Isn't Media Research Center the group that has spent so much of the last eight years talking about how the liberal media hasn't devoted an equal amount of time to the successes in Iraq, or complaining that the media is biased in favor of Obama? You might think they would want some form of Fairness Doctrine. But then that would require you to think there is some level of sincerity to their past arguments.

My guess is they exist primarily in order to bring in money. Times are tough for conservative pundits, lobbyists, and think tank thinkers. To begrudge them their own little corner of the economy is to spit in the face of the free market. Besides, can you think of a better way to spend the money of conservative donors?

BTW, Obama is going to try to take away your guns.

modern conservatism punditry: They've got nothing to say but they'll (get other people to) fight to the death for their right to say it (on tv & radio, for pay).

I wouldn't say no one on the left wants to reinstate the fairness doctrine. That nut Dennis Kucinich seems to.

So, let me get this straight. The election was decided for Obama by the media, which is completely and unchangeably liberal, but re-imposing of the fairness doctrine would result in a more liberal media? Never let intellectual bankruptcy get in the way of raising money from the rubes. The great thing is, they can spend all the money on hotel suites and escorts and still report a stunning success in blocking the fairness doctrine. It's brilliant!

Anybody want to send me money to prevent Obama placing the US military under UN command? Or opening up abortion factories all across the country? I accept cash and wire transfers also.

What they are creating is an institution to combat the inclusion of the left in the media. So, If, for example, CNN were to regularly put on someone from the left, this could be attacked as creeping fairness (next thing you know and presenting two journalists (ostensibly neutral, but in reality just a repeater for their political sources) with a Washington Times, or National Review editor will be considered biased.

Is this group also fighting back against the War on Christmas? Seems like similar thinking....

2008 National Conference for Media Reform http://www.freepress.net/conference had many who advocated what few Democrats in Congress will push. To say no one in the "progressive movement" want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is not true.Think of it as a Gramscian counter-hegemonic war.

I would like to reinstitute the fairness doctrine which was basically repealed so that Reagan and republicans would have defenders against their various scandals.

Just more red meat to the base. The Creature must be fed.

I think this circling of the wagons is simply an attempt to engineer some kind of "victory" that they can use to rally their supporters. The "victory" may be just as imaginary as the "enemy", but they need some sort of "success" at this point to keep the factions together.

One thing's for sure: the right is has struggled of late against real rivals, but they shouldn't have any trouble defeating an imaginary one.

And they'll be happy to take credit during the next election cycle when the Doctrine hasn't been reinstated. It seems to me this is mostly about maintaining an appearance of relevance to the lot of fools who they regularly convince to part with their money.

At the risk of being tiresome, I still want to get George Will's name into this story.

He's the guy who jump-started Fairness Doctrine Paranoia, with his columns of August 17 and September 18. (You should be able to find them on the WaPo website; my posts here tend to disappear lately if I put links in them.)

Also, Krauthammer gave an assist with his column of October 31.

Maybe someone should ask George Will why he decided to get that particular ball rolling. Would be fun to see a pundit actually held accountable for his words.

"Necessity for the Return of the Fairness Doctrine, " talk below at that conference,
http://www.freepress.net/conference/academic08
Access to Dominant Media (Greenway Ballroom I)
Download Abstract (PDF)
Chair: Anthony Varona - American University Washington College of Law
Mark G. Kiyak - Valdosta State University - No American Citizen Left Behind
Duncan Brown, Eddie Ashworth - Ohio University - Turning Disruptive Media into Digital Dollars: How New Technologies are Forcing the Recording Industry to Change its Existing Business Model
Mari Castaneda - University of Massachusetts - Independent Latino Media in the U.S.
Lydie Nadia Cabrera - St. Thomas University - Red Lion Red Bull, Ownership Consolidation of Broadcast Media, Commercialized Programming of Public Issues and the Necessity for the Return of the Fairness Doctrine
Emily Shaw, Christian Sandyig - University of Illinois - Does Infrastructure Require Policy?: Limits of Community-Based Broadband

May they raise much money from people who would otherwise donate to defense funds for Rove and Cheney.

"The Free Speech Alliance Declares War on the 'Censorship Doctrine.'"

Declaring war is what the Conservatives do best.

