Welcome to FromDC2Iowa: Contents & Guide

Over 1,500 blog posts on a variety of topics since 2006.

What to do?

1. Old friend of the blog and repeat visitor? You already know what you want to do and how to do it.

2. First time visitor? Here are some choices:

(a) "I'm just looking." Look to right-hand column listing years. Clicking on the little triangle in front of a year will display the months of that year. Clicking on the little triangle in front of any of the displayed months will display the titles on blogs posted that month. Clicking on a blog post's title will take you to the text of that blog post.

(b) Researching a Topic? Scroll down the right-hand column to "Search;" enter key words to search on, select "FromDC2Iowa blog" or "Nicholas Johnson Web Site" and follow directions. Want ideas? Visit "Key Word Searches."

(c) Searching by Date? Scroll down right-hand column to "Blog Archive." As explained in (a), above, click on triangle in front of year to display months, month to display posts.

3. Who is this blog's author? Nicholas Johnson.

_________________________

What Happened to Radio?

Right-Wing Takeover of Radio
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, February 8, 2023, p. A6 NOTE: For space constraints, text [in brackets] was removed by editors; text (in parentheses) was added by editors.

How did millions of Americans come to believe that the components of authoritarian dictatorships will better protect their “freedoms” than our democracy?

The answers fill a long list. I’ve selected one: radio.

[Radio? That’s right, radio.]

Before radio, political consensus emerged from conversations, meetings, newspapers, and the occasional political speech on the village square.

With radio, a station owner could speak to the hundreds or thousands within the station’s signal area.

The 1920s and 1930s increased public awareness of the manipulative power of advertising and political propaganda. [After TV, Harvard economist Ken Galbraith declared radio and television to be “the prime instruments for the manipulation of consumer demand.”]

Ironically, the 1920s Members of Congress were more aware of the potential dangers of radio than their successors have been.

As Texas Congressman Luther Johnson [(no relation to President Johnson)] put it to his colleagues in 1926, “American thought and politics will be at the mercy of those who operate these stations. . . [If] placed in the hands of a single selfish group then woe be to those who dare to differ with them.”

The Radio Act of 1927, Communications Act of 1934, and FCC regulations constrained this potential threat to democracy. The public owned the airwaves, not broadcasters. Broadcasters needed an FCC license to use a frequency – initially limited to six months.

The granting and renewal of licenses turned on whether the station’s programming served “the public interest.” Specific FCC requirements gave meaning to those words.

The Fairness Doctrine required stations seek out local “controversial issues of public importance” and provide, not “equal time,” but a range of views. If stations gave one political candidate free time it triggered a right in opponents to an “equal opportunity.” Anyone attacked had a right of reply.

Other regulations encouraged diversity of views. Limitations on the number of stations one licensee could operate in a single market – or throughout the country. Restrictions on common ownership of newspapers and stations, or concentration of station ownership within a state or region.

This lasted roughly 60 years.

[So, what happened?]

What happened (then) was that Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio talk show hosts, and station owners carrying their programs, saw the Fairness Doctrine and ownership restrictions as a barrier to their goal of a nationwide, constant flow of unchallenged right-wing programming. (If there be doubt about Limbaugh's conservative credentials: "In an unusual departure from protocol, Rush Limbaugh was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Trump during the State of the Union address. [It is] the country’s highest civilian honor." NY Times, Feb. 4, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/us/politics/rush-limbaugh-medal-of-freedom.html Photo credit: Golfing buddies, Trump and Limbaugh, at Trump's Golf Club; White House, Joyce Boghosian)

They successfully persuaded enough FCC commissioners and Members of Congress of their position, (and) the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, along with most ownership restrictions. Soon Clear Channel owned 1,207 stations in 201 of 287 radio markets, and the top 15 right-wing conservative radio talk show personalities were putting out 45 hours of unanswered assertions every day.

Millions of Americans, whose occupations were consistent with all-day radio listening, were getting an overload of a conservative perspective on America in workshops and kitchens, factory floors and restaurants, tractor and semi-truck cabs.

[That’s what happened.]

As the more moderate radio star Paul Harvey would say, “And now you know the rest of the story.”

Nicholas Johnson served as a Federal Communications Commission commissioner, 1966-1973. maiilbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #
SOURCES January 6 Attack. Brian Duignan, “January 6 U.S Capitol Attack; Riot, Washington, D.C., U.S. [2021],” Britannica, Jan. 7, 2023 update (“Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d’état. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law-enforcement agencies also considered it an act of domestic terrorism. . . . [Trump’s] false accusations were indirectly endorsed by several Republican members of Congress who expressed uncertainty about the election’s outcome or who simply refused to publicly acknowledge Biden’s victory. Their calculated reticence helped to spread false doubts about the integrity of the election among rank-and-file Republicans.”)

Radio Act of 1927. Stuart N. Brotman, Communications Law and Practice, 1995, 2006, Law Journal Press, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Communications_Law_and_Practice/FKnhFoQykdgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=radio+act+of+1927&pg=SA1-PA9&printsec=frontcover

Luther Johnson. “Luther Alexander Johnson,” Wikipedia, (“American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. [If] a single selfish group is permitted to ... dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them." [67 Cong. Rec. 5558 (1926).”)

See generally, Nicholas Johnson, “Breaking Through Power: The Media; Harnessing Progressive Reform to 21st Century Media,” FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com, May 24, 2016, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2016/05/breaking-through-power-media.html (“Lord Reith’s preference for public over private ownership was reflected in the House floor debate about the Act. As Congressman Luther Johnson warned his colleagues, ‘American thought and . . . politics will be . . . at the mercy of those who operate these stations. . . . [If] placed in the hands of . . . a single selfish group . . . then woe be to those who dare to differ with them.’”)
Quoted from, Nicholas Johnson, “Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland; The Vast Wasteland Revisited Essays,” note 31, Federal Communications Law Journal, May, 2003, 55 F.C.L.J. 521 (2003), https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/masmedia/55FCL521.html [Full Congressman Johnson quote in footnote 31: “American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. For publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a Republic, and when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership and dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.”]

Fairness Doctrine. Matt Stefon, “fairness doctrine,” Britannica, Aug. 16, 2017, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/ICRC/32.pdf (“In 1949 the commission promulgated a report, In the Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees . . . to promote ‘a basic standard of fairness’ in broadcasting. Licensees had the duty to devote airtime to fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues that were of interest to their home communities. Individuals who were the subject of editorials or who perceived themselves to be the subject of unfair attacks in news programming were to be granted an opportunity to reply. Also, candidates for public office were entitled to equal airtime.”)

“FCC Fairness Doctrine,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine (“The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[5][6]”

Origins
In 1938, a former Yankee Network employee named Lawrence J. Flynn challenged the license of John Shepard III's WAAB in Boston, and also lodged a complaint about WNAC. . . . [I][n 1941, the commission made a ruling that came to be known as the Mayflower Decision which declared that radio stations, due to their public interest obligations, must remain neutral in matters of news and politics, and they were not allowed to give editorial support to any particular political position or candidate.

In 1949, the FCC's Editorializing Report[8] repealed the Mayflower doctrine, which had forbidden editorializing on the radio since 1941, and laid the foundation for the fairness doctrine . . ..

In 1969, the United States courts of appeals, in an opinion written by Warren Burger, directed the FCC to revoke Lamar Broadcasting's license for television station WLBT due to the station's segregationist politics and ongoing censorship of NBC network news coverage of the U.S. civil rights movement.[15]

Conservative talk radio
The 1987 repeal of the fairness doctrine enabled the rise of talk radio that has been described as "unfiltered" divisive and/or vicious: "In 1988, a savvy former ABC Radio executive named Ed McLaughlin signed Rush Limbaugh — then working at a little-known Sacramento station — to a nationwide syndication contract. McLaughlin offered Limbaugh to stations at an unbeatable price: free. All they had to do to carry his program was to set aside four minutes per hour for ads that McLaughlin's company sold to national sponsors. The stations got to sell the remaining commercial time to local advertisers." According to The Washington Post, "From his earliest days on the air, Limbaugh trafficked in conspiracy theories, divisiveness, even viciousness" (e.g., "feminazis").[44] Prior to 1987 people using much less controversial verbiage had been taken off the air as obvious violations of the fairness doctrine.[45]

. . .

