Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Take Back the Airwaves

By Amy Goodman, King Features Syndicate. Posted April 11, 2007.


Our airwaves, the single most important method by which Americans get information about choosing the future president, are being held hostage by corporate broadcasters.
Advertisement

As the TV pundits on the networks gab about the tens of millions of dollars raised by the top presidential candidates, what they don't talk about is where that money is going: to their own networks.

Money is now considered the single most important factor in our electoral process. Ideas and issues take a back seat to the bottom line. This prostitution of our electoral process has one key culprit: television advertising.

Political advertising makes or breaks candidates, and it takes a huge amount of money to implement a national advertising strategy. Now more than 20 states are piling onto Feb. 5, 2008, as their primary day, including states like California and New York with large, expensive media markets. The early, deciding role of money and television advertising in determining who gets to run for president is secure.

The costs of running for federal office have been skyrocketing. More than $880 million was raised by the 2004 presidential campaigns. The 2008 election is expected to cost more than $1 billion. Sixty percent will be spent on advertising.

The citizens are the losers, and the broadcasters and elite political consultants are the winners. We ought to turn this around. The public owns the airwaves that are being used by the big corporate broadcasters. The broadcasters, like NBC, ABC and CBS, have an obligation to use those airwaves "in the public interest, convenience and necessity." These profitable corporations take these public airwaves for free, then peddle them for exorbitant advertising rates.

We have to ask, as U.S. servicemen and -women are being killed overseas ostensibly in defense of democracy, why are our airwaves, the single most important method by which Americans get information about choosing the future president, being held hostage by corporate broadcasters?

The answer: the NAB, or the National Association of Broadcasters, which convenes its annual trade show in Las Vegas next week. The NAB is one of Washington's largest and most influential lobbying groups, representing the owners of TV and radio stations. For the tens of millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions they dole out annually, broadcasters get back billions in corporate welfare, in the form of legislation that protects their ability to sell ads over the public airwaves.

Some bold members of Congress have tried throughout the decades to end this stranglehold on the political process. Sen. Bill Bradley tried in the 1990s. He said then: "Today's Senate campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations."

In 2003, Sen. Russ Feingold, along with Sens. Richard Durbin, Jon Corzine and John McCain, submitted the Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act, which proposed a system of advertising vouchers for candidates. Feingold said at the time: "The public owns the airwaves and licenses them to broadcasters. Broadcasters pay nothing for their use of this scarce and very valuable public resource. Their only 'payment' is a promise to serve the public interest, a promise that often goes unfulfilled."

The senators wanted to close a loophole allowing broadcasters to extract top dollar for desirable ad slots. Existing law compels broadcasters to give candidates the lowest ad rate for a given market, but as a result the broadcasters threaten to relegate the ads to the middle of the night. So candidates pony up. A 2002 study by the Alliance for Better Campaigns even showed that stations were hiking ad rates in the lead-up to elections by as much as 53 percent.

Now Durbin is taking another crack at the NAB. He has introduced the Fair Elections Now Act, which would both grant vouchers for broadcast ads and mandate a 20 percent discount beyond the lowest unit cost of ads near primary and election times.

While the public airwaves are sold off to the highest campaign bidders (often to push negative ads, but that is another issue), the broadcasters fail miserably to report on the campaigns. After all, if the broadcasters fulfilled their public-interest obligations and actually reported fully and consistently on the various candidates and their issues, and not just on the campaign horse race, then there would be less need for campaigns to buy ads in the first place.

More than $2 billion will be poured into the broadcasters' coffers in the 2008 election cycle, almost all for use of the airwaves that the public owns. Imagine what could be done with that money--to register and educate voters, to fully equip polling stations with functioning voting machines, to produce many vigorous debates and public forums.

The American public is being robbed by the National Association of Broadcasters. It's time to take back the airwaves.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: corporate media, broadcasting, radio

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yeah - and bring back the fairness doctrine
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Apr 11, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we're at it, lets restore funding for PBS. Maybe when we finish we can get a slate of candidates that aren't wholly owned by corporate interests. I'm dreaming, you say? These are goals (in reverse) that the wingnuts have achieved. First we have to repair the damage done, then we have to push our own agenda.