And your right,Steve, by attacking an enemy that doesn't exist, the wackos will substantially improve their odds of "winning". How nice that they have a petition, so that the whole wacko crowd can feel they've participated in the defeat of the liberal "agenda".

This is a Serious Issue, and conservatives should spend as much time, energy, and $ to fight this battle as possible. They need to "get the word out." Major ad buys, etc.

Maybe if they're busy with that, they'll stop screwing everything else up.

Beyond the Fairness Doctrine
Barack Obama says he wouldn't reintroduce the Federal Communications Commission's most notorious speech-squashing regulation. But there are more mundane reasons to fear the next FCC.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/129228.html
The Players

The idealists. There is a loose coalition on the left that calls itself the media reform movement. Its members are rarely the most powerful people in the room, but they inevitably shout the loudest. They gather in public-interest groups—Free Press, Public Knowledge, the Media Access Project—that cast themselves as populists fighting the major media corporations, which they accuse of centralizing power and shutting out dissident perspectives. In their more libertarian moments, they'll call for opening up more spectrum, loosening copyright controls, and rolling back culturally conservative restrictions on speech. Prominent reformers will also, alas, support a host of new economic regulations and speech controls.

Some members of the movement, such as the communications historian Robert McChesney, prefer to stress the reregulation. In his 2008 book The Political Economy of Media, McChesney goes so far as to describe "private ownership of media" as one of "the primary internal impediments to a viable free press." Other reformers, such as the legal scholars Lawrence Lessig and Tim Wu, aren't so statist; even when they call for new controls, they say they prefer broad and simple rules aimed at encouraging innovation, not diktats meant to force a specific outcome. "We need to radically carve back on the scope and reach of what the FCC is doing," Lessig says, "not to the world of no regulation, but to the world of regulation for the objective of facilitating proper competition, not protecting against competition."

Lessig has met with Obama to discuss technology policy, and while he has his disagreements with the candidate—he didn't appreciate Obama's vote this year to give telecom companies retroactive immunity for illegally assisting government spies—he strongly supports the Democratic ticket. From the other end of the coalition, McChesney told the National Conference for Media Reform in June: "Our job doesn't end if he's elected. It begins. But at least we're in play."

Incidentally, Trinity Church, the controversial house of worship that Obama attended until May, is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, a body that has been heavily involved with the media reform movement. During the last few years, the church has urged the FCC to limit product placement on television, to refuse to renew the licenses of stations that don't offer enough children's programming, to let more low-power radio stations on the air, to block media consolidation, and—yes—to restore the fairness doctrine.

"One thing's for sure: the right is has struggled of late against real rivals, but they shouldn't have any trouble defeating an imaginary one."

Actually, I predict it will be a long, hard fight that will take many years and a lot of contributed dollars to combat. Afterall, they don't want to win too soon. Look at all the money they'd have to return. (Just kidding, they'd keep any excess cash to cover "administrative" costs.)

Let them charge at the windmill, while the real grownups get to work. It's a great distraction, and hopeful they'll waste a lot of money fighting the imaginary enemy so they don't have it to spend fighting universal healthcare.
The ones who care about this nonsense are part of the wacko rightwing Palin permanent minority. They simply aren't taken seriously by most Americans anymore.

I think it is simply their attempt to build protective walls around the one area where the crazy right has an advantage--and to protect their one sure system of being able to attack the new administration without haveing to allow any dissent. Let's face it, no matter how successful the new administration will be the talk radio clowns will attack like it is 1999, because that is where their breadf is buttered.

It's easier to win a fight when your opponents don't show up. As noted above, the wingnut right needs to both win a victory (to maintain relevance) and also to reinforce their followers' fears that libruls are coming to get Rush Limbaugh and your guns!

We sure are powerful and dangerous opponents for a bunch of spineless wimps, aren't we?

Ah, is not FAIR a significant group on the Left? Published on Saturday, February 12, 2005 by FAIR The Fairness Doctrine
How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back
by Steve Rendall
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
>>.>Sanders suggested that it is time that the Fairness Doctrine be revisited...
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders Addresses National Conference for Media Reform
By Media Mouse on January 19, 2007
http://www.mediamouse.org/features/011907vermo.php

Sounds like the Republicans have pushed open the Overton Window for us. How about we "compromise" on this one stupid policy that nobody really wants passed anyway? Say, "get out of the way on health care and we'll let this whole Fairness Doctrine thing go away..."