On August 22, 2011, the FCC voted to remove the rule that implemented the fairness doctrine, along with more than 80 other rules and regulations, from the Federal Register following an executive order by President Obama directing a "government-wide review of regulations already on the books" to eliminate unnecessary regulations.[4]”)

Ownership. “The FCC’s Rules and Policies Regarding Media Ownership, Attribution, and Ownership Diversity October 27, 2004 – December 16, 2016,” Congressional Reference Service, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R43936.html

https://www1.udel.edu/nero/Radio/pdf_files/T&A_%20Media%20Ownership.pdf (“Clear Channel leads in radio broadcast station ownership with 1,207 stations reaching 201 out of 287 markets in the United States.”)

Right-Wing Radio. Google search: right wing domination of talk radio stations

Paul Matzko, “Talk Radio Is Turning Millions of Americans Into Conservatives; The medium is at the heart of Trumpism,” New York Times, Oct. 9, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/talk-radio-conservatives-trumpism.html (“By the early 2000s, it [the conservatism of talk radio] had embraced a version of conservatism that is less focused on free markets and small government and more focused on ethnonationalism and populism. It is, in short, the core of Trumpism — now and in the future, with or without a President Trump. . . . [J]ust the top 15 shows are putting out around 45 hours of content every day. . . . [T]he dedicated fan can listen to nothing but conservative talk radio all day, every day of the week, and never catch up. . . . Talk radio listeners make up a group at least three times as large as the N.R.A. and are just as committed to a particular vision of America. [Google search: “How many members in the NRA?” 5 million in Dec. 2018; = talk radio listeners  15 m]

Paul Matzko, “When Conservatives Forget the History of the Fairness Doctrine,” CATO Institute, Sept 2, 2021, https://www.cato.org/blog/when-conservatives-forget-history-fairness-doctrine (“But dedicated broadcasters like Limbaugh knew that imposing a rigorous Fairness Doctrine regime would demolish their core operating model. It is no accident that Limbaugh’s show did not receive national syndication until a few months after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

That wariness about the effects of the Fairness Doctrine on conservative broadcasting extended to President Reagan. He might be better known for his screen presence, but Reagan was an old radio hand. Indeed, he delayed formally announcing his presidential candidacy for 1980 so that he could keep his daily radio show Viewpoint on the air on 286 stations nationwide as long as possible.

Their skepticism paid off. Repealing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 enabled the rise of conservative‐dominated talk radio with vast political consequences. Without talk radio, it’s hard to imagine the success of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in 1994 or the impeachment of Bill Clinton. And the tens of millions of regular talk radio listeners created a coherent audience that could be targeted later by conservative media entrepreneurs like Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. For good or for ill, the conservative movement would look dramatically different today if the Fairness Doctrine had not been repealed.

. . . talk radio had become a key pillar of conservative political success.”)

Al Tompkins, “How Rush Limbaugh’s rise after the gutting of the fairness doctrine led to today’s highly partisan media; Limbaugh’s success after President Reagan declawed the doctrine, gave rise to others and provided encouragement for Fox News’ 1996 launch,” Poynter, Feb. 17, 2021, https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2021/how-rush-limbaughs-rise-after-the-gutting-of-the-fairness-doctrine-led-to-todays-highly-partisan-media/ (“Rush Limbaugh was more than a talk radio host. He was a key element in the development of the highly partisan journalism and other media that envelop us today.

Limbaugh’s talk radio program was not possible until the Federal Communications Commission relaxed the fairness doctrine.”)

Kevin M. Kruse and Julian Zelizer, “How policy decisions spawned today’s hyperpolarized media; The demise of the Fairness Doctrine played an underappreciated role in fomenting media tribalism,” The Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/17/how-policy-decisions-spawned-todays-hyperpolarized-media/ (“In 1987, the FCC announced that it would no longer enforce the Fairness Doctrine. . . . Almost overnight, the media landscape was transformed. The driving force was talk radio. In 1960, there were only two all-talk radio stations in America; by 1995, there were 1,130.”)

Repeal of ownership limits.

Google search: right-wing conservatives pressed FCC to repeal ownership limits

Nikki Finke, “FCC Ownership Rules Blamed For Total Dominance By Right-Wing Talk Radio,” Deadline, June 21, 2007, https://deadline.com/2007/06/fcc-ownership-rules-blamed-for-overwhelming-dominance-of-right-wing-talk-radio-2626/ (“The Center for American Progress and Free Press just released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives. The new report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” blames the FCC for the current imbalance, in particular . . . the relaxation of ownership rules. . . .

Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006. Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format leads all others. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, it reached 50 million listeners each week.

Of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners this spring, 91% of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9% was progressive.”)

Eric Boehlert, “Former FCC chairman: Deregulation is a right-wing power grab; Reed Hundt says Monday's historic vote was ‘the culmination of the attack by the right on the media,’" Salon, May 31, 2003, https://www.salon.com/2003/05/31/fcc_4/ (“In a historic session on the future of the U.S. news media, Republicans on the Federal Communications Commission voted Monday to ease long-standing rules so that more and more of the nation's newspapers and broadcast stations can be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

Underlying that agenda, Clinton-era FCC chairman Reed Hundt saw something more primal unfolding: an extraordinary conservative power grab that could shape the political landscape for generations.

For all the philosophical conflict over diversity in the media and the efficiency of the free market, Hunt told Salon, the vote is really about an alliance of interests between the political right and the corporate media. ‘Conservatives,’ he said, ‘hope ... that the major media will be their friends.’" . . .

The FCC has long had rules regulating media ownership, based on the assumption that the number of broadcast frequencies is limited. The regulations were designed to ensure that radio and television stations remained diverse, independent voices and could withstand predatory conglomerates. But on Monday the FCC dumped those rules.

. . .

At the time, Hundt was among the few to warn of the consequences. The new laws would allow "a few companies to buy all the radio licenses in the country," he said then. "I don't believe that's good for this industry or for this country."

His words proved prophetic. Since the law's passage, Clear Channel Communications, which in 1995 owned approximately 40 radio stations, has expanded to approximately 1,200 outlets, nearly 1,000 more than its closest competitor.

[Reed Hundt during interview:] “When Newt Gingrich was running the House of Representatives, effective in the fall of 1994, he called all the media owners together in a room down on Capitol Hill, and according to what people who were there told me, he told them he'd give them relaxed rules allowing media concentration in exchange for favorable coverage. Now I wasn't there, but that's what they said they understood he meant.”)

Jeffrey M. Berry and Sarah Sobieraj, “Understanding the Rise of Talk Radio,” Political Science and Politics, Cambridge University Press, Oct. 18, 2011, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/abs/understanding-the-rise-of-talk-radio/25394FEA4F469026712C17BE514A786C (“The number of radio stations airing political talk shows—predominantly conservative talk radio—has surged in the past few years. This massive change in the radio industry says something about the demand for such shows, but attributing the rise of talk radio to a corresponding rise in conservative popular opinion is misleading. We argue that this remarkable growth is better explained by the collision of two changes that have transformed the radio business: deregulation and the mainstreaming of digital music technologies. Regulatory changes have shifted much of radio production and control from local to mass production (managed by industry giants such as Clear Channel Communications) and created a context ripe for nationally syndicated hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin.”)

Rest of the story. “The Rest of the Story,” Wikimedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rest_of_the_Story (“The Rest of the Story was a Monday-through-Friday radio program originally hosted by Paul Harvey.[1] . . . The broadcasts always concluded with a variation on the tag line, ‘And now you know...the rest of the story.’")

And see, “Paul Harvey,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Harvey

# # #

Use It Or Lose It

Public Radio: Use It or Lose It
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, April 9, 2022, p. 5A
I love radio. Always have. AM, shortwave, an amateur license, working for National Public Radio, and FCC.

Today’s NPR and Iowa Public Radio employees are the airwaves heroes in our civil war to save democracy.

Because 18-year-old Iowa Public Radio is currently celebrating its centennial, a little history is in order.

The first cross-Atlantic “wireless” transmission was 1901. Soon radio amateurs were building transmitters – as they have created communications innovations since. Launching communications satellites, bouncing signals off the moon, and making phone calls with hand-held radios long before your first smartphone.

Once their Morse Code gave way to the human voice the tussle began. Like Steve Martin’s Saturday Night Live routine, folks pointed to the talking box and asked, “What the hell is that?” Both the Navy and phone company fought for control.

