinions, less fluff entertainment passing as news, more investigations by their own people.

    Also, the common ownership helps explain why a lot of media outlets support the same ideologies, the same political parties, and carry the same stories from the same point of view.

    The Columbia Journalism Review itself seems to have pretty high journalistic standards, which I suppose you should be able to expect from their name. I read a couple of articles and they both went behind the scenes to examine not just the story itself but how the story gets reported and distorted.

    A matter of trust article

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have to be careful about what you read in the Columbia Journalism Review ... it's put out by one of those left leaning New England universities.

    ReplyDelete