Sometimes you read something that is so stunningly stupid, you have to re-read it several times before it sinks in that someone actually believes this. A case in point is Krazy Kate's final blather on her CBC site on the priorities that Prime Minister designate Stephen Harper must pursue. To her, the transformation of the Canadian media landscape into a right wing noise machine is among the first orders of business.
First, she waxes nostalgic about the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine in the United States, an act which made possible the downward spiral of the U.S media to the point where George Bush can break the law without fear of his actions becoming a media sensation, and right wing talking points establish the news cycle's narrative.
When Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004, the outpouring of emotion belied the fact that in his own day, he was as reviled and ridiculed by both the media and the left as George W. Bush is today.Of his many and longlasting achievements, one in particular is largely overlooked - the profound effect he had on liberating the American democratic debate and opening the door to conservative thought and opinion in media. The explosion of talk radio led by Rush Limbaugh and the growing influence of the unapologetically pro-American Fox News were made possible by Reagan's determination to eliminate the FCC "fairness doctrine."
"The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. [...] The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended."
After the courts transformed the policy into law, Reagan-appointed FCC chairman Mark Fowler publicly vowed to kill it. When both houses voted to reinstate it, Reagan vetoed and the political debate in America was transformed.
Transformed indeed, into the mess it is today. The Fairness Doctrine was a solid piece of legislation which ensured that the media could not simply push a preferred storyline (WMD, anyone?) without ensuring critical voices were included in the debate. It was occasionally used by both the left and the right to try to silence their opponents, but those attempts at intimidation had to be made openly, and often became part of the story, allowing the public to see the struggle going on between the opposing viewpoints. Despite attempts to kill the doctrine prior to Reagan, its legitimacy was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court:
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. — U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
What Reagan and the U.S. right wing achieved with the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine was to place the rights of corporate media conglomerates ahead of those of the citizens of the United States. News coverage began to follow established narratives, tilting away from investigative reporting exposing corporate or (Republican) government corruption and focusing on trivial issues and agreed-upon talking points. Thus we had wall-to-wall coverage of Bill Clinton's blow job, but virtually no opposing viewpoints on the war in Iraq. Fox News is the ultimate product of the end of the Fairness Doctrine.
Of course, McMillan pulls out the pathetic canard about "Canada's liberal media", an idea so absurb it makes parody impossible. Can you see the boards of Bellglobemedia, Quebecor and Canwest getting together for a symposium on how to end child poverty or rescue medicare? Back to you-know-who:
As the most recent example of the pervasive liberal-left world view of the mainstream Canadian media, I need only point to the tenor of the final week of the campaign, in which abortion was raised as an issue by the Martin campaign.Despite the fact that this most contentious of public policy issues offers legitimate arguments both for and against, with huge advocacy constituencies on both sides - no reporter, no pundit, no network head, thought it appropriate to make Mr. Martin defend the Liberal party position of preserving the status quo. That Canada has no abortion law at all, that for-profit clinics operate in many provinces, the costs to the Canada health system - none of these points were considered worthy of debate. No one asked Paul Martin if he thought there was a legitimate case to be made for a more balanced, centrist public policy on abortion.
Instead, the media took the Liberal postiion as the desired default, and demanded Harper explain himself. That's illuminating - for it allows only two possibile explanations: the first, that no one thought to do so. The second - the recognition of a potential - and "undesirable" - Conservative majority. Would that have happened if there were a true Canadian equivalent to Fox News? I suspect not - the questions about abortion might have gone both ways, with the public engaged in a legitimate public policy debate.
The reason for this approach to that particular issue is that Canadians have by and large come to a national consensus on abortion: it is between a woman and her doctor. No one "wants" an abortion, but it must remain a choice for those who feel they need the procedure. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Simple, and I completely respect your choice. Only extremists want to force their perspective on every citizen. Thus attempting to reopen this painful debate was news. Now back to Kate's dribblings:
So in addition to the list of priorities that Harper will be taking on - the accountability act, opening the books to forensic audits, enacting planned tax cuts - the single most important change he can make to restore balance to Canadian democracy is to begin breaking down the stranglehold of government and the Liberal apparatchik on the communications industry by eliminating or radically restricting the authority of the CRTC, restoring political balance on the board of the CBC and moving the network to a model of market self-sufficiency, and closing the generous pasture land of government funded "think tanks" where deposed and unemployed Liberals retire to lobby the government at government expense - and inform Canadians of our "Canadian values."For until and unless conservatives can look forward to hearing their voice, their issues, their world view expressed as part of - as opposed to subject matter for - mainstream Canadian media, the prospects for the election of Stephen Harper to bring "Morning to Canada" will be remembered only as a brief time out for Canada's unnaturally governing party.