Understand that I'm not suggesting a timeline. Chronologically Medicare for all should be a top priority - but we have to get back what we've lost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TV is a viable information source?
Posted by: ScottP on Apr 11, 2007 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's news to me. Fundamentally, TV is poorly designed to convey information. It allows no way (except with Tivo) to pause and reflect on confusing information or to follow threads of interest. It forces all to follow at the same pace, regardless of whether the viewer is an expert or a child. It facilitates glossing over important details and telling half truths. It allows only a tunnel view of a brief time in one location at a time. TV is better designed for propaganda than it is at information dispersion, and so it should be no surprise that it is used for what it's good at.

Turn off the TV!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only way I see...
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Apr 11, 2007 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is to reinstate or re-empower the anti-trust laws, and to legally define and enforce the definition of "news", so that people getting opinion, propaganda - pure fabrication - have some way to tell what they're watching, reading or listening to. Removing partisan judges and prosecutors wouldn't hurt either.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

abrady
Posted by: reader9 on Apr 12, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of our best writers investigates a major (perhaps #1) problem with American democracy. Only a very few of us read and agree.
As the stealth candidate for 'most financially corrupt' sector, "the media", surpasses "big oil" in it's quest for bigger profits. Their culpability for the destruction of democracy is much greater than sheer profiteers, KBR, et al.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TAKE BACK OUR "PUBLIC" AIRWAYS
Posted by: pfm on Apr 12, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I believe it would be in America’s long term best interest to reaffirm that the “airways” belong to the public and not to any special interest group without a strong person or organization totally devoted to attaining this goal it simply will not happen. Moreover given the degree to which most American (sadly I must confess at times including moi) are freely willing to assume an ostrich position and spout the prevailing PC mantra of the day only increases the task to assume control over and deliver free open full disclosure on all forms of our “public” airways. This is an awesome task and will undoubtedly take a dedicated army of individuals from all walks of life, all colors, all creeds, from all corners of our country to band together to forge the necessary energy to overcome the existing power of the “corporatists.” I would like to be optimistic, alas given our collective buy-in to the control exhibited by “corporate” owned mass media forms, I need to own I am not overly optimistic at this juncture. I am as one might say a “doubting Thomas.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, Ms. Goodman....
Posted by: LeftWright on Apr 12, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't you tell us all about your corporate FOUNDATION money and why you don't cover 9/11?

The hypocrisy of the left gatekeepers is simply staggering.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh, Ms. Goodman.... Posted by: patszar
» patszar - Posted by: LeftWright
» RaW - Posted by: LeftWright
Do we want corporations deciding what's decent?
Posted by: lamar on Apr 12, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think MSNBC bowing to pressure is a bad idea. Sure, today it's a progressive issue, but tomorrow it will be a radical right wing issue that some corporation will weigh in on. I think it's best to keep control with consumers.

You make it sound like CBS radio and MSNBC force Imus on the population. He wouldn't be there if people didn't like his schtick. You can get rid of Imus, but the people who have supported his show over the years won't go away. How do we take control of the corporations? Is the solution government regulation? Or is it a private boycott? I tend to trust my fellow consumers much more than a government that can flip parties every 4 years. I don't want some vice president at Staples deciding what I can and can't watch.

I really think Imus is getting his career shutdown because of a cumulative rage developing over the years. The fact that Al Sharpton is a hypocrite shouldn't enter into the issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cottontail
Posted by: cottontail on Apr 12, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imus Schmimus! Who gives a damn whether he stays or goes. Sadly, a large number of folks in this cultural swamp like to listen to the garbage spewed by Imus, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others. It's all just an indication of how low we've sunk. Just look at what passes for music these days.
The country has been on this dreadful course for quite a while but six years of Bush and his single party rule have accelerated the process. Proud to be an American? Who can be proud of a country that murders innocent people by the thousands?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not quite right on the pricing of political ads
Posted by: MTguy on Apr 12, 2007 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article, Amy. However, you did miss the mark when you spoke of how political rates are set. I spent almost eleven years selling broadcast TV time for an ABC affilliate here in MT. That station would set rates that were generally higher than we would have in those quarters when political ads ran thus "protecting" themselves from pricing it too low. The regular advertisers, especially those on contract rates, didn't like it a bit as they had to pony up the Political Rate in order to run even if their contract rate was lower.

The other bad side of it for them was the fact that if a politician wanted to run an ad in a program that was already sold out, any regular business (in at the same rate) got bumped per FCC regulations. Didn't make any difference how long they'd had that spot ordered, if a politico wanted in and the program's commerical availabilities were sold out... the local businesses you lived with day in and day were gone.

I also tend to disagree with Amy's assessment of TV's ablility to convey a message to a mass audience. Ask yourself this... how did you find out about and follow what happened on 9/11? What about the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? Unfortunately much of their ad content was a lie but those ads sure worked, didn't they?