Speaking of GOP imaginary delusion, has anyone else noticed for the last two nights, Fox pundits have proclaimed we have won the war in Iraq? Course, it's followed-up with a contradiction of staying there...forever.
I wish someone would ask them at what point this victory was had, what spoils can we expect and with victory, why is there no exit plan?

It's me. I proposed reinstating the Fairness Doctrine once on a comment thread about three or four months ago. I put the fear in those motherfuckers. They know who they're dealing with, all right.

I would like to reinstitute the fairness doctrine which was basically repealed so that Reagan and republicans would have defenders against their various scandals.

See, liberals do want to bring back the fairness doctrine! A blog commenter said so! In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this anonymous commenter is actually Harry Reid and/or Nancy Pelosi surreptitiously communicating to the nutroots that their takeover of all media will soon be complete!!!1!

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Since the right seems so freaked out by the fairness doctrine, maybe it is something we need to get behind.

The entire purpose of right wing radio is to create a grievance where none existed and then to present the host or station as the hero who will help the audience stand up against the problem. I'm sure fundraising for RW causes work exactly the same way.

These groups are going to fundraise to stop this non-existent threat then, when it is "stopped", they'll fundraise some more because they were so successful.

And your friendly neighborhood RW ranter will benefit in the ratings as well since he rallied the masses.

"The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives -- paranoia and self-pity."

That's much too charitable -- they're awash in paranoia and self-pity even when they control all three branches of government.

I think there are two explanations for their Fairness Doctrine mania: it's a fundraising tool, and when it doesn't come back, the right can claim a "victory."

Oh, and maybe a third: Even a whisper of the word "fairness" sends them scurrying like vampires from a silver cross.

I'm glad no one is trying to repeal the Fair Tax. ('Cause it hasn't been enacted and probably never will.)

Bringing back the broadcasting Fairness Doctrine is a great idea, but one that the Money Party really opposes. So we see Rush and Sean in the same corner with Nancy and Harry. Interesting times we live in.

Can I just point out that the Fairness Doctrine would NOT force Rush or any of the others to close up shop? All it would do is mandate that if they are going to use THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES to push a particular political viewpoint, then the opposing political viewpoint (i.e. us) must be given a chance to respond.

The wingnut idea of "free speech" is that they should never have to be exposed to a dissenting viewpoint.

What they are creating is an institution to combat the inclusion of the left in the media. So, If, for example, CNN were to regularly put on someone from the left, this could be attacked as creeping fairness

Exactly right.

"In 1987, President Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and since then, talk radio has flourished. Conservatives dominate it, and liberals can't stand it. By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day...

Interesting implicit acknowledgment by the right-wing that their brand of media can only exist in the absence of fairness....

It seems fairly clear, as some have intimated, that the Right desperately needs a victory, even if they have to manufacturer one out of thin air. Tilting at a windmill while calling it a dragon and then declaring victory against that evil dragon will serve as great fodder for the sheep that comprise the conservative base.

It's unlikely a coincidence that the more extreme mutations of conservative 'thought' became reality starting a few years after the end of the Fairness Doctrine. ICBW but I seem to recall either Steve and/or Kevin had at least one posting on it a few years ago. It would pop up in comments now and then. I mentioned it a few times I know.

Given that technology(satellites & net) would practically defeat the effect of its revival, if not expanded in an Orwellian fashion, the issue has lost legs with many. Not to mention that SCOTUS would toss it, if given a chance, and IMVHO not be without a plausible leg to stand on.

Lord help us if willful self delusion is ever outlawed in this country. As if it ever could be anywhere. It is so prevalent across all spectra as to possibly warrant the rubric of positive adaptation, at least for the savannah. Is a totally non-deluded human even human?

Once Obama silences the right and takes away your guns, gay terrorists will sneak into your house, impregnant your wife, give her an abortion and turn your children gay with a single look!

