Conversation | 05/02/2008 12:00 am

Marlo Thomas: The Media Steals Our Chances of a Fair Election

With Joan Juliet Buck, Lily Tomlin, Marlo Thomas and Mary Wells

JOAN: Does the deliberate dumbing down of the news have the same effect as censorship, by cutting the public off from information that we need to make our decisions?

MARY: I say this as an old advertising pro: The news is for sale. The news is just a factor, like entertainment. The ultimate person who is responsible for whether the news is good, bad or indifferent is the viewer, because if the news is not good, fewer and fewer people will watch it.

LILY: People didn’t used to try to make money on the news. We lived through an era when the networks prided themselves on their news department.

MARY: Yes. That may be true.

LILY: Not because it was a money maker.

MARY: The news around this election has been particularly obnoxious, idiotic. But you’re getting the news that is essentially what most of the people are willing to pay for, or what they want. I know that sounds vastly oversimplified. But it is a fact.

LILY: Look how many good people they have destroyed just by petty humiliations. There’s nothing worse in this culture than being discounted or laughed at. They destroyed Gore. They destroyed Kerry as any kind of viable candidate, just by making fun of him windsurfing.

MARLO: Look what they did to Hillary, from the very beginning. With her headband, and her not wanting to bake cookies. My God, you would have thought this woman had robbed a bank.

JOAN: There was this great op-ed piece by Elizabeth Edwards where she wrote that what we’re getting, “what is left, is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism.” As intelligent women, when you turn on the American news, do you desperately watch to try and find something? Or do you go on the Internet instead?

MARLO: I always think that if I read enough stuff, possibly somewhere in the middle I’ll find the truth. But the Joe Klein article in Time was so interesting. And he said we get this low-level information and use it as news. You know — what Barack’s bowling score is. All this foolish stuff — what Hillary was wearing and what Bill Clinton said to a guy on the street. But nothing about the issues, nothing about what’s happening to this country, nothing about the war. The war is now on page 18. Iraq is, I think, now on the back of the paper. And we’re not interested in it. And today Bush is all excited about his $600 rebate. A $600 rebate is going to make up, he says, for the gas prices. How far will $600 take you?

JOAN: About 20 miles.

MARLO: And people buy it.

JOAN: Do you think there’s a will behind this deliberate stupidity of information that we’re being given?

MARY: That it’s manipulative?

JOAN: Not only treating the public with contempt but actually —

MARLO: Withholding. Yes, I think they’re withholding.

JOAN: As in, “If we tell them all about Barack’s score – bowling score – they won’t pay attention to anything else.”

MARY: Why don’t we do something about it? I mean, it is possible to do something about it, if we’re really that interested. Why don’t we band together and simply stop it? After the last election, which was certainly questionable, we just accepted — I mean, we are an accepting country.

MARLO: I asked Bill Clinton, at a dinner party, why he and the first George Bush didn’t go to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and ask them to come up with a foolproof way that our elections would be fair and honest.

JOAN: Brilliant.

272 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I agree with Mary. If there’s a way to go about doing anything, I’ll wait for wowOwow to tell me what it is. Meanwhile, I watch and read whatever I want. I buy what I need…which is rarely what the TV, radio, or newspaper or the ubiquitous direct mail is telling me I simply have to have. But I’m enjoying this site…How about stealing, or rescuing a theme song for wowOwow… “You’ve come a long way, Baby T’get where you’ve come to today You’ve got your own internet site, Baby! You’ve come a long, long way!” …eh? good? y’think?

By Ms. Dee on 05/02/2008 12:14 pm

e-mail alert

This is the most exciting, brilliant, productive piece I have read on this site ! It brought tears to my eyes and hope to my heart. YES! Let’s do something about it. Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!

