Fox News and the Election: Paying for Mark Fowler's Toaster

In the 1980s, the deregulation of American Broadcasting began full-tilt.  Many of the rules that restricted forms of ownership and content were altered to allow for greater consolidation of corporate power and fewer requirements for broadcasting content "in the public interest, convenience, or necessity" (the phrase used in the old books about licensing).

Now, American broadcasting has always been a predominantly a commercial medium, when compared to, say, the BBC in the UK.   The quiz show scandals of the 1950s ended the sponsors' direct control of programming content, and broadcasters were obligated to varying degrees to provide content that served the greater public good.  One crucial requirement, always a controversial one, was the Fairness Doctrine, which required that broadcasters present a fair and balanced (stop laughing) representation of important issues relevant to their broadcasting community.   Broadcasters had often opposed such a rule, but the courts held up the FCC's rights to enforce it, though in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC wasn't required to.

When Mark Fowler became chair of the FCC in 1981, he set about dismantling the regulations that have led to, among other things, the massive consolidation of media into a handful of conglomerates, the proliferation of infomercials, and the rise of partisan talk radio.   Requirements about station ownership were relaxed; not only could networks actually own more numbers of affiliate stations, but now individuals could speculate in buying and "flipping" stations. (Previous rules required that a broadcaster had to own a station for at least three years and in order to obtain a license had to demonstrate clear financial solvency.)    Rules were relaxed to allow media cross-ownership; this allowed Rupert Murdoch, then owner of the New York Post, to make WNEW his flagship station for his planned Fox Network. (Rules also were bent regarding citizenship to allow Murdoch to do this.)

Fowler's arguments were that television should be seen not as a public trust, but as a commercial entitity.  Most famously, Fowler described television as an appliance, like any other: it's "a toaster with picutures."  Using that reasoning, Fowler dereulagetd the industrty and made it even more commercial than it had been before.  In eliminating the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC (at that time, 1987, no longer chaired by Fowler) effectively removed any requirement that broadcasters had to present a range of viewpoints on political issues.   All these factors led to the emergence of right-wing talk-radio blowhards, whose views stirred up listeners and drove ratings, which dominated programming decisions even more than before 1981.

Which brings me to Fox News and the 2012 election.

As my old high school friend and columnist  Gil Smart blogged recently, one of the most important causes of the failure of the Romney campaign -- aside from, well, the flip-flopping, the 47 percent comment, and the threats on Big Bird -- was the role that Fox played.   While the network was created by former Reagan aide Roger Ailes, it's not quite fair (or balanced?) to say that the network is merely the mouth of the Republican party.   As Gil points out, Fox News is a business, and their interest is in in generating audience numbers first and foremost.   And in a media landscape where information has become a commodity, the network succeeds by giving its audience what they want, regardless of its relation to reality.  

Gil cites a post by Connor Friedersdorf,  which focuses on the harm Fox News did to its political patrons.  By not presenting its audience a picture of what was really going on, especially in terms of the polls, Fox News did the party and its audience a dissservice.   By continuing to have "journalists" who present out-of-whack information as facts, the network generates lots of money and interest, but there are still enough people in "the reality-based community" who go out and vote against those who have idiotic thoughts about rape, ostrich-like opinions about climate change, etc.  

This state of affairs is in many ways what News Corp wants, because controversial loudmouths make lots of money for Murdoch.  And it is precisely the point of Mark Fowler's idea of tv as a toaster: news is just another commodity that is sold; give the people what they want, regardless of the truth.  

For intelligent conservatives who can present reasoned arguments against Obamacare and tax hikes on the rich, let the lesson sink in: irrational ideas might reap in the profits, but they are sinking the party.   And this is what deregulation of broadcasting wrought.