The real issue is right-wing control of major media, and if liberals are not concerned about this they should be. There is a "groundswell" on the right backed financially by big-money interests which want to consolidate control of the media. It is foolish to dismiss this as hysteria.

It's all about FUNDRAISING. See Thomas Frank's writing about the young Jack Abramoff -- he merely used the Conservative Movement and it's patrons to raise cash. Issues are secondary and are only important with regard to flogging donors for more money.

Let them worry about the Fairness Doctrine. That way, they can be blindsided when the Department of Fatherland Security rounds up Rush, Hannity, Savage et al and ships the lot of them back to the Guantanamo reeducation center.

Steve Benen is missing the boat.

This has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

This is part of the propaganda campaign by the handful of giant corporations that own and control virtually all of America's mass media to (1) perpetuate the Cheney-Bush policies of radical deregulation of media ownership, thereby enabling those corporations to gobble up America's last few independent radio and TV stations and networks, and (2) overturn the concept of net neutrality which is the "fairness doctrine" of the Internet age.

While it's true that there is no actual effort by Democrats or "liberals" to reinstate the pre-Reagan Fairness Doctrine, there is or will be an effort to curtail or even roll back the Cheney-Bush deregulation of media ownership, and to strengthen and protect net neutrality.

Both of which threaten the ability of the giant media corporations to consolidate their ownership and control of ALL mass media in the USA and use it for totalitarian propagandistic mind control of the American people in furtherance of the ruthless, rapacious class warfare of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. against everyone else.

The giant media corporations are determined to control ALL information that traverses the airwaves, the cables, and the Internet and to thereby control what Americans hear, see, know and think -- and will fight to the death against any regulation of the media in the public interest, which is antithetical to the interests of the corporations.

That's what this is about.

"By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day..."

Sounds good to me. Send Limpdick to Santo Domingo with a li9fetime supplyof Hillbilly Heroin and Viagra, let Beck, Hannity, Savage, and all the other brain-dead otehrwise-unemployables go out and get real work.

What's sop wrong about smashing the goddamned futhermuckers????

Thank you SA for clarifying the point that I was trying to make.

would essentially take control of all forms of media

I thought we'd done that decades ago. After all, why has it always been called "the liberal media"?

A persecution complex is a requirement for today's conservatives. It's a daily refrain: "We're not paranoid — why are all you liberals out to get us?!"

The republicrats and evangelicrats must be beside themselves. They were lied into a war, and up to 3 months ago McCain/Palin were telling our country the economy was good, and the "fundamentals strong." Now, yesterday, we discover their lies again and that the counntry has been in a recession which started over a year ago. The majority of citizens of the most wonderful country on the planet saw thru their lies. Our country deserves a better opposition that the "rats" I have just described. Liars, cheats, hypocrites.....

http://www.spectator.org/archives/2007/05/14/her-royal-fairness

"According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will "aggressively pursue" reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. "

^^^^^^^^^^^
Read me!

Six months have passed since that quote (actually, a full 18 months have passed), so you must have some evidence now that this in fact did occur as suggested by these alleged anonymous sources. So, where is that evidence? Oh, you have none? Thought so.

I think it more likely that the American Spectator simply made up these quotes to push a false story of the Fairness Doctrine being reincarnated, a part of the right-wing disinformation campaign that rags like the Spectator embrace wholeheartedly.

If they support healthcare and some economic initiatives, then let them have their cake. The need to be in opposition, let it be against an imaginary foe!

Perhaps Michael Pugliese above can explain to us all why the right wing would complain that the "liberal media" got Barack Obama into office by biased reporting and then turn around and freak out about having a new Fairness Doctrine that would have prevented the very thing they're complaining about. After all, if the media really is as liberal as they're saying, shouldn't they welcome the chance to get conservative viewpoints into the national conversation?

Any answers, Michael? Why is the right wing so worried about a Fairness Doctrine that would benefit them by their own admission?

If they are this consumed by the issue, we should extract a lot of concessions from them in return for assurances on this.

A history lesson (per my brain):

1. The Great Depression causes Americans to see capitalism as an evil in society. It would take about 70 years to throw off this mantle of evil.

2. 1948: Richard Nixon defeats Helen Gahagan Douglas by labeling her - with no evidence at all - a commie supporter.