Finally I think any person who saw Lee Harvey Oswald shot on LIVE television would make the same assessment of the power of television - news OR advertising. It seems to me that in times of crisis, broadcast television has united us as a nation. It has its bad points, but limited reach is not one of them. While TV's audience has declined over the years in SHARE of all media, the raw numbers of folks seeing those signals keeps rising.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free to LIE
Posted by: JSquercia on Apr 12, 2007 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fox news fired two newscasters for their refusal to spin a a News Story . The reorters sued and won but unfortunately lost on the appeal level . Fox arguement was that they could LIE in presenting the news . Sadly a judge agreed with them . I can only hope this goes aall the way up to the Supreme Court and that people take note of it when Fox's Lisence comes up for Renewal .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WAIT!...Didn't you try this already?
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Apr 12, 2007 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many attemps have been made by you left wing socialist types to "take back the airwaves"? Your most recent attempt to influence the public at large with your marxist propaganda was an utter and dismal failure. I believe it was called "ERR AMERIKA" if I'm not mistaken. There have been other lesser attempts by the left to make talk radio one more domain to dominate but thay all have crashed and burned because this media is fueled by ratings and liberals get lousy ratings. Liberal radio is bad business because not enough people want to buy into that product. Look at newspapers these days. Majority liberal leaning and their subscription rates have been falling for years and continue to fall. Less people want to read left wing schlock these days and/or they no longer can read above the third grade level because of liberal dominated public education. The only hope you leftists have is the miscast "fairness doctrine" which will force talk radio to grant equal time to lefty schlock. I wonder if you would all be as fairminded to demand that newspapers and TV set aside equal time for conservative views? Probably not because the word "fair" doesn't describe you folks well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very well said, Moonray Posted by: LeftWright
A Real Solution--
Posted by: Doubtom on Apr 12, 2007 8:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--would be to dump all Radio and TV stations licenses and start over again. Monopolies must be stopped and this is the most cost-effective and fool-proof method. They must be impressed with the fact that the airwaves belong to the people and should serve the people, not the government nor the corporations. A clean sweep is what we need and nothing else!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Real Solution-- Posted by: Basenjis
tax the media
Posted by: whealeydj on Apr 13, 2007 12:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I basically agree with Goodman: a key step to electoral reform is to reduce need for campaign donations by reducing the huge cost of TV commercials. Then legislators can legislate and investigate and not spend all their time prostituting themselves to the wealthy. Some would think politicians would be happy to break the cycle of campaign contributions,consultants and expensive TV attack ads, but they were elected under current system and fear change; the status quo got them elected and keeps them elected so why change? Feingold's bill sounds like a good thing but I doubt it will get anywhere anytime soon unless the taxpayers and citizens are tired of this status quo which benefits rich politicians, consultants and media owners but not us since we pay the price of corrupted politicians, soul sickening attack ads, and higher prices for all products. We should double tax media (like interest income gets double taxed) since there is no free lunch, we taxpayers and citizens are paying for the free ride of corporate media. Think about that if you are filling out your taxes this weekend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Make the networks pay more
Posted by: 10sman on Apr 13, 2007 3:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The networks should be required to pay more for their ability to use public resources (the airways) to make money without being able to pass on the increased cost of doing business. I realize (gasp!) this would mean less profit and possibly lower executive compensation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Arr, matey
Posted by: mikebailey on Apr 13, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pirate radio today, pirate TV tomorrow...
we don't need no stinking regulators

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tyrus
Posted by: DavidGeorge on Apr 14, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree wholeheartedly.

This should be the beginning of a systematic dismantling of corporate monopoly and vertical concentration of power. Now every Main St. looks the same!

Media moguls filter the free flow of ideas that stimulate and keep vital a democracy. Anti trust laws were in place for a good reason.

Let's take back our airwaves and our marketplace!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tyrus Posted by: lamar
Taking back the airwaves
Posted by: jaywriter on Apr 18, 2007 9:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So much angry rhetoric, but no creative solutions. Is that what we've become an impotent nation of arguers?
If both Righties and Lefties can't stand the plethora of Political Ads that we are all subject to then how about turning all that negativity around and coming up with some creative solutions to this cancer that's eating at us through the airwaves? We all know where we disagree...how about concentrating on where we agree? Let's hear from all you brilliant pundits on how we can solve at least one problem together. Or have they got us all so flumoxed by the flim-flam that the Right Hand doesn't even care what the Left Hand is doing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]