One can only wonder in a media landscape peopled with the Sun newspapers, the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen, the Western Standard, the new right-wing Maclean's, the Globe and Mail and Global News just how conservatives are starved to hear their viewpoints in public discourse, but in Kate's world, one Toronto Star is one Toronto Star too many. Like all wingnuts, she seeks not wide-ranging viewpoints but right wing media dominance.
The public debate in the U.S. leading up to the creation of the Fairness Doctrine and its antecedent legislation was illuminating, and showed how prescient the Doctrine's proponents were in predicting corporate dominance of the media, particularly where the power medium of broadcasting was concerned:
American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people. — Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)
Govenrment regulation of broadcasting ensures that the rights of the viewers and readers are put before the needs and want of our media's corporate masters, allowing us to have a fuller picture of the debate on issues of national importance. Transforming Canada's media into a neutered cliche machine that obsesses over runaway brides, missing white women and the "war on Christmas" is an abominable idea.
McMillan is - sadly - Canada's most influential right wing blogger, and she has the ears of the Conservative Party as well. We should not fool ourselves into believing the right wing brain trust isn't embracing this idea she is pushing. The Conservatives have in fact been intentionally slippery on exactly what their plans are, especially when it comes to the CBC.
Therefore it is incumbent upon us to ensure that any assault on the Canadian media meets with firm opposition.
One can only wonder in a media landscape peopled with the Sun newspapers, the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen, the Western Standard, the new right-wing Maclean's, the Globe and Mail and Global News just how conservatives are starved to hear their viewpoints in public discourse
Playing the victim is what American movement conservatives have done so well for three decades. They continue to do it even while they control all three branches of government. Kate's just applying the same methodology to Canada.
Nice post Tim.
Firstly, Declan (Crawl Across the Ocean) has a good post up on media bias during this election season.
Secondly, I am extremely discouraged by this attitude of Kate's (and presumably) her many followers and like-thinkers. To me, even the so-called liberal paper, The Toronto Star, is still part of the whole corporate power system and is thus representing Kate's views better than, say, mine. Sure, the Star regularly expresses viewpoints that hardcore Conservative supporters disagree with (and it therefore must be crushed), but even that paper isn't truly serving the people, but rather its corporate clients (advertisers).
Kate and her ilk want complete message dominance, but what they don't realize is they already have it much better than they should. They have more in common with the viewpoints expressed by The Star than many progressive people do! And I haven't even talked about The Globe & Mail or National Post.
Unfortunately, her opinion is pretty common. I've even heard a person or two claim that the National Post is "left-wing"!
The fact that people like the CBC pay crazy Kate any attention is pathetic and a really bad sign of the way we're swinging. The media bias study this election found that the media was overwhelmingly pro-conservative, but of course for people like Kate anything but a megaphone is way too far to the left, and anything but supine surrender is unacceptable.
I also found the CBC's generally favourable coverage of the CPC amusing. They're cutting their own throats.
Any claim that there is a left-wing bias in the Canadian media has their head up their a**. A typical day here would see Harper above the fold, with a complementary headline, and Martin below the fold, with something negative.
Well... maybe the lack of vitality in the Liberal campaign had a little bit to do with it.
A quanitative analysis would prove my point, but it would be boring to do. I leave it to you J-school types to carry through.
Therefore it is incumbent upon us to ensure that any assault on the Canadian media meets with firm opposition.
The Democrats tried that and it failed. If you're constantly playing defense, eventually they'll score one.
What needs to be done is for the left to mount a major offensive campaign against the conservative media. We need to do what the right has done; harrass them into submission. And here is a good place to start. We should all be blogging about this type of thing and urging our readers to email the National Post asking them for a public retraction and apology for these remarks.
The Democrats have finally wised up and are now doing this. They're now on the offensive against the conservative media instead of just sitting back in a defensive posture. We should wise up too before the situation becomes as dire as it has in the US.
Any studies that do not show the bias that the right is certain of will only be taken as further demonstration of the truth of their allegation. In other words, there's no point on showing them studies. Studies will only reinforce their prejudice irrespective of who conducts them. US experience shows us that.