Iowa’s President Herbert Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce 1921 to 1928, led the way, as homes with radios went from 300,000 to 10 million. Thirty stations became 618. The chaos of signal interference required regulation.
[Photo: wikimedia; accompanying text: "Photo of an American family in the 1920s listening to a crystal radio. From a 1922 advertisement for Freed-Eisemann radios in Radio World magazine. The small radio is on the table. Crystal sets work off the power received from radio waves, so they are not strong enough to power loudspeakers. Therefore the family members each wear earphones, the mother and father sharing a pair. Although this is obviously a professionally posed, promotional photo, it captures the excitement of the public at the first radio broadcasts, which were beginning about this time. Crystal sets like this were the most widely used type of radio until the 1920s, when they were slowly replaced by vacuum tube radios."]

Many nations responded with non-commercial-only, public (though not government) national broadcasting networks. Most famously, Britain’s BBC.

Congress called them “public airwaves,” but gave the FCC power to select and license private individuals’ use of them in “the public interest.” Hoover opposed “advertising chatter.” Even licensees urged “advertising in radio be absolutely prohibited.”

As commercialism took over radio, the push-back created “educational, non-commercial” stations. FCC’s first woman commissioner, Frieda Hennock, a Ukrainian, is credited with the reservation of educational TV channels. In 1945, the FCC reserved educational FM channels.

In 1911 engineering students and faculty at the University of Iowa got their “training school license,” 9YA, for their “wireless telegraph.” By 1916 free course material was broadcast in Morse Code. Later full licenses were granted for WHAA (1922) and WSUI (1925). By 1933 W9XK (later W9XUI) provided education via TV. WOI has similar history.

NPR began in 1971, and IPR in 2004 – the first step in a cutback in state support of Iowa’s university-licensed stations. This year the Board of Regents began the transfer of all broadcast licenses and property of university stations to IPR.

The Legislature no longer funds our universities to the extent it once did. (Now $389M less than 20 years ago, notwithstanding increasing costs.)

Meanwhile, the Golden Dome of Wisdom echoes with, “what have the universities done for us lately?”

Former UI President Sally Mason observed there are Iowans in “pockets where we may be less favorably viewed … a lot of them are west.” You think?

How sad the universities had an irreplaceable, invaluable statewide network of 26 stations – a public relations firm’s dream -- that could have told their story and won over legislators by helping small towns. University administrators, regents, legislators and governors failed to see its value.

It was “use it or lose it,” and now they’ve lost it. Happy Centennial.

Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner, lives in Iowa City. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #
Sources
My amateur radio license. N0EAJ, Aug. 20, 2027, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp

Working for NPR. Although I have never accepted payment from NPR, and thus would not be considered an "employee" in that sense, my involvement has included providing daily reports, and an hour-long special, regarding RAGBRAI, reports from presidential conventions on how the media covers conventions, and uncounted opinion pieces over the years.

History of radio, general. Erik Barnouw, three-volume “A History of Broadcasting in the United States.” A Tower of Babel (to 1933), vol. 1; The Golden Web (1933-1953), vol. 2; and The Image Empire (from 1953), vol. 3

“History of Radio,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio

Wireless in 1901. “Italian physicist and radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi succeeds in sending the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean …. The message–simply the Morse-code signal for the letter “s”–traveled more than 2,000 miles from Poldhu in Cornwall, England, to Newfoundland, Canada.” “First radio transmission sent across the Atlantic Ocean, December 12, 1901,” This Day in History, December 12,” History, Feb. 9, 2010, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marconi-sends-first-atlantic-wireless-transmission

Early amateurs. “The radio hobbyists, soon to be called radio amateurs, or ham operators, … were among the first to transform their hobby into the earliest broadcasting stations, and felt it was only proper they should be entrusted with radio’s future.[19] (Footnotes are to referenced sources in Nicholas Johnson, “Radio as Mysterious Miracle” in “The Origins and Future of Radio,” August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Amateurs’ innovations. “Ham Radio History,” ARRL (American Radio Relay League), http://www.arrl.org/ham-radio-history

“The radio hobbyists, soon to be called radio amateurs, or ham operators, provided most of the early improvements in radio – as they continued to do with electronics generally throughout the Twentieth Century.[18] (Footnotes are to referenced sources in Nicholas Johnson, “Radio as Mysterious Miracle” in “The Origins and Future of Radio,” August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Steve Martin’s routine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l5tpY6SXMc

Navy and phone company control. “There was little agreement as to what radio was, how it could be used, and who should control it. The Navy, having used and advanced radio technology during World War I, understandably saw radio as a form of military equipment properly controlled by them – with wireless telegraphy’s ability to provide rapid, where telegraph wires were not an option communication, between ships, and ship-to-shore.[15] Telegraph companies argued that anything called wireless telegraphy was obviously still telegraphy, and a private business inappropriate for military or other governmental operation.[16] Telephone companies, with comparable certainly, saw radio as an obvious extension of their businesses – and even more so once radio started to be used for broadcasting programming. After all, as early as the 1870s telephone companies in the U.S. and Europe were distributing music and other entertainment programming over telephone wires -- what we today might call cable radio.[17] The radio hobbyists, soon to be called radio amateurs, or ham operators, provided most of the early improvements in radio – as they continued to do with electronics generally throughout the Twentieth Century.[18] They were among the first to transform their hobby into the earliest broadcasting stations, and felt it was only proper they should be entrusted with radio’s future.[19] (Footnotes are to referenced sources in Nicholas Johnson, “Radio as Mysterious Miracle” in “The Origins and Future of Radio,” August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce. “Secretary of Commerce (1921-1928” (5), “Radio regulation and air travel” (5.1), “Herbert Hoover,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

“Hoover's tenure as Secretary of Commerce heavily influenced radio use in the United States. In the early and mid-1920s, Hoover's radio conferences played a key role in the organization, development, and regulation of radio broadcasting. Hoover also helped pass the Radio Act of 1927….” Id., “Radio regulation and air travel” (5.1)

“Secretary Hoover went ahead with at least a frequency allocation scheme to bring a little order out of chaos and signal interference.[25]” Footnote links to Erik Barnouw, A History of Broadcasting in the United States, vol. 1, pp. 121-22, in Nicholas Johnson, “The Origins and Future of Radio,” lecture transcript, August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Homes with radios. “Between 1923 and 1929, the number of families with radios grew from 300,000 to 10 million,[109].” “Radio regulation and air travel” (5.1), “Herbert Hoover,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

30 (1922) to 618 (1930) stations. “United States Broadcasting Station Totals[2],” chart in “Radio in the United States,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2

Signal interference -> regulation. “Secretary Hoover went ahead with at least a frequency allocation scheme to bring a little order out of chaos and signal interference.[25]” Footnote links to Erik Barnouw, A History of Broadcasting in the United States, vol. 1, pp. 121-22, in Nicholas Johnson, “The Origins and Future of Radio,” lecture transcript, August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Other nations’ public networks. e.g., Sweden, Sveriges Radio AB (“The company – which was founded as AB Radiotjänst … on 21 March 1924 – made its first broadcast on 1 January 1925 ….”) Sveriges Radio, History, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveriges_Radio

Japan, NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai) (“NHK's earliest forerunner was the Tokyo Broadcasting Station (東京放送局), founded in 1924 …. Tokyo Broadcasting Station … began radio broadcasts in 1925. The three stations merged under the first incarnation of NHK in August 1926.[6] NHK was modelled on the BBC ….”) NHK, History, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHK#Radio_broadcasting

BBC. “The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom. Headquartered at Broadcasting House in London, it is the world's oldest national broadcaster, and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees ….” “BBC,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Congress and “public airwaves.” “It is the purpose of this chapter, among other things, to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.” 47 U.S.C. Sec. 301

“The public interest.” “if the Commission, upon examination of such application and upon consideration of such other matters as the Commission may officially notice, shall find that public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by the granting thereof, it shall grant such application.” 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(a)

Hoover “advertising chatter.” Then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover's oft-quoted objection was, "It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service [for news, for entertainment, for education] to be drowned in advertising chatter." Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency 140 (1952), quoted in Erik Barnouw, A Tower in Babel: A History of Broadcasting in the United States 96 (1966). (See, “Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds,” FromDC2Iowa, Nov. 11, 2008, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-radios-self-inflicted-wounds.html)

Licensees’ opposition to advertising. The licensees’ Recommendation III.E. provided, "It is recommended that direct advertising in radio broadcasting service be absolutely prohibited . . .." Report of Department of Commerce Conference on Radio Telephony, Rad. Serv. Bull., May 1, 1922. See Nicholas Johnson, "Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland," Federal Communications Law Journal, May 2003, p. 521, 527-28, n. 17, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/masmedia/55FCL521.html. (See, “Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds,” FromDC2Iowa, Nov. 11, 2008, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-radios-self-inflicted-wounds.html)

Frieda Hennock, first woman FCC. “Frieda Barkin Hennock (December 27, 1904–June 20, 1960) was the first female commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission and a central figure in the creation of an enduring system of educational television in the United States.” Frieda B. Hennock, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieda_B._Hennock

Hennock Ukrainian. “Born in Kovel, then in the Russian Empire, now in Ukraine, the youngest of the eight children, she immigrated with her family to New York City in 1910 and became a US citizen in 1916 (in later life, she retained her fluency in Yiddish and continued to pray daily).[1]” Ibid.

