Reclaiming Wisconsin's Airwaves

Several years ago, an unknown blogger using the pseudonym "Template" created Whallah!  The purpose of this blog at that time was to be a foil to then squawk radio host Jessica McBride.  Soon after McBride was fired by WTMJ, which used a racially charged gaffe as an excuse, but really just wanted to cut corners and bring in the cheaper syndicated squawkers Dennis Miller and the always offensive Michael Savage.

At that time, Whallah! expanded to take on all of the local right wing squawkers, from Charlie "Mr. Woodhouse" Sykes to Mark "Wetback" Belling to the now departed but not missed Republican regurgitst Patrick McIlheran of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel infamy.

But this is just one little blog. It can do so much.

The powerhouses such at WTMJ-620 and ClearChannel's WISN-1130, not to mention other stations around the state are still spewing their one-sided message in order to support Republican/Teahadist causes and agendas.

So how the hell did this happen?

Let me introduce you to my new friend, Sue Wilson, who has more than a passing familiarity with talk radio.

Sue has made a movie about this (which is probably why she is willing to come to Wisconsin and get us started) but her ideas have sound basis and reflect much of what #wiunion has done in the past several months on its own.  To describe how we got here and her plan on how to help us, I would refer the gentle reader to her post (which is unfortunately on Huffington Post - Side word to Sue: Daily Kos, dear, Daily Kos).  Here is a couple of key excerpts:

That's not to say the demise of the Fairness Doctrine did not have an adverse effect. I produced public affairs programming under that rule at KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, and found it very workable. I did not have to tell both sides of the story, I just had to try to do so. I also witnessed how, once it was abolished, TV programs that covered the local community just disappeared. And on the radio side, once the Fairness Doctrine went away, there is little question that Rush Limbaugh went hard right on a national microphone, attacking Democrats and anyone else who gets in the way of his pro-corporate right wing agenda.

Copycats soon moved in, creating an industry of right wing propagandists. In 90 percent of radio programming today, no real debate is allowed (unless a brave or committed few sneak past the microphone hoarders' screeners.)

But the Fairness Doctrine wasn't perfect. Part of the problem was it employed a top down approach, with Big Daddy Government putting broadcasters in the untenable position of being liable for lawsuits even over content in comedy programs. (CBS was sued under the Fairness Doctrine when the Norman Lear character Maude had an abortion in the TV show of the same name; opponents sued, saying CBS must do other shows where women did not have an abortion.) Rather than face such reprise, some broadcasters chose not to cover any controversial issues at all, which many argue chilled debate rather than engendered it.

In August, 2011, the final nail has been pounded into the coffin of the Fairness Doctrine.

Sue goes on to point out that the Federal Appeals Court made a clear and cut ruling that the airwaves, despite the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, are clearly the public's airwaves. They belong to us, not to the Koch Brothers or to Journal Broadcasting. We only let them use them, via the government. If they violate the public interest in using the airwaves, we, the people, can and must correct that, as they did in Sacramento:

This is not to say the only way to get broadcasters to serve the public interest is by filing legal challenges to their licenses. The Sacramento Media Group, affiliated with Common Cause, has successfully employed a model of knocking on TV stations' doors, asking for five minutes of daily political coverage on TV during election season. It took meetings with station management making that request, monitoring stations' coverage for three election cycles, writing several reports and releasing them to local newspapers (which caused the stations considerable embarrassment.) But today, SMG has found success. Their next goal is to ask local Talk radio stations for balanced political coverage, again during election seasons.


At the end of the day, the publicly owned airwaves are about public safety, about community and about ensuring First Amendment rights for everyone in the public square of broadcasting. Luckily, the Supreme Court is on our side.

So, what does this have to do with any of us? Sue answers that question too:

That's the First Amendment Right of all the viewers and listeners, not the just ones who listen to the most profitable formats for corporations.
There is much energy around restoring the Public into the Public Interest. A grassroots movement started earlier this year in Florida, when the UU Legislative Ministry supported an 11 city media reform tour featuring Broadcast Blues.

But it is really finding its legs next month with the 2011 Wisconsin Media Reform Tour featuring Broadcast Blues. (Broadcast Blues is the 2009 documentary film I made which delves into issues of public interest obligations of broadcasters.) Thanks to the organizing efforts of local folks, I'll be traveling to eight cities in Wisconsin, showing the film, then surveying citizens as to their specific public interest needs. Next, we'll work on how to approach their local broadcasters, not just by email, but with personal visits, and convey to the broadcasters what they need. In some cases, friendly visits will get great results: heck, the manager of the station could be somebody you went to high school with. But other times, protests, boycotts, maybe even legal petitions to deny the stations' licenses may need to be filed.

We'll do whatever it takes to restore the public -- all the public -- into the public interest obligations of broadcasters.

But unlike the Fairness Doctrine, this is a bottom up approach. This is "We the People" holding both broadcasters -- and the FCC accountable to us. We are taking back that which we already own: our public airwaves.