By Deni G on 05/02/2008 12:20 pm

e-mail alert

Thomas Paine arrived in the US a failure from England. He wrote, hand printed and distributed his short “Common Sense” and “The Rights of Man” changed the world, and became the best-selling author of the 18th century. To me there are already so many media watch organizations, and so many groups emailing letters and petitions to Congress that are lost in the deluge unless you have real clout. Today, Facebook Activist Groups are starting up and immediately drawing tens of thousands to their special interest sites. There are billions of people out there who want to do something and feel their actions have made a difference. Rather than send more letters, to me the strategic thing is to do is a collective project that garners news, more members and a higher profile for wOw and support nationwide. Nothing is more important, I believe, than bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. You can measure its demise alone by the cost of the phony war with support drummed up on Fox News. Our states, cities, national parks, programs, schools and colleges, infrastructure have all been drained by this phony war….had the Fairness Doctrine been in place there would have been more informed decisions made. Now generations of Americans not yet born have their futures mortgaged to China. I suggest doing something much more high profile than letter writing. First, COLLECTIVELY write a 125 page booklet something like “Common Sense-Part II: Bringing Back The Fairness Doctrine.” Include it’s history and demise in a forward. In the back-matter include copies of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. A number of Senators have already called for its revival….have those and any of wow’s founders who want to be on record right brief forwards. Include quotes on freedom of speech and the press from our Founding Fathers, presidents and elected officials. If this was done as a national writing contest for kids considering a journalism career (or whatever) that would get good content plus raise the profile of the project in communities across the nation…ie wOw would be thus appearing in newspapers around the country. Concurrent with it’s release start a Facebook Fairness Doctrine Activism Group. The timing is right. It would be a distinctive project that steps in front of a parade and leads the way. It would have multiple benefits, and be a project that everyone could be proud of being associated with. The Fairness Doctrine is about the people taking back their voice. What better way than a revival of Thomas Paine’s brand of common sense. Biased news isn’t just a problem in the US it is spreading around the globe. There are plenty of experts and existing media watch groups that could provide input and that also provide a ready-made market. My disorganized two cents.

By zut alors on 05/02/2008 2:39 pm

e-mail alert

There is nothing more unfair than the Fairness Doctrine. We all know that it is aimed a talk radio, a conservative mecca for, well, conservative listeners. Liberal talk radio, as well as know, has not fared as well. The Doctrine will only hurt talk radio because listeners will probably not stick around to hear the other side. By the way, what is the “other side?” It’s totally arbitrary and decided by the FCC. There could be many other sides. Sides that, although may be opposing to whatever was just discussed, could maybe represent 1% of the people’s opinion. If the people wanted to hear that opinion, they would ask for it. That 1% would be on the Today Show the next morning. The success of outlets like talk radio have been because of consumer choice. Liberals do not need this because a lot of their news from the MSM fits well into their mindsets. Besides, now they also have their own outlets in many forms. The Doctrine is just another way to impose beliefs on people and take away freedom from the people. It will only prevent any views from being heard. No one will say anything for fear they will lose consumers. If you really want equality, how about for every Liberal newscaster (that’s, um, most of them), there is equal time alloted to a conservative one immediatly before or after! After that, let’s demand that college professors be equally Liberal and Conservative. I am, by the way, not really advocating for these causes. What I am saying, and I believe most of the people here agree with me, is that people are intelligent and rational. And they feel the media is not fooling them. The fairness doctrine will not change this, it will stifle any cohesive debates. Free speech, as far as I am aware, is still alive and well. If the market wanted “fairness” across the spectrum, it would be here.

By Kay Mitchell on 05/02/2008 3:38 pm

e-mail alert

Kay-The airwaves, owned by the people, have been totally co-opted by 5 corporations and that is a danger to democracy. That is not ‘freedom of the press’ or ‘freedom of speech’ it is 5 profit oriented multinationals deciding who has a voice. The demise of the Fairness Doctrine didn’t free speech it wrecked journalism and actual reportage. A nation is as free as it is informed. Propaganda and disinformation are not ‘free speech.’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuorIjt1HG0 What we have today is akin to the propaganda of the Nazis going over the public airwaves. “Where things stand What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Communications Law Journal, 5/03). The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else. Disney-owned KSFO in liberal San Francisco is one such station (Extra!, 3–4/95). Some towns have two. When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.” Bringing back fairness? For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.” According to TV Week (11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners—NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom—made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.” Considering the many looming problems facing media democracy advocates, Extra! asked MAP’s Schwartzman why activists should still be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine. What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.” http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm Extremist propaganda is dangerous to democracy, it’s tyranny, and is creating in half the nation a bunch of Rush Limbaugh mouth-breathing ditto-heads. “If the market wanted “fairness” across the spectrum, it would be here.” Sheesh.