Hennock educational TV. “Frieda Barkin Hennock, the woman credited with establishing educational television in the United States …. Returning to her work at the FCC, Hennock renewed her efforts on behalf of educational television. When the FCC's Sixth Report and Order was issued on April 11, 1952, it included 242 specific channel reservations for non-commercial television. Even though channels had been reserved for non-commercial use, Hennock realized that getting educational stations on the air was crucial in preserving those reservations…. Two years later [than 1953], when her term expired in mid-1955, over 50 non-commercial license applications had been filed and 12 stations were on the air.” “Hennock, Frieda B.,” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hennock-frieda-b-1904-1960

Reservation educational FM. “On May 24, 1940, the FCC had announced the establishment, effective January 1, 1941, of an FM radio band operating on 40 channels spanning 42–50 MHz, with the first five channels (42.1 to 42.9 MHz) reserved for educational stations ….” [1] “On June 27, 1945, the FCC announced the reassignment of the FM band to 80 channels from 88–106 MHz, which was soon expanded to 100 channels from 88–108 MHz.[6][7].” “List of the initial commercial FM station assignments issued by the Federal Communications Commission on October 31, 1940,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_initial_commercial_FM_station_assignments_issued_by_the_Federal_Communications_Commission_on_October_31,_1940

“Commercial broadcasting is licensed only on channels 221 through 300 (the upper 80 channels, frequencies between 92.1 and 107.9 MHz), with 200 through 220 (the lower 21 channels, frequencies between 87.9 and 91.9 MHz) reserved for non-commercial educational (NCE) broadcasting.” “FM broadcasting in the United States; History,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting_in_the_United_States

“In 1945, in recognition of the differing needs of educators and commercial broadcasters, FCC policy had set aside 20 FM radio channels for educational use.” “Hennock, Frieda B.,” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hennock-frieda-b-1904-1960

UI’s 9YA license. David McCartney, “Old Gold: WSUI Radio Marks a Century on the Air,” Iowa Magazine, March 13, 2020, https://magazine.foriowa.org/story.php?ed=true&storyid=1930

“WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI Google search: History of radio at University of Iowa

Morse Code education. “Wireless Education Latest Undertaking,” The State University of Iowa News Letter, vol. 2, no. 8, Nov. 18, 1916, http://wsui.info/historicArchives/lessonsByWireless-Nov%201916.pdf

“WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI Google search: History of radio at University of Iowa

WHAA and WSUI. “WSUI,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI Google search: History of radio at University of Iowa

Educational TV. “WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI

NPR origins. “WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI

IPR origins. “Iowa Public Radio was created in 2004 by the Iowa Board of Regents ….” “Our History; About IPR,” Iowa Public Radio, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/about-ipr “Iowa Public Radio Final Report,” Bornstein and Associates, Nov. 2004, https://web.archive.org/web/20070925223230/http://www2.state.ia.us/regents/Meetings/DocketMemos/04Memos/dec04/FinalReport.pdf

Board of Regents transferring stations. Grant Gerlock, “Board of Regents Proposal Would Transfer Broadcast Licenses from Universities to Iowa Public Radio,” Iowa Public Radio,” Feb. 15, 2022, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2022-02-15/board-of-regents-proposal-would-transfer-broadcast-licenses-from-universities-to-iowa-public-radio

Andrew Wind, “Board of Regents initiates asset transfer to Iowa Public Radio,” The Courier, Feb. 27, 2022, https://wcfcourier.com/news/local/education/board-of-regents-initiates-asset-transfer-to-iowa-public-radio/article_6a3615a8-3998-5549-8670-914047f6038c.html

Decline in legislature support. Adjusted for inflation, the $506M appropriation in 1999 would be $875M today. In fact, the 2022 appropriation was $486M -- $389M less than 20 years ago, notwithstanding the increases in costs. “This fiscal year’s allocation of just over $486 million is nearly $20 million less than the state gave to public universities in 1999 — not adjusted for inflation. To put that into scale: $100 in 1999 would have the same buying power as about $173 in 2022.” Katie Akin, “Proposed GOP budget for state universities is less than 20 years ago,” Iowa Capital Dispatch, March 27, 2022, https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/03/27/proposed-gop-budget-for-state-universities-is-less-than-20-years-ago/

Sally Mason “less favorably viewed.” "U of I's Mason on Other Topics," Des Moines Register, February 11, 2013 (reproduced in, “Self Help for a Helpful University,” FromDC2Iowa, March 1, 2003, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/03/self-help-for-helpful-university.html)

26 stations. “This statewide public radio network (a total of 26 stations) ….” “Our History; About IPR,” Iowa Public Radio, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/about-ipr

Things universities could have done. See, e.g., "Are the Iowa Universities' Stations No Longer 'Educational," April 2, 2013, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/04/are-iowa-universities-stations-no.html (with embedded, “Public Universities Not Using Radio Well,” The Gazette, March 28, 2013, p. A5);
“Self Help for a Helpful University,” FromDC2Iowa, March 1, 2013, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/03/self-help-for-helpful-university.html;
"War On Sabbaticals Casualty of Iowa Public Radio; Universities Should Use Their Stations to Tell Story," December 13, 2010, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2010/12/war-on-sabbaticals-casualty-of-iowa.html;
“Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds,” FromDC2Iowa, Nov. 11, 2008, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-radios-self-inflicted-wounds.html

# # #

Tags: amateur radio, BBC, centennial, educational stations, FCC, Frieda Hennock, Herbert Hoover, Iowa, IPR, NPR, radio history, regents, Sally Mason, University of Iowa, WOI, WSUI

The Sub-government

The Sub-Government
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 21, 2019, p. A7
We worry where our country and world are headed. We rely on the media’s tweet trackers to tell us what’s next. It’s rumored our president wants to buy Greenland before it melts.

Our presidential campaign is being waged on teens’ screens of social media. Russia is fighting a war without bombs on the world’s democracies, including our own, and winning. Manipulation of emotions of anger, fear and hate can destroy democracies with escalating divisiveness from within, regardless of elections’ outcomes.

Meanwhile, much of the self-inflicted damage from Washington transpires beneath the radar – in good times and bad. Why? Campaign contributions; yes. But there’s more. Not the conspiracy theory of a “dark state” undermining the president. It’s what I call the “subgovernment phenomenon,” out in the open but unreported by the media, whether in Washington, Des Moines or Iowa City. [Photo Credit Common Dreams ("Ahead of a crucial vote . . . defenders of net neutrality . . . projected . . . 'Property of Verizon' on the [FCC's] building to draw attention to the corporate interests at play . . ..")]

On Saturday, August 24, 4:00 p.m., there will be a discussion of these issues at Prairie Lights, 15 S. Dubuque St., in the course of a hopeful and sometimes humorous reading from Catfish Solution: The Power of Positive Poking. Hope to see you there.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City

# # #

Sinclair TV Defies Originalism

Introduction: Opponents of Sinclair Broadcasting's drive to acquire the Tribune stations, moving it from "biggest broadcaster" to "even bigger," have tried to frame arguments within the wink-wink loose standards of today's FCC and Congress. By law, local stations are responsible for their local news and opinion. Sinclair management requires local stations' anchors to read pro-Trump commentary from Sinclair headquarters as if it was the opinion of the local anchor/station. That would seem to be a violation.

As serious as that is, it pales in comparison with the "original intent" of those creating the American system of broadcast regulation. I'm not a supporter of knee-jerk "original intent" interpretations of the Constitution by some Supreme Court Justices. But since many conservatives are "originalists," presumably including some supporting this Sinclair power grab, it seemed only fair to measure Sinclair's station ownership and performance against the regulatory intentions of those creating our first Radio Acts.