Stay tuned as we get closer. We will need to form teams to take on not only Milwaukee's broadcasters, but in cities all over the state, from Madison to Wausau to Green Bay. The more hands that we have on board, the easier and the faster we can correct this problem which has plagued us for far too long.

Just as we are taking back our state, we need to take back our airwaves.

Are you with us?

Cross posted at Cog Dis.

Another Right Wing Lie Put To Rest

Charlie Sykes, Patrick McIlheran, and the entire Posse Comatose, have just been, once again, proven to be hyperventilating over nothing when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine. Despite their repeated lies to scare the public, it the Fairness Doctrine just ain't coming back:

The Senate voted Thursday in favor of an amendment to the District of Columbia voting-rights bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which critics say would decimate conservative talk radio.

The Senate passed the measure 87-11.

At first it seemed odd that the right wing wasn't all over this celebrating, but then I realized why they aren't saying anything. It would prove them to be lying, again. And secondly, they have just lost another weapon in their fear and smear campaign.

Who else but a right winger could get what they want and not be happy about it?

Tip of the crown to the Chief.

Battle Of The Squawkers

Kevin Fischer is continuing with his "scientific" analysis of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Sunday Editorial page.

I think his premise is that if he eliminates the conservative columnists, like PaddyMac, he can prove that the conservative paper is liberal.

What his scheme is is obviously clear to everyone. Ol' Kevin is trying to create an argument to reinstall a version of the Fairness Doctrine, even as Charlie just proved to us that the whole thing is a bunch of bovine excrement.

Perhaps we should just go ahead and set up a cage match between the two now.

Charlie Kills Another Squawking Point

Cindy Kilkenny makes an excellent point on her blogsite, Fairly Conservative.

Cindy points out that with Charlie signing a multi-year contract, that this effectively wipes out any credence to the squawker's fear mongering regarding the Fairness Doctrine.

I guess now Charlie, Paddy and the rest will have to settle for the old "Barack Obama wants to make this a Marxist country and open the borders to illegal Muslim gay terrorists who want to raise our taxes while singing the national anthem in Spanish while they're burning Bibles and eating dead babies.

Or something like that.

Fairness Is In The Eye Of The Beholder

McIlheran, going along with the rest of the herd (or do squawkers come in flocks?) had a column in yesterday's paper regarding Sykes' favorite bogeyman, the Fairness Doctrine. He then followed up said column (hey, Paddy, how come I'm still not on your mailing list? Where's my previews of your column?) with an inane blog post, which gives away the other main reason for the column/post/fear mongering.

There are two main problems with his argument.

The first problem, as pointed out at The Chief, is that there is no realistic expectation that the Fairness Doctrine will ever be reinstated. After listing the fact that both McIlheran and the author he cites admit that President Elect Barack Obama has come out on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, the Chief continues with this:

But, of course, it's not the end of the story -- not so far as Anderson and McIlheran are concerned. Instead of just accepting Obama's position -- a position both gentlemen agree with -- both men seem the astonishing: absent any evidence to back up their claim -- and contrary to the very official statement released by the campaign, they promote the idea that Obama does, in fact, support the fairness doctrine.

This breach of good faith argumentation genuinely makes my head ache.

Where are the secret memos advising legislators to unleash the Fairness Doctrine bills in the next congress? What about the discretely recorded speeches at fund-raisers with Obama telling liberal contributors that the first thing he's going to do is shut down Rush Limbaugh and the rest of his ilk? Were are the college classmates who remember Obama arguing passionately in his Intro to Comm Law class for the reinstatement of the Doctrine?

Anderson's article, which McIlheran merely appropriates, offers absolutely no evidence to support his claim that Obama actually support the Fairness doctrine. Instead, Anderson glosses over what the broadcasting industry would look like if it were reinstated. No substance, but plenty of tangentially related speculation.

Absent any empirical evidence to the contrary, the only thing we have to go on is Obama's word, which neither Anderson nor McIlheran seem satisfied with, which might strike some as odd since Obama's position is also Anderson and McIlerhan's position!

I think we all know why this is the case: it's better to be on the offensive -- and to smite one's enemies -- than to expend valuable column inches on defending, justifying, or admonishing one's colleagues with regards to the phenomenal failure the party and ideology has been during the last eight years.

That would take a degree of intellectual courage that McIlheran frankly doesn't have the balls for.

Do read the rest of the post by The Chief, in which he goes on to put a spit through Sykes, and roasts him nicely.

Jay Folkbum, aka Jay Bullock, points to the real motivation behind PaddyMac's lamentation - profit making by a colleague:

The idea frightens talk radio radio hosts, as well as it should, since by the hosts' own admission, they often will purposely keep the objects of their attack off the air even when the victims try to call in and offer their side of the argument.

However, the fairness doctrine is not coming back. President-elect Barack Obama does not support it. There are no bills pending in Congress, which, frankly, has better things to do. TNR reporter Marin Cogan couldn't find anyone willing to go on or off record suggesting the doctrine's return is anything but fantasy. The last time anyone introduced the idea, it barely got out of draft form. It's just not going to happen.