By zut alors on 05/02/2008 3:53 pm

e-mail alert

How can you explain the fact that once Liberal talk shows were created, they didn’t do well?

By Kay Mitchell on 05/02/2008 4:02 pm

e-mail alert

Kay-A study at NYU and UCLA reported in the journal, Nature Neuroscience, revealed that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information. Experiments proved that there are two distinct cognitive styles — a liberal style and a conservative style,” said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni. Conservatives were more fixed/regimented, less questioning. Which would explain how they can listen to the same savage-coulter-hannity-o’reilly-limbaugh stuff over and over and over year in year out. Republicans are called ‘ditto-heads’ for a reason.. But then, I don’t listen to Hillary or Obama either. I don’t have a TV or radio….can’t stand noise, if there were liberal radio shows wouldn’t listen to them….instead listen to music. (have been elsewhere and hear NPR a view times and even though was interested in the topic, interview of an author, just do not like the sound of radio at all. On the other hand, of the Top 100 large blogs more are liberal..which makes sense to me. I read everything and decide for myself. Although libs do like Stewart/Maher/Colbert/Olbermann.. A Pew Research study of US media found that viewers of the Jon Stewart/readers of newspapers were the best informed. Those who listed to right-wing radio and morning talk shows were the least well informed. Fox News viewers were dead last in the study. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/07/your-choice-in-.html And the Bush crowd would dismiss any such studies because they are the faith over facts crowd, scientific studies wouldn’t mean a thing.

By zut alors on 05/03/2008 2:42 am

e-mail alert

Suzanne, then by your own definition, you are conservative. You read only one kind of blog with a certain slant of news and don’t question it. Therefore, you are a conservative. Much like many of the people on this site. I don’t listen to those conservative radio hosts that you mention up there. La’s are a little different and usually interested in what is going on in CA primarily, and then the nation, I listen to NPR as well. I read a lot. - from a lot of different sources - I go to lectures and I question a lot of people in diverse areas. I don’t make up my mind immediately - I watch motivation and action and then decide. The world and our nation is at a point of unprecedented change. We are all being pushed to grow and change and deliver. Trust me, and you know this about me, as a mother of a soldier, I am the last person who wants war. In the world in the last few years all I see is change and adapting to change. Look what has happened. 9/11 - which I firmly believe the nation is still reacting in a kind of delayed shock. It exposed corruption and weakness in our govt. It is just beginning to grow our country up. The Tsunami - the whole world reacted with love for those people, doing whatever they could to help. In my ‘20’s I lived with a Thai family right near there - to see the devastation and death was heartbreaking. Exposure of why those govt’s didn’t have a warning system. The earthquake in Sri Lanka - medical help and aid - sent from all over the world. But especially the US. Katrina, our government’s incompetence was exposed, but the people of the US worked tirelessly to help. My son was down there. He said there were tons of locals with boats that put themselves in the water and rescued people. I asked him about all of the boats they wouldn’t let go in. He said - that is what they reported. Some boats couldn’t because of unsure electrical and chemicals, but there was every local with a boat for hundreds of miles around. Their biggest threat were the gangs who were stealing everything. It didn’t matter, people came. I see the change and the spirit of the American people. The exposure of the corruption of the United Nations. Wasn’t it Patrick Moynihan who wrote a book (years ago) about how corrupt they were. The Oil for Food Program was just an example - and that was exposed. Also, African citizens not wanting the UN because of how much they took advantage of them. etc. Exposure. The fight against Aids in Africa - that is why Bush was so welcomed there. You don’t hear Bono bash Bush, and he said he is kind of sad that the American people don’t know how much they have done for Africa. The exposure of all of the corruption in the republican party, it’s not over - they can destroy themselves from within, if they don’t get it together. The same thing can happen to the democrats, they are now receiving unprecedented amounts of money. Let’s see what happens with them. But exposure has been what has been happening since 2001 and all the powers that be run around trying to cover their a******. So it seems, at this juncture in time we are in such flux and confusion because of all the nonsense that is being broadcast, and even written. It is chaos theory to the extreme and what will come out of the chaos will be what we have to watch out for.