(1) The first document, below, is an op ed column in The Gazette (as published). (2) Below it is the text submitted (that needed to be edited for space). (3) Below that is a column appearing in The Gazette on the same day (and page) written by the general manager of the local (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) Sinclair station. (4) At the bottom of the page are samples of emails commenting on the column. (Usually, and in this case, I do not engage in prolonged exchanges with those criticizing a column, in the belief that (a) visitors to the blog are fully capable of coming to their own judgments, and (b) since I've had my say, those who wish to provide a civil response should be granted as much.) -- N.J.

Sinclair TV Defies Originalism

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, April 14, 2018, p. A6

Sinclair Communications holds the most TV station licenses of any broadcaster. It wants more, reaching over 70 percent of American homes. [Sinclair Broadcasting Group Headquarters, Baltimore (Hunt Valley), Maryland; photo credit: Kenneth K. Lam, Baltimore Sun]

To put this power grab in context, there’s a useful lesson from Supreme Court justices’ interpretation of the Constitution – Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch, and Hugo Black.

It’s called “textualism,” or “originalism.” Originalists believe judges can’t say a word “means just what I choose it to mean” – what it has come to mean, or what they wish it meant. A word means what those who wrote it meant by it, at the time they wrote it.

Suppose we apply “originalism” to Sinclair. What was the intent of those drafting laws regulating broadcasters?

New technology leaves us struggling for vocabulary, let alone understanding. Automobiles were “horseless carriages;” radio was“wireless” telegraphy.

Given the mystery and miracle of 1920s radio, it’s remarkable Herbert Hoover (then Commerce Secretary) could see radio’s “ability . . . to furnish entertainment, instruction, widening vision of national problems and national events.” Even U.S. broadcasters, agreed with Hoover that, “it is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service to be drowned in advertising chatter.”

The Radio Act permitted “the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof . . . for limited periods of time, under licenses [which shall not] be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.” The standard for granting and renewing licenses was “the public interest.”

In 1932 a federal appellate court upheld the Commission’s denial of renewal for a broadcaster who regularly defamed government, officials, labor, and various religions. If broadcasters are permitted to “inspire political distrust and civic discord,” it wrote, radio “will become a scourge.”

Airtime for one candidate required “equal opportunity” for opponents. Personal attacks generated opportunity to reply. A “fairness doctrine” didn’t control content but demanded treatment of public issues and presentation of a range of views.

As early as 1926, when Congress was debating the Radio Act, Texas Congressman Luther Johnson warned, “American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations.” If “a single selfish group is permitted to . . . dominate these broadcasting stations . . . woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.”

As late as 1970 no licensee could operate more than one AM, FM, and TV in one market. The national limit was seven AM, seven FM, and five VHF TV stations. Rules prohibited ownership combining stations and newspapers.

With broadcasters’ pressure on Congress and the FCC, regulations change. Original intent does not. Were it followed today, Sinclair would not have the licenses it does, let alone more. It would not dictate “local” commentaries to stations legally responsible for their content. And it could not be a propagandist for a single official, candidate, or ideology.

• Nicholas Johnson served as commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from 1966-1973. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org _______________
Column As Submitted
[before excellent editing/tightening improvements by Gazette Insight Editor, Todd Dorman, in published version, above]
Sinclair Communications holds the most TV station licenses of any broadcaster. It wants more, enough to reach over 70% of American homes.

To put this media power grab in context for TV watchers, there’s a useful lesson from some Supreme Court justices’ interpretation of the Constitution – Justices like Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch, and even occasionally my mentor, Justice Hugo Black.

It’s called “textualism,” or “originalism.” Unlike Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, originalists believe judges can’t say a word “means just what I choose it to mean” – what it has come to mean, or what they wish it meant. A word means what those who wrote it meant by it, at the time they wrote it. Judges are bound by the “original” meaning of the “text,” the original intent of the drafters.

Suppose we apply to Sinclair the idea of “originalism.” What was the original intent of those drafting laws regulating broadcasters?

New technology leaves us struggling, even for vocabulary, let alone understanding. Automobiles were defined by their lack of horses (“horseless carriages”); radio by its lack of telegraph wires (“wireless” telegraphy).

Given the mystery and miracle of 1920s radio, it’s remarkable that Iowa’s own President Herbert Hoover (then Commerce Secretary) could see radio’s “ability . . . to furnish entertainment, instruction, widening vision of national problems and national events.” Other countries agreed, and established public corporations to operate stations. They, and even U.S. broadcasters, agreed with Hoover that, “it is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service to be drowned in advertising chatter."

The Radio Act declared its purpose to permit “the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof . . . for limited periods of time, under licenses [which shall not] be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.” The standard for granting, and renewing, licenses was “the public interest.”

It was a kind of cross between private use of public lands, and politicians’ reelections – use, if benefitting the public, but not ownership; officials’ fixed terms, reelection earned.

In 1932 a federal appellate court upheld the Commission’s denial of renewal for a broadcaster who regularly defamed government, officials, labor, and various religions. If broadcasters are permitted to “inspire political distrust and civic discord,” it wrote, radio “will become a scourge.”

Airtime for one candidate required “equal opportunity” for all opponents. Personal attacks generated opportunity to reply. A “fairness doctrine” didn’t control content but demanded treatment of public issues and presentation of a range of views.

As early as 1926, when Congress was debating the Radio Act, Texas Congressman Luther Johnson presciently warned, “American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations.” If “a single selfish group is permitted to . . . dominate these broadcasting stations . . . woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.”

As late as 1970 no licensee could operate more than one AM, FM, and TV in a single market. The limit nationally was 7 AM, 7 FM, and 5 VHF TV stations. Diversity of viewpoint required banning ownership combining both stations and newspapers.

With broadcasters’ pressure on Congress and the FCC, regulations change with the times. The original intent does not. Were it followed today, Sinclair would not have the licenses it does, let alone more. It would not dictate “local” commentaries to stations legally responsible for their content. And it could not be a propagandist for a single official, candidate, or ideology.
._______________
Nicholas Johnson served as commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, 1966-1973. www.nicholasjohnson.org, FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org
_______________
Local Journalists Guide Sinclair Stations

Glen Callanan [General Manager, Sinclair station KGAN-TV2, Cedar Rapids]
The Gazette, April 14, 2018, p. A6
The editorial in the April 5 edition of The Gazette “News Consumers can help fight fake news” provided insight into how to protect against false information. That editorial pointed out KGAN CBS2 News and KFXA Fox 28 News here in Cedar Rapids are owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcasting.

We would like to remind your readers and our viewers that CBS2 and Fox 28 produce more than 33 hours of local news every week. As part of our newscasts we do air clearly labeled commentary provided by our parent company Sinclair Broadcasting. These commentaries account for roughly 8 minutes per week. Decisions about what to air and when to air it are made right here in our own newsroom. Our hardworking producers, reporters, photographers, anchors and a host of others work every day to bring our viewers the most up-to date, factually balanced stories from right here in the Corridor, our state, our nation and the world.

In just the last couple of years, CBS2/Fox 28 news has won multiple national and regional awards for our local news coverage from the Society of Professional Journalists, Upper Midwest Emmy, RTDNA Edward R. Murrow Regional Awards and the Iowa Broadcast News Association. Our entirely locally produced news public affairs show, “Iowa in Focus” had a run of more than 100 episodes focusing on issues relevant to Iowans including in-depth political reporting throughout 2016 and 2017.

We are also deeply involved in our community, providing support to community events and charities. Our station has a core belief in making an impact to improve our community. The Pay It Forward with Impact campaign is one example. In 2017, we began a twice a month series that features someone who gives back to the community. We tell their story and donate $300 in their name to a charity of their choice. Last year $7,200 was donated to charities such as the University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital, Camp Courageous and the Cedar Valley Humane Society among others. We are looking forward to helping more charities in 2018.

Sinclair has made a significant investment in our local news operations over the last few years which have allowed us to better produce our local newscasts. This includes equipment that improved the way we cover news, as well as adding jobs to a growing newsroom. When it comes to covering local news on a day-to-day basis, it is our people who live, work and play right here in the Corridor who make it their mission to uncover and report on the stories that affect our viewers.
• Glen Callanan is general manager of CBS2/Fox 28 in Cedar Rapids.