But that hasn't stopped the right from believing it will--just as they seem to believe that Barack Obama is coming for their guns.

[...]

Yes, friends, someone is out there trying to sell a book opposing the fairness doctrine. Like Hugh Hewitt's How Sarah Palin Won the Election ... and Saved America, a book on the return of the fairness doctrine is a book about an imaginary thing, and won't sell very well unless the authors' allies can really gin up the fear for them. Bravo, authors Anderson and Thierer, for working the market like pros. Boo McIlheran, for shilling for them.

So, you see, it's not that Paddy and Charlie are afraid that they will not be able to continue to spew their vitriol. It's just that they realized that some of us still have a couple of bucks despite eight years of Bushonomics, and they want the rest of our money for themselves and their buddies.

Fairness idea terrorizes radio talkers

Joel McNally on the Fairness Doctrine, which terrorizes the right-wing Republican talkers who dominate the airwaves:

Conservatives explain the total dominance of right-wing opinions on talk radio by claiming that right-wing personalities are somehow inherently more interesting and entertaining than anyone expressing views on the left. That doesn’t make any sense at a time when the intelligent, hilarious news satires of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert coming from the left are among the most popular shows on television.

It seems far more likely that half of America doesn’t even bother turning on commercial talk radio because they expect their intelligence to be insulted by simpleminded, right-wing rants up and down the dial.

Read it here.

Playing The Strong Suit

Sykes is again running scared from the bogeymen in his mind.

It never ceases to amaze me that someone who is constantly accusing others of using the "victim card" is always so quick to use the card himself. Even if he has to make stuff up to use it.

Of course, to be fair, he's not the only right winger to do that.

I guess that they just complain about it more, because they stick to what they know best.

Sykes Is Haunted By Bogeymen

Last night, I linked to a post done by Illy-T, which pointed out that Sykes and company could do damage to one's mind.

Sykes took umbrage to Illy-T's post, and decided to squawk about it today on his show.

Unfortunately for him, he didn't have an argument he could win with, so he invented a whole new bogeyman to drive fear into the hearts of his listeners.

During his paranoid rant, he started to complain about the Fairness Doctrine, even though not one blogger had mentioned it.

Luckily for me, I got to my destination before he was done, so I didn't have to listen to the whole slew of garbage he was trying to sling. But to Charlie's credit, he did say that he was ashamed that Savage was a conservative squawker, and that he found Savage would often go over the line.

However, Charlie then through any credibility away in a classic Sykesian maneuver. While stating that he was disappointed in Savage, there would be no way he would ever condone censorship or limiting anyone's free speech...as he was cutting off and hanging up on a liberal caller that was disproving his arguments.

Split Personality

Sykes gives more free advertisment to his pet, Scott Walker, by posting his latest commercial. I'm not quite sure what the message Walker was trying to convey is, but all I got from it is that he has a split personality.

One is how he thinks other people see him:

Mario

The other is how he really is:

Scrooge

Come to think of it, either way he's right. A greedy man or a cartoon character.

Sykes Likes The Fairness Doctrine

We saw last month that McBride was coming around to liking the idea of having the Fairness Doctrine.

Today, Sykes links to this site, which reported that conservative Bill Kristol would be having a regular column in the New York Times.

So now I guess, he is starting to like the idea behind the Fairness Doctrine as well.

Sidenote to Charlie: I might consider being the opposing viewpoint on your show, if the money is right. Have your people email me at Whallah@gmail.com. Of course, you'll need to get more conservatives to make it a fair match.

McBride Wants The Fairness Doctrine

In a comment thread from her own blogsite, McBride states that she thinks the Fairness Doctrine is a bad thing:

Kay said...
Am I reading you correctly that you believe Ann Coulter is in the realm of journalism or that the Fairness Doctrine could somehow discourage free speech?
November 23, 2007 10:32 PM

Jessica
McBride said...
Ann Coulter is an opinion-maker, just like Maureen Dowd is. Are they journalists? They are not objective journalists. They are opinion writers.

Would the Fairness Doctrine restrict and chill free speech? Yes. It already has.
November 23, 2007 11:44 PM

However, in a more recent post, in which she asks some of Whallah!'s esteemed colleagues to join her on her blogtalkradio program, she writes this:

Even though some liberal bloggers have libeled me, and called me the "C" word, I decided it would be interesting to invite a few of the more intelligent ones to do an end-of-the-year blog talk radio show with me and a few conservatives (names TBA). I did this in all sincerity. I get sick of hearing liberals talking to liberals and conservatives talking to conservatives sometimes. I thought an end-of-the-year show mixing it up in a respectful manner would be interesting to people and inform the public debate.

In other words, she was against the Fairness Doctrine before she was for it. There may be hope for her yet. (Plus she shows that she still can't let go of a grudge, but we already knew that.)

(Re)Public Speaking

McBride again displays her own unique brand of schizophrenic logic in this post about the fairness doctrine. Jay Bullock at folkbum's performs the analysis here. You know it's gotta be good when it starts out with the statement, "...a perfect example of what for most people would be mind-splittingly painful cognitive dissonance".