3. 1950: The McCarthy Era. Joe McCarthy shows the docile Republicans how attack politics can rev people up with nasty attacks - regardless of accuracy or not

4. 1971: The Powell Memorandum - this was a call to arms for corporations to fund think tanks and to start to brainwash America out of Liberal thinking patterns about corporations that had existed since the Great Depression.

5. Post-1971: The Mellon-Scaifes, Joseph Coors and other billionaires on the right put up their money. One comrade-in-arms: the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the head of the Moonies, and known for using brainwashing techniques on cult members.

6. post-1987: Lee Atwater and Karl Rove perfect dirty-tricks as a means of winning elections (with a bow to Donald Segretti of Watergate fame). Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and others take to the airwaves in full Nixon/Joe McCarthy mode.

Lessons learned by the right?

NEVER wait to attack. Pre-emptive attacks WORK. Pre-emptive attacks means that YOU get to define the discussion, on YOUR terms.

What they are doing shows that they are basically out of ideas and are having to re-cycle their STYLE and METHODS, ad infinitum, hoping that, somehow, they can invigorate people with the same drivel.

Ignore it for now, as it is the dying squawk of a roadkill possum.

But ignore them long term at our own peril.

Reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine is actually something that DOES need to be done. But on Obama's To Do List, it is down about number 97.

As such they are focsing on something that doesn't matter at all right now, and that is a good thing. It means they are not working on something that does.

But be aware...

Lewis Powell, FU.

Well a lot to unpack there but, I'll start. As a social democrat in DSA, I welcome having more voices from the Left (not mushy centrists, the Right can and does anathmatize as crypto-Bolshiviks, I mean folks like Robert Kuttner or writers who appear in The Nation or in These Times or Dissent magazine) but 1) it has to be admitted the MSM was easier on Obama than it was on McCain or Hillary, cf. a recent WaPo columnist who admitted this.2) Didn't I say above that I thought that the Fairness Doctrine had few supporters in Congress besides Sanders and Kucinich? And, if you trawl the Media Reform conf. proceddings I posted a url of above, you will see that political orgs. on the radical and progressive left (to the left of DSA, we are regarded by rads as equivilent to the SDUSA neo-cons, google it or visit Marxist lists like Marxmail) are pushing for the Fairness Doctrine to be reimplemented. Think of it as Marcuse in Action, heh. (Cf. his doctrine about "repressive tolerance" calling for repression of right-wing, centrist and liberal speech, only rads allowed...)
3) Folling right-wing blogs as I do, as well as radical/liberal/progressive/social democratic ones, I have seen figures in RW groups like AIM the counter to the lefty FAIR call for the Fairness Doctrine.

>...Perhaps Michael Pugliese above can explain to us all why the right wing would complain that the "liberal media" got Barack Obama into office by biased reporting and then turn around and freak out about having a new Fairness Doctrine that would have prevented the very thing they're complaining about. After all, if the media really is as liberal as they're saying, shouldn't they welcome the chance to get conservative viewpoints into the national conversation?

Any answers, Michael? Why is the right wing so worried about a Fairness Doctrine that would benefit them by their own admission?
Posted by: Mnemosyne on December 2, 2008 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

If no one else has mentioned it, a good example of what the right are trying to preempt (IMHO) can be found in this piece from FAIR:

janus [sic] certainly is right about Cohen's "uncompromising style"... and about Fox's strong aversion to progressive vs. conservative debates that it thinks the conservative might actually lose.

Michael Pugliese wrote: "... it has to be admitted the MSM was easier on Obama than it was on McCain or Hillary, cf. a recent WaPo columnist who admitted this ..."

No, it doesn't "have to be admitted" because it is demonstrably, laughably FALSE, no matter what some unnamed "WaPo columnist" had to say.

If you really believe that the ultra-rich, right-wing Republicans who own and control the handful of giant media corporations that own and control the so-called "mainstream media" -- the same people who have spent a generation aggressively and successfully lobbying for radical deregulation of media ownership, plus massive tax cuts for the ultra-rich, plus a host of other right-wing, pro-corporate policies that a series of right-wing Republican administrations from Reagan through Cheney-Bush have obediently implemented -- if you really believe that those people are "liberals" using the overpowering propaganda machine of the corporate mass media to promote "liberal" politicians and "liberal" policies, then you are even more of a blithering idiot than your comments suggest.