The other thing that US experience shows is that well funded organizations like think tanks and the like that are capable of achieving the same kind of media saturation tactic that the right has used with such success can take years to show any benefit.
So who's starting?
The independent from Quebec is basically a one issue candidate. He is a radio talk show host who ran for Parliament so he could take the boots to the CRTC.
Coming from Kate this is hardly surprising, given her many delusions about this country, the political left, and the goals of the political left, center, and center right. As was already noted, the media in this country have been shown to have a conservative bias if there is one at all. This idea of the liberal dominated media elite is the only way these people can explain why their beliefs and issues are not the ones shared/accepted as revealed truth by the majority in the land, as opposed to the actual reason, that most people in this country simply do not agree with these beliefs, do not share them and do not want them in power nor the country's policies changed to reflect such values.
There is this inability to accept that people can be exposed to the far right beliefs, especially the socially conservative ones, and not see the inherent wisdom and morality in them. Therefore it must be that the message is being damaged by those evil godless lefties throughout the media, it cannot be that simply these policies are rejected on their own merit. That is why media dominance is so important to people like Kate, because they recognize that as long as there are competing (and clearly more preferred by the majority in this country) ideas and policies the Canadian public (at least the clear majority) will not support these ideas and policies embraced by Kate and her ideological brethren.
This is a very dangerous mindset we are dealing with, and we cannot allow it to become acceptable in this country. I am one of those that values diversity and differences of opinions, for I believe it is the evaluation and competition of these ideas that allow us to find the best and most workable ideas that benefit us all. Indeed, growing up I was a big fan of the old Star Trek series (well, back then it was the only one) for one reason above all others, and that was the idea of IDIC, or Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. The idea that it was our differences that made us strong because those differences allowed us collectively to cover the weaknesses/gaps that we all have, and that if we only used our similarities as the template would inherently leave weaknesses open for exploitation.
It is sad that so many of these kinds of conservatives feel their ideas are so weak, so frail that they cannot stand against competition of other ideas. That their beliefs, their faith is so weak that it must be compelled onto others instead of winning converts on the strength of their ideas and values. It is a sign of weakness and shallow faith in my mind when I see these views being made and not something that recommends these ideas for use. After all, if they cannot survive the competition of the marketplace of ideas, then they are certainly unfit to become the policies and principles of our society and how it operates. For people that claim to believe in the power of the free market to show us the best product/idea through the process of competition they seem to miss the hypocrisy involved in only having their views and ideas in that free market of ideas.
Yet again more fundamental, and no doubt completely unaware, hypocrisies from those that claim to have the courage of their convictions, just not enough conviction to let them stand or fall on their own two feet as it were. That they cannot see this is only further evidence of their tunnel vision/blind faith in their own correctness and incorrectness of any that dare disagree.
Yes, Reagan's killing of the Fairness Doctrine went a long way to reshapint the political landscape in the U.S. Not that right-wing Republicans like Reagan weren't already getting elected. And not that talk-radio also leaned decidedly right. But repeal of the Fairness Doctrine permitted them to dictate, and dominate, the terms of the debate unlike anything previously. Without the need to be fair, the right pushed harder and further, and more abrasively, than ever. The right-wing conspiracy against Clinton, the 1994 Republican takeover of the house, the 2000 election with its anti-Gore bias, and the 2004 election with a cowering MSM, can all be attributable to repeal of the doctrine. And, of course, without the doctrine, there could be no Faux News.
>Only extremists want to force their perspective on every citizen.
Funny you should use that line. Does that mean if you control the organs of government I will be free to live quite apart from any busybody rules you might lay down according to your perspective?
Try editing out all your ad hominem attacks and see if you have any actual ideas left.
If you're so confident your views reflect a concensus and are defensible before reasonable people, why do you fear an open competition of ideas?
If you're so confident your views reflect a concensus and are defensible before reasonable people, why do you fear an open competition of ideas?
I don't fear it in the least. That's why I blog. Kate has her ideas out there, I have mine. They are competing.
One of my ideas is that Kate is a far right-wing nutjob who has bad ideas for this country and has the ear of MPs in the current government. Any other questions?
Not really. You're just another angry guy who occupies a particular band of the political spectrum and calls people names. Thanks for coming out.
Give it a rest, IrC. No one on the left is interested in what you have to say, and I'm sure your agressive anti-leftism has run its course.
This is what leftists have to say to the IrC's of the World: Go away and don't come back.
Ah, the very voice of tolerance and reason. I'm sure you could all do so much good for the world if only you were in charge, forever.