_______________
Sample of Email Responses
While I agree with the substance of your argument about the abuses, current and proposed, of the Sinclair operation, dipping into originalism seems risky business in the long-run.

Such is companion, in its demonstrated application by Scalia, et al, to be a companion to biblical literalism. Once published, texts take on a life of their own. They can only be interpreted by live human beings in their present context. History changes the context of the original version of document, published or unpublished.

Freedom of the press in the 18th century did not anticipate the likes of Sinclair, or anything like electronic media. Dealing with such requires wholesale reinterpretation based on current realities and assumptions about the common welfare.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Robin Kash
Cedar Rapids

I read your article in the Gazette today with some interest. As someone who follows the media closely I have several comments on your thoughts.

First let me point you to the editorial by Glen Callahan, also in the Gazette today. He did a nice job of explaining Sinclair's role in their local news coverage. I think the appropriate thought that he presented was that the "origin" of local news comes from his newsroom and not from Sinclair's corporate HQ.

Interesting comment "Originalists believe judges can't say a word means just what I chose it to mean - what it has come to mean or what they wish it to mean". It appears to me today that we have a preponderance of judges who ignore the Executive power of the President when it doesn't suit their political view and then support it when it does. The number of lawsuits regarding Visa and immigration issues reveals a totally corrupt judiciary that have decided "the words selectively mean what I chose it to mean". They decided the same issues differently.

What's more amazing though is the criticism of Sinclair "to dictate local commentary". it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the major networks, CNN, MSNBC and to a lesser degree the other networks singular hatred of President Trump. All responsible media studies in the past couple of years reveal a 90% negative coverage of President Trump. Claiming Sinclair is dictating news is preposterous when compared to the collusion between the major networks and national newspaper.

"And it could not be a propagandist for a single official, candidate , or ideology." Do you think anyone couldn't figure out which candidate the MSM supported in the election and everyday since? The bias is so loud people seems not to actually hear it over the din.

The free part of the press is almost unrecognizable today.

BTW the "Fairness Doctrine" was a way to stand on the neck of the free press and a means to limit some people's speech. It was not fair or useful in a free society.

Gary Ellis

# # #

Why Net Neutrality is Your Friend

[Note: This blog post was later published by The Gazette as Nicholas Johnson, "Why Net Neutrality is Our Friend," "Insight,"The Gazette, June 2, 2017, p. A6]

[Graphic credit: ACLU]
President Donald Trump kept his promise. He said he’d “drain the swamp” in Washington. He has. What he didn’t tell us was that he would then fill his administration with the creatures that crawled out.

The news media and late night shows have reveled in their good fortune. Trump has provided them a daily flow of stories both entertaining and terrifying to move their audiences between tears and laughter.

But as a result, that 99 percent-plus of the federal government that’s not in the White House is mostly ignored by the media.

Farmers worry over the loss of overseas markets from Trump trade agreements. Public schools must deal with the loss of revenue from school vouchers. The oil and gas industry cheers a removal of regulations that rivals the Teapot Dome scandal that sent one of President Warren Harding’s cabinet members to prison.

And my old agency, now Trump’s Federal Communications Commission, is going about repealing the consumer protection called Network Neutrality. You don’t need to know anything about computers or the Internet to understand that one.

You do need to understand monopoly capitalism.

Most cities of any size have an abundant array of restaurants from which to choose – locations, menus, prices, and atmosphere. Aside from health concerns, “marketplace forces” provide adequate consumer protection.

By contrast, with rare exception most neighborhoods in those cities have no choice among monopolist internet service providers, such as Mediacom.

It’s the business of business to maximize profits by increasing prices and cutting costs (quality and services) until both reach optimum levels.

In a conversation with Chicago economist Milton Friedman he used the example of corporate pollution of rivers. “You are appealing to them to be ethical,” he said. “They can’t afford to be ethical. They can afford to comply with a law that’s also applicable to their competitors. Your answer is in Congress and state legislatures, not preaching in the streets.”

If an Internet service provider (ISP) also profits from distributing content it owns, it can make more money by censoring a competitor’s content, charging more for it, or slowing its delivery to your TV. If it doesn’t own content providers, it can bargain with those who are, providing them unfair advantages for the right price. And ISPs will set customers’ charges at the optimum profit maximizing level.

Harm to consumers will be limited only by the ISP’s imagination.

Once cities have as many ISPs as restaurants we can talk about “marketplace regulation.” Meanwhile, common decency requires that the FCC retain the consumer protection of Network Neutrality.

# # #

An Outrageous Merger

It’s outrageous that AT&T and Time Warner may be permitted to merge.

Of course, there are antitrust issues.

If it’s approved, some competitors will go out of business, others won’t get started, and consumers will pay more and get less.

Antitrust law is not designed to regulate anti-competitive behavior; it is designed to prevent anti-competitive behavior.

Permitting AT&T to acquire Time Warner would be like (with credit to Mason Williams) giving a small boy a ball and then saying, “Now don’t bounce it” – or hiring someone to watch him.

Regulation doesn’t work. What’s called “agency capture” is widespread and well documented. In the BP oil spill case, it involved the regulators literally sleeping with the regulated. Even if an agency isn’t captured it probably doesn’t have enough personnel to do meaningful regulation. The FCC of my day had three employees to respond to 85,000 complaints, and they travelled in pairs.

The only way to prevent anti-competitive corporate behavior is to forbid the mergers that make it possible.

But antitrust law and lawyers often have ways of finding adequate competition when no one else can see it. Moreover, the serious antitrust issues and economic impact of this proposed merger are the least of our concerns.

Mergers of media firms, unlike those in other industries, raise issues involving our democracy, analogous to those associated with the First Amendment.

Some involve politics and governing. Major media owners are more politically powerful than major donors. When a single owner has dominant control of newspapers, radio, television and cable systems within a state or region it can affect elections. When a weapons manufacturer also owns a network, it creates an appearance of possible conflict in its war coverage.

Other issues involve the creative community. Suppose a single corporation owns movie studios, theaters, a TV network, book publishers, newspapers, and other forms of media. It can favor its movies in its theaters, make its authors guests on its TV shows, and advertise all its products in its newspapers.

Both AT&T and Time Warner are among the world’s largest corporations. Time Warner’s HBO and Cinemax programming is sold in 150 countries, its Turner programs in 200. AT&T is the largest telecommunications company in the world, also in 200 countries. Both are holding companies, conglomerates, that together own dozens of corporations. Many are known to you, like CNN, HBO, or DirectTV. Check their corporate Web pages for more.

Worst of all, and what ought to absolutely preclude this merger, they will represent a gigantic combination of programming and delivery (“content and conduit”) -– the ultimate choke-hold on the distribution of a diversity of content.

The AT&T of old only provided distribution, the conduit. Everyone was entitled to a phone. And once you got one, you could send any ideas you wanted into that phone and through AT&T’s lines. Other institutions might come after you for disclosing national security secrets, fraudulent marketing, or defamation, but not AT&T.

There was a legal “right of entry” into the old AT&T network. No longer. There will be no legal rights for America’s creators of content. Nor will there be a financial incentive for AT&T to carry their content.

From any perspective, it would be outrageous for regulators to approve this merger.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner (1966-73), played a significant role in frustrating ITT’s efforts to acquire ABC. Blog: FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.com

Note: This blog essay was published online by OpEdNews, October 26, 2016.

# # #

Breaking Through Power: The Media

Harnessing Progressive Reform to 21st Century Media

Nicholas Johnson
May 24, 2016

Ralph Nader’s “Breaking Through Power Conference”
Day 2, “Breaking Through the Media”
Washington, D.C., May 23-26, 2016
Video of the 20-minute presentation of these remarks can be found here, with many thanks for the efforts of Gregory Johnson's ResourcesForLife.com. YouTube videos of Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4 are also available. Here is the Web page providing information about the Conference program and speakers, and Ralph Nader's Web page.

My name is Nicholas Johnson, and I'm not running for anything.

What you see here is my old FCC uniform.

I would have come with the long hair, shaggy beard, and cowboy mustache, but there wasn't time to grow them back.

So I settled on this Bernie Sanders haircut instead.

Having known and worked with Ralph and his family for the past half-century, it is a great pleasure to be able to share this commemorating conference with him, you, and The Real News Network audience.

He’s asked that I say something about the origins and values of American broadcast regulation, the demise of that system, and the past efforts of media reformers – to which I will add some thoughts on the options open to us in this 21st Century.