I say it's just "Don't throw me into that Briar Patch" trickiness by the conservatives, who will claim the right to populate 'liberal' shows like Countdown with their own spokespersons to achieve appropriate Fairness.

Let the rat bastards stand up for their little plot on their own.

"they shouldn't have any trouble defeating an imaginary one"

exactly

this is not paranoia, it's planning for the future

in 6 months, they'll say "See, conservatism is alive and well, look how we killed this Fairness nonsense! Now give us money so we can do even better"

"Far-right activists mislead people about progressive policy ideas all the time." I think it's safe to say that far-left activists mislead people about conservative policy frequently, too. Blokes like one mentioned above, Kucinich, don't help that problem.

I think one has to step back and consider if, on principle, Republicans should be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine. And I think it can be argued that, inasmuch as it infringes on free speech, and would also require leftist talk radio to run conservative messages, that it's a fairly straightforward conclusion that conservatives would be against it. What is needed is not a government-mandated policy on what can and cannot be broadcast, whether it favors right-wing conservatives or the D.C. leftist illuminati, but what is needed is educational reform that fosters critical thinking skills, so that no matter what is being considered, listeners/readers/viewers can assess it intelligently.

What is really creepy is that this deception is so commonplace. Made-up facts are routinely presented as factual. When people contest these falsehoods it just strengthens the perception of being put-upon.
This isn't just bullshit. This kind of manipulation is dangerous. Dick Cheney continued to state that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 well after even Bush admitted that was untrue. This way people could say, "Well, Dick Cheney says it's true..."
People were also encouraged to believe that their Right to Bear Arms was threatened by an Obama Presidency, which recently resulted in increased gun sales.
Do these guys just do this for fun? to see how many people will jump when they say "boo!"?

Just don't tell me that "liberals" are immune to such things. Obama wasn't named "Advertiser of the Year" in 2008 for nothing. All that Supreme Evil Monster Clinton narrative was just, look, the heat of the campaign.
A difference of scale maybe.

quote; "By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day ... and would essentially take control of all forms of media,"

whatever are they talking about?

all forms of media?

why would letting libs get equal time on talk radio lead to the cons downfall??

wouldn't all the successful talkers simply migrate to another media...say fauxnews, or the innertubes?

finally i'm intrigued by the idea that radio talk hosts are "the conservative leaders of the day."

doesn't anyone currently in office or a think tank or in the rnc count???

Michael Pugliese wrote: "... it has to be admitted the MSM was easier on Obama than it was on McCain or Hillary, cf. a recent WaPo columnist who admitted this ..."

good grief..this again...it was totally DEBUNKED weeks ago...the wapo omsbud admitted there were more negative stories about mccain than obama...this was during a campaign where obama did pretty much everything right while mccain was self-distructing.... telling stories that say this is no proof of a liberal bias...just a reality bias

aka: reporting

SecularAnimist's post @ 10:28 AM sums up the actual reason behind all the noise about a returning "Fairness Doctrine". This is just the opening salvo in a campaign to halt anything that might threaten the media's profits. The noise machine is starting up now to prevent any FCC regulations that might limit those monopolies or promote competition. Any regulating of market share, TV station ownership, etc. will be attacked as simply an attempt to re-introduce the "Fairness Doctrine" via stealth methods.

We need to look at this in terms of stamping out propaganda and lies. Fairness means nothing if the right wing can say anything without factual evidence. Propaganda has infused itself upon the MSM and needs to be exposed and rooted out. Most of the Limbaugh to Hannity spew is actually corporate or GOP messaging with little basis in fact; it is not a free press that advocates secretly for right wing agendas. We need to label FOX News as Propaganda or paid political advertising. Same with all the other AM stations and cable networks that adbocate agendas and not truth. Fox news was a constant campaign commercial for McCain and he did not have to report that contribution. We all know that the MSM as it exists is to give people the impression of legitimacy for a tyrannical force in the right wing. This must be staunched out. Media Matters and other sites have done God's work, but we shouldn't have to tolerate undemocratic propaganda writ large any more. . .