By Frannie Em on 05/03/2008 7:17 pm

e-mail alert

Frannie, Great post….”chaos theory to the extreme” that’s for sure….I read Naomi Wolf’s “Disaster Capitalism” excellent. Think I must have miswritten something….defintely do not get my news from narrow source….read everything…do run through the big lib blogs to see what’s on but really don’t spend time on them…. mostly foreign newspapers. I do think NPR is a great resource…just have never been a radio person. And yes a lot of the dems are bad too. It’s definitely a transitional time on the order of the Industrial Age but bigger and faster….horrible and thrilling…like being at the top of a 100 ft rogue wave. Years ago read Richard Tarnas’ “The Passion of the Western Mind” at the end he concluded that people can sense we are being swept along as in some kind of vortex…to an end? To a new beginning? All I know is, Frannie Em, we’re not in Kansas any more.

By zut alors on 05/04/2008 3:20 am

e-mail alert

Suzanne, girl, you are so right, we’re not in Kansas anymore.

By Frannie Em on 05/05/2008 1:02 am

e-mail alert

Kay, you are so right. There is nothing “fair” about the Fairness Doctrine. Just a way to silence Limbaugh and the like. All the right wing talk radio shows would not be on the air if they didn’t have a vast audience and generate revenue for their sponsors. We saw how well “Air head America” did. MOST people in this country do not want to listen to liberal talk radio, that is just a fact. Almost every liberal radio talk show has been a failure. Shows like Limbaugh’s are more popular than ever, since finally, conservatives can hear their point of veiw instead of the constant liberal bias from the major TV networks, newspapers etc, etc. Just because “The Princess” thinks it’s “extremist propaganda”, does not give her the authority to tell me what I can listen to. If you don’t want to listen to it, you don’t have to. Just like I don’t have to listen to NPR or PBS, 2 publically funded left wing news outlets. I could say I think they offer extremist propaganda as well, and I’m paying for it with my taxes! I can’t wait till they try and shut down right wing talk radio, there will be an uproar in this country the likes of which you have never seen. Rush Limbaugh has 20 million listeners, 20 million!! Try and silence them, Princess.

By eleanor roche on 05/02/2008 4:36 pm

STOP BIG MEDIA WEB ACTION!!! Sign-Up Today!! http://www.stopbigmedia.com/

By zut alors on 05/03/2008 1:40 pm

e-mail alert

The Fairness Doctrine AND the Equal Time rule. Both are useful. I also would like to see what it would take to get the League of Women Voters and PBS to join up again to do debates.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/02/2008 4:40 pm

e-mail alert

Suzanne de, I concur that the media should not be owned and operated by just 5 huge conglomerates. As in a previous conversation we addressed the anti-trust laws that are not being enforced. It is totally Un-American. But the question arises of why don’t the liberal talk shows make it? That is the question? Why aren’t people listening. If your premise is that the listeners of the conservative talk shows are too stupid to understand and therefore are just being brainwashed, I think they would disagree with you. I understand also, that it takes funding to start a radio show and if the conglomerates won’t fund them, then it won’t happen. Your premise is that they are not being funded because they are not conservative. Am I correct? You may be right, I don’t know. Many conservatives that have come on here complain and complain that they keep hearing the same old Bush bashing? There is a constant stream of complaints that all sound the same - all angry with no solutions. America hating etc. If the lib stations sound like that, will they get sponsors? But there is the internet, and it is definitely more liberal than it is conservative, it is not messed with yet, and the sites that are the most viable are the ones that get the advertisers, as you have so correctly pointed out in other posts. So why aren’t the liberal radio shows getting more advertising? That is what keeps them alive. Sooner or later it’s all about the money.

By Frannie Em on 05/02/2008 11:47 pm

e-mail alert

Frannie, asking the wrong person about radio…I don’t listen to it and wouldn’t no matter who was on it. To me the NYU/UCLA study that shows distinctive liberal v conservative cognitive styles makes sense. The blogs are where libs are. Re ‘Bush-bashing’ well…he and his cohorts furnish endless material…and the GOP went after Bill Clinton relentlessly. But I’m an equal opportunity basher….I bash the Clintons/Pelosi/Reid too…and I like some republicans a lot, like Chuck Hagel.

By zut alors on 05/03/2008 2:53 am