Because I am used to speaking for entire semesters at a time, my challenge this morning is putting all of this into my allotted 20 minutes.

Here goes.

“Long ago in a galaxy far away,” while European countries were choosing government ownership of things like railroads and telephone systems, Americans chose private ownership – modestly restrained by government regulation.

And so it was with broadcasting.

Most countries went the way of the BBC – ultimately a non-profit, public corporation.

Its first leader, Lord Reith, set the BBC’s public service standard: programming representing “all that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavor and achievement.” He created the equivalent of our Fairness Doctrine, and a BBC as independent of commerce as of government – funding would come directly from listeners’ fees. Japan’s NHK, Sweden’s Sveriges Radio, and other countries followed this model.

Today's Corporation for Public Broadcasting is the American version.

In the 1920s, as the sale of radio receivers accelerated to 100 million, so did the number of stations increase. Their signals’ interference made intelligible reception difficult to impossible. As has so often been the case, it was the broadcasters who came to the government for regulatory relief. Government licensing was seen as a solution to chaos.

Of course, an added benefit was the elimination of competition.

Then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover responded to their request by calling a series of Radio Conferences. From them came the recommendations that ultimately became the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934.

It was the usual American compromise between the ideology of private ownership and the pragmatism of regulation through licensing. But the values at the foundation of the Act, shared by broadcasters, government and public alike, were very similar to those of Lord Reith.

Lord Reith’s “public service” standard became the Commission’s standard for the granting, renewal, or revocation of licenses – that radio programming serve “the public interest.”

Even broadcasters tended to agree with Secretary Hoover’s comment, echoing Lord Reith’s judgment, when Hoover said: "It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service [for news, entertainment, and education] to be drowned in advertising chatter." [at n. 17]

Lord Reith’s preference for public over private ownership was reflected in the House floor debate about the Act. As Congressman Luther Johnson warned his colleagues, “American thought and . . . politics will be . . . at the mercy of those who operate these stations. . . . [If] placed in the hands of . . . a single selfish group . . . then woe be to those who dare to differ with them.” [at n. 31]

Ultimately, the language of the Act began, “It is the purpose of this Act . . . to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof . . ..”

Without an FCC license a studio, transmitter, and antenna tower had little more than scrap value. With that license they were worth millions.

Moreover, the FCC told the licensee where it could build, set its minimum and maximum hours of operation, its transmitter’s power, and direction of its signal. There were limits on how many licenses one could hold, maximums on advertising, and required minimums of educational and cultural programming, news, public affairs, and public service announcements. The Commission’s 1946 “Blue Book” provided even greater detail.

Thus, FCC licensees were owners in name only – with little more discretion than government employees or contractors might have when using the public’s airwaves; sort of like fast food or motel franchisees.

When I arrived at the Commission a half-century ago, the FCC was supposedly still regulating broadcasters according to standards at least similar to those in the 1920s and 1930s.

But in Washington, like most industries, broadcasting had its own sub-government [pp. 16-19, nn. 49-59] – dominant corporations, their lobbyists, a trade association, trade press, eating club, agency employees, legislators, their staff, and a bar association for communication lawyers – all of whose futures and fortunes turned on successfully protecting their circled wagons.

Moreover, the money in this politics flowed upstream. Other industries had to pay to play [pp. 19-24, nn. 60-67]; they gave so-called campaign contributions to seek favor with elected officials. The reverse was true for the broadcasting industry. Elected officials gave most of their campaign contributions to the broadcasters! And the time and attention the broadcasters were selling to politicians was something they could also give for free.

So if the broadcasters were not successful in winning over the FCC’s commissioners and staff with private chats, free meals, receptions, golfing outings, and the prospects of future employment, they could always get what they wanted, or prevent what they feared, by going to their friends on Capitol Hill.

As a result, I discovered, no matter how outrageous a broadcaster’s performance might have been, the likelihood of a license not being renewed was so rare as to be indistinguishable from “never.” Rules were adopted, and then waived. Congressman Luther Johnson’s warnings about private power had been long since forgotten, as merger after merger was approved.

That, and more, was what motivated me to write some 400 separate opinions during my term. Charged with unfairly picking only the worst cases, I co-authored a Yale Law Journal article titled, courtesy of the Beatles, “A Day in the Life.” In it we itemized an entire week’s agenda, selected at random, and demonstrated how every decision that week left much to be desired.

My term coincided with a citizen activist period in American history – Ralph’s “Nader’s Raiders” consumer organizing, anti-war groups’ protests, civil rights legislation, Black Power demands, the women’s movement, protest songs, and “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.”

In such times it was inevitable that failures of the media, as well as the Commission and the Congress, would ultimately lead to the creation of a media reform movement as well. As I put it at the time to anyone who would listen, “Whatever is your first priority, your second priority must be media reform.”

It took a variety of forms. Al Kramer’s Citizens Communications Center provided the legal support for hundreds of media reform groups in communities across the country. Stations’ license renewals were challenged for failure to serve their local communities, or discriminatory employment practices. Some groups wanted to save classical music stations. Others created community, or even illegal pirate radio stations.

Video portapaks, the predecessor of today’s ubiquitous smartphone video, led to the interest in video art, guerrilla television, video activism and what became cable television’s public access channels.

Foundations and donors were willing to provide at least minimal financial support for these efforts. And because the uprising had kind of caught the media establishment off guard, there were a few years of media reform Camelot.

Following this, as at least some of you have lived through, the swamp waters returned. Many in the establishment made a sharp right turn to follow Grover Norquist. As he put it, “I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Drown it they did.

At the FCC this took the form of what was variously called “re-regulation” or more accurately “de-regulation.” License terms were lengthened. Restrictions on maximum station ownership were reduced to the point of non-existence. The Commission would not even acknowledge that a license renewal challenge had been filed, let alone address it. Seldom if ever did a merger fail to meet the commissioners' definition of “the public interest.”

As the fickle foundations focused on a new squirrel and lost interest, media reform organizations lost their funding. The courts lost their appeal. The Congress and Commission lost their sense of hearing.

Which brings us to this day in May of 2016.

What are we to make of the Tea Party, Occupy movement, and the millions of aware and angry Americans following Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders? Are we on the cusp of another burst of media reform revolution, enthusiasm and possibility?

Using the name of our day at this four-day conference, what can we do to “break through the media”?

It would be nice if we could wrap up today with an easily-remembered list of “five things you can do to improve the media!” But it’s not so simple. There are even more than five categories of things progressive activists can do before we start listing specific tasks – let alone trying to reinvigorate the FCC.

Here are a few, with illustrative examples.

Destination. Let’s start with the obvious. What’s your goal? How would you know if you or your organization were ever “successful”? As the old line has it, “If you don’t know where you’re going the odds are very slim you’ll ever get there.”

In what specific ways do you wish “the media” were different – and why? Are you trying to increase contributions, or members, for your local organization, and think positive column inches in the paper will help? Or are you trying to improve our political campaigns and the public officials they produce? And your goal is to raise the entire American electorate’s interest in articles and programming about the daily diet of policy wonks.

Opportunity. The lack of a legal right does not remove all opportunity. The Supreme Court has given media owners legal control of content. [at n. 24] But as we’ve recently observed, one can even win the presidential nomination of a major American political party without paying for broadcast time or newspaper space.

Progressive causes do not always do all they could to promote their efforts with public radio and television.

Even commercial media offer us opportunities with op ed columns and letters to the editor in newspapers, guest appearances on television, calls to radio talk shows, developing relationships with editors, producers, journalists and on-air personalities, making use of free kiosks, store windows, and bulletin boards.

Education. There’s something to be said for the suggestion, “if you really want to improve the quality of American media, start by spending more public money on K-12 and higher education” – specifically, in our case, on media literacy. If the media consumer can’t tell the difference between the junk news in ABC’s evening program and the truly significant there’s little more we can do.

Media. What do we mean by “media”? From the 1920s through the 1960s CBS and NBC were the dominant networks. ABC was said to make it only “a two-and-a-half network economy.” Media reformers wanted more diversity. Well, we got it – hundreds of cable channels, thousands of smart phone apps, billions of Internet users and Web pages, Facebook and Twitter accounts.

The new social media have proven their worth to reformers, from the Arab Spring to the 2016 presidential campaign, and offer constantly evolving applications to all of us.

They've also required a re-definition of “journalist” – should it include everybody with a Web page, blog, email list, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter account?

Even more significant is that this increased diversity and quantity of communication brought with it a demise of the wealthy newspapers that formerly provided the electronic media with content.

TV no longer offers a 21st Century version of your grandparents’ Walter Cronkite, the most trusted American. It no longer provides a huge swath of the citizenry a shared body of consensus-building quality journalism each evening.

And the resulting political polarization has paralyzed the Congress and prevented compromise. According to a recent TED talk, it’s even reprogrammed our brains.

Alternatives. Are foundations and nonprofits a part of the answer? The Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism is filling some of the void in my home state. Created and run by Lyle Muller, a quality former editor of a major Iowa paper, Iowa Watch is making investigative pieces available to Iowa papers.

What can we do to encourage our fellow citizens to include within their volunteer activities the possibility of studying, following, and then writing up the work of local institutions no longer covered by a beat reporter – say, a zoning board, county government, local hospital, major corporation, or university?

Regulation. It’s unlikely we’ll soon return to the micromanaging regulation of broadcasters of the 1920s through 1950s.

Nor would it make as much difference today as it did then were we to do so. An increasing source of Americans’ audio and video consumption today comes via the Internet, from Web pages, podcasts, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, and independent cable programming producers. But that doesn't mean the old media are devoid of influence.

The FCC and Congress are still potential forces worth encouraging to support our efforts – as we've attempted, for example, with maintaining Network Neutrality.

What we do to use and strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, or whistle-blower protections, are also a form of government support of journalism.

I might even offer what Donald Trump would call “suggestions” that we consider reinstating a modified Fairness Doctrine – at least as a shared value – and conceptualize an antitrust principle regarding media mergers that goes beyond the economic marketplace to the “marketplace of ideas.”

Pressure. Even without the force of government, pressure from private “regulation” of a sort can have its impact.

Here are five examples.

(1) So far as I know the only time the levels of TV violence were reduced was as a result of the 1970s efforts by the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting to identify and publicize the advertisers supporting the most violent programs.

(2) Project Censored reveals annually the ten most significant stories that failed to receive adequate presentation by mainstream media. FAIR and the journalism reviews provide continual oversight of media performance.

(3) For 41 years the Minnesota News Council received and publicized citizens’ grievances regarding the media.

(4) The academy can contribute much more than it has in terms of professors’ scholarship, seminars, and doctoral dissertations. More of our 15,000 school districts could give their students the tools of media literacy.

(5) And of course we'll all want to join Ralph's latest venture in breaking through media power, called simply “Voices.”

There’s much more to say, but no more time to say it. So I thank you for your attention, and very much look forward to the rest of the presentations at this historic conference.

# # #

Racism in Our Schools -- and Everywhere Else

May 9, 2015, 1:15 p.m.

I'm a very, . . . lucky guy. I've got a lot going for me: I'm healthy, I'm relatively young, I'm white -- which, thank God for that . . .. That is a huge leg up. Are you kidding me? Oh, God, I love being white. I really do. Seriously, if you're not white, you're missing out. Because [being white] is thoroughly good.

Let me be clear, by the way. I'm not saying that white people are better. I'm saying that being white is clearly better. Who could even argue? If it was an option, I would re-up every year. "Oh, yeah, I'll take 'white' again, absolutely. I've been enjoying that. I'm gonna stick with white, thank you."

-- Louis C.K., "On Being White"

Laughter is one way of dealing with deep pain. Action is another.

While the rest of the nation has been coming to the realization that racism in police-community relations is not limited to one or two cities, the Iowa City Community School District, with the leadership of Kingsley Botchway, is taking action with regard to its schools' endemic challenges of race and racism -- symbolized with the disparity of a faculty that is 4% minority teachers serving a student population that is 35% minority students. [Photo credit: David Scrivner, Iowa City Press-Citizen.]

"While the Iowa City Community School District . . . attempts to diversify its staff and create equitable environments for students, some experts say . . . the district might face barriers in recruiting minorities, making long-term cultural changes in classrooms and funding staff changes." Holly Hines, "Expert: Equity Plan a Postive, Challenging Step; Administrators, Teachers, National Official Discuss Elements of ICCSD Equity Proposal," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 9, 2015, p. A1.

To get a realistic sense of the potential "barriers" confronting our school district in this mission one needs a realistic understanding of racism in America. Not just racism 50 or 200 years ago, but racism yesterday, still today, and likely tomorrow -- racism everywhere.

As Brave New Films reports:

Thousands of resumes were mailed to employers. They were identical except for the names. Black-sounding names were 50% less likely to be called back.

Black people are charged prices roughly $700 higher than white people when buying [the same] cars.

Multiple studies show black drivers are twice as likely to get pulled over [for the same driving behavior].

Black clients are shown 17.7% fewer houses for sale.

Marijuana use is equal between blacks and whites. Yet black people are 4 times more likely to be arrested.

Black people are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of white people.

Doctors did not inform black patients as often as white ones about an important heart procedure. [And see, Damon Tweedy, "The Case for Black Doctors," New York Times, May 17, 2015, p. SR1.]

White legislators did not respond as frequently to constituents with black sounding names -- in both political parties.

If this isn't racism, what is? Racism isn't over.

"Racism is Real" promo, Brave New Films. [The promo closes with citations to its list of sources for these assertions.]

For some more insight into the depths of what we're dealing with here -- both the causes and the cures -- see, Nicholas Kristof, "Our Biased Brains," New York Times, May 7, 2015, p. A29 (e.g., "In one study, 3-month-old white infants were shown photos of faces of white adults and black adults; they preferred the faces of whites. For 3-month-old black infants living in Africa, it was the reverse.")

(Ironically, Kristof continues, "Researchers find that in contrast to other groups, AfricanAmericans do not have an unconscious bias toward their own. From young children to adults, they are essentially neutral and favor neither whites nor blacks. [Harvard psychology professor Mahzarin] Banaji and other scholars suggest that this is because even young AfricanAmerican children somehow absorb the social construct that white skin is prestigious and that black skin isn’t. In one respect, that is unspeakably sad; in another, it’s a model of unconscious race neutrality.")

Apparently racism is prevalent from the time we are three months old, throughout every institution and aspect of our culture. It may even be embedded in our DNA. Can any Iowa City resident or School Board member deny that it may be involved to at least some degree in our discussions of school boundaries? Can President Obama's hate-filled opponents deny that racism may play at least some teeny-tiny role in their opposition to everything he advocates -- even policies they once proposed? (The Southern Poverty Law Center's annual measure of hate groups in the U.S. indicates that while their number ranged from 131 to 149 during 2001 to 2008, during President Obama's presidency, from 2010 through 2014, the number ranged from 824 to 1360.)

I am about as familiar as a white boy can be with the evil consequences of racism, as a result of spending most of the 1950s in Texas and throughout the South -- with a poll tax designed to further reduce blacks voting, black and white water fountains and restrooms, "No Colored" signs in restaurant and store windows, a lawsuit required to open a law school to blacks, and crosses burned in the yards of the federal judges for whom I worked in their efforts to right these wrongs.

Such experiences helped shaped my reaction as an F.C.C. commissioner upon discovering that the broadcasting industry the Commission was supposed to regulate "in the public interest" was one of, if not the, country's most racist and sexist. I pushed for, and the Commission achieved, increased employment of African-Americans and women in front of the cameras and in broadcast management.

I was made aware of my own color consciousness during the process of writing this. Taking a break to feed fish in a backyard pond, my eye caught the flashing lights of a parked police car. There was no indication that the African-American who had been stopped was being treated with anything other that the utmost civility and respect. And yet, given recent events, my initial wondering and concern for him caused me to question whether I would have been similarly apprehensive had he been white.

There's hope. As Nicholas Kristof reports:

[W]e can resist a predisposition for bias against other groups.

One strategy that works is seeing images of heroic African-Americans; afterward, whites and Asians show less bias, a study found. Likewise, hearing a story in which a black person rescues someone from a white assailant reduces anti-black bias in subsequent testing. It’s not clear how long this effect lasts.

Deep friendships, especially romantic relationships with someone of another race, also seem to mute bias — and that, too, has implications for bringing young people together to forge powerful friendships.

“If you actually have friendships across race lines, you probably have fewer biases,” Banaji says. “These are learned, so they can be unlearned.”

I wish Iowa Law grad Kingsley Botchway good luck in his efforts working with the School District's administrators, faculty, staff and students. But the fact is, every single one of us has a lot of homework we need tending to when it comes to racism throughout America.

# # #