Monday, February 16, 2009

Why We Must Restore the 'Fairness Doctrine'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Restoring the 'Fairness Doctrine' is an important first step in taking back media from the likes of Fox, Bill O'Reilly and the legion of paid liars, pundits and press agents for the corporate 'media-ocracy'. Ronald Reagan stole the 'public airwaves' from you and, since that time about six or seven huge corporations have dominated the American media --possibly that of the world. When once you had a voice, now you have none but your favorite message board. Big corporate media dictates the topic of debate and the rules.

The Fairness Doctrine had required broadcasters to devote air time to the discussion of 'controversial matters of public interest'. To maintain a 'license' broadcasters were required to 'air' opposing and contrasting opinions and viewpoints. Given wide latitude, TV and radio outlets really had little to complain about.

The Fairness Doctrine was formally adopted in 1949 but repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-big business FCC. The doctrine can be traced back to the early days of broadcast regulation and was the 'teeth' in the federal law that affirmed the public ownership of the 'airwaves'.

Your right to challenge the licenses of abusive outlets is now severely restrained or non-existent. Because there is no real competition, 'big media' can lie to you, slant the news, fill up air time with bullshit and Billo and jack up the rates on air time and other advertising. 'Fair and balanced' is bunkum and bullshit! What you really get are corporate talking points, Wolf Blitzer cliches and banalities passed off as 'analysis'. Because they have been brainwashed, millions don't even know that they've been brainwashed.

There is precedent for a 'people's revolution' that will take back our media.
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

--U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
The American media has failed us. We expected no better from Fox. It is CBS, the network of Ed Murrow, that has been most disappointing. We want 'our' media back from the likes of Clear Channel, Fox, Sinclair and the other huge corporations.

It's bad enough that Fox tells deliberate lies; it is even worse that they make billions doing it.

The domination of media and thus debate itself might have been foreseen. Ronald Reagan and his partners in crime were allowed to get away with that amounts to the 'legalized' theft of your airwaves. Fox is lying on your airwaves. As the fraudulent nature of Bush's administration crumbled, it had been hoped that the American media would take a cue from one of its pioneers. The standard Murrow set is yet to be lived up to.

It is not surprising to learn that R. Murdoch adored Ronald Reagan. Reagan presided over the "de-regulation" of the media which made possible Murdoch's rise to media prominence in the US. There was a time when broadcast outlets operated from a legal premise that had been established by the Federal Communications Act of 1934 that the "public" owns the airwaves. Later, in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine limited the power of media corporations' control over communications systems. Media were required to serve "the public interest, convenience, or necessity." Congress mandated the new FCC - created in the act - set aside certain frequencies for educational use. It was this provision that made it possible for many to get real broadcast experience and a college education as well.

As Ronald Reagan reversed regulations and systematically demolished media restraints, media regulation all but stopped in the early 1980s. Later, In 1987, the first Bush administration went after the Fairness Doctrine. In the case of Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts ruled that the FCC need not enforce the so-called "fairness doctrine". It was a green light to demagogues like Rush Limbaugh.
When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti–John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary ( Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04).

But if fairness mattered little to Sinclair, the news that a corporation that controlled more TV licenses than any other could put the publicly owned airwaves to partisan use sparked discussion of fairness across the board, from media democracy activists to television industry executives.

Variety (10/25/04) underlined industry concerns in a report suggesting that Sinclair’s partisanship was making other broadcasters nervous by fueling “anti-consolidation forces” and efforts to bring back the FCC’s defunct Fairness Doctrine:

Sinclair could even put the Fairness Doctrine back in play, a rule established in 1949 to require that the networks—all three of them—air all sides of issues. The doctrine was abandoned in the 1980s with the proliferation of cable, leaving citizens with little recourse over broadcasters that misuse the public airwaves, except to oppose the renewal of licenses.
The Sinclair controversy brought discussion of the Fairness Doctrine back to news columns ( Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04; L.A. Times, 10/24/04) and opinion pages ( Portland Press Herald, 10/24/04; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 10/22/04) across the country. Legal Times (11/15/04) weighed in with an in-depth essay headlined: “A Question of Fair Air Play: Can Current Remedies for Media Bias Handle Threats Like Sinclair’s Aborted Anti-Kerry Program?”

Sinclair’s history of one-sided editorializing and right-wing water-carrying, which long preceded its Stolen Honor ploy ( Extra!, 11–12/04), puts it in the company of political talk radio, where right-wing opinion is the rule, locally and nationally. Together, they are part of a growing trend that sees movement conservatives and Republican partisans using the publicly owned airwaