Power of Story Send a Tweet        

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 2 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (4 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   16 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Did Our Public Airwaves "Win" it for Walker?

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Sue Wilson       (Page 2 of 3 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...)  Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   News 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H1 6/12/12

Author 54611
Become a Fan
  (8 fans)
- Advertisement -
The point is, it is entirely possible that we'll discover as many as $45 million dollars flowed into Wisconsin TV stations, during just the official 28 day Walker recall campaign period. It is clear that shareholders are making out like bandits.

But what are we the people -- who own the airwaves -- getting in return?  And what can we the people to do reclaim our rights as the real owners of our public airwaves?

As to what people are getting in return, not enough.  TV stations could provide robust political reporting, debates, and free airtime to candidates, but are not wont to do so.

Given the billions pouring into their coffers to enrich shareholders by selling time that influences elections over our public airwaves, broadcasters could certainly do more to serve the public interest in return. Much more. But they will not -- until we truly understand our rights as the owners of the radio and TV airwaves, and begin to stand up for them, one community at a time.

- Advertisement -
The Zapple Doctrine

Here's an example of real action -- with real teeth -- that we the local people can take against Big Corporate Media.

On May 24, I filed a formal complaint to the FCC through the Media Action Center against WISN and WTMJ radio, the two giant 50,000-watt Milwaukee outlets who gave Walker and the GOP roughly 160 minutes of free daily airtime (worth as much as $68,000 every day) while giving virtually none to his opponent.

- Advertisement -
That, as I reported previously, violates an obscure FCC rule called the Zapple Doctrine, which says if a station gives supporters of one candidate time, they must provide supporters of the other major party candidate comparable time in the 60 days prior to an election.

The FCC is reviewing the case; the talk radio industry's Talker's Magazine responded to my complaint by noting, "the FCC rules on this matter may have a significant effect on the upcoming fall national and state elections." I see it as pitting the First Amendment Rights of We the People v. Big Corporate Media. 

Now, there are unconfirmed reports in Wisconsin that TV stations there sold so many local advertising spots to the Scott Walker side, they had few left to sell to Tom Barrett and the Democrats.  Again, we, the owners of the local TV airwaves, can confirm those reports by inspecting the public files of the stations. (No wonder the stations are trying to keep these files under wraps.) If true, we will be filing another complaint to the FCC for the TV stations violating Zapple.

Truth in Advertising

Back to Citizens United:  there is another obscure legal concept which could provide the citizenry with a tool for change -- without a constitutional amendment -- before the 2012 general election.

It turns out that if a candidate wants to buy airtime from a TV or radio station, the station must sell the time, and it may not vet or censor the ad in any way.  (So, legally, candidates may lie to public as much as they want.)

- Advertisement -
But third party ads, the ones which have been loosed by the Citizens United decision, are treated differently.  Stations do not have to take those ads.  If they do, and if those ads lie to the public, the stations may be held liable.

Pause and think about holding your local TV station liable for lying third party ads. I can feel the shudder running through the halls of broadcast management right about now.

Typically, it is a candidate who is being defamed in an ad that would file such a suit.  That person, attorneys tell me, has the standing to file, as they are the ones being harmed by the ad.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


- Advertisement -

Must Read 3   News 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It


Sue Wilson tells important stories which move politicians to act. The Emmy winning director of the media reform documentary "Broadcast Blues" and editor of SueWilsonReports.com, Sue recently founded the Media Action Center. Wilson was 1987's (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Right Wing Hit Media 400: "Disabling Journalism to Destroy Progressive Thought"

Why We Occupy Clear Channel

Putting Talk Radio on Trial at the FCC

Bill Maher: The Fix to Fact Free Media - (Could it be Too Late?)

Rush Limbaugh: Not the Only One with First Amendment Rights

When Radio Lies, Our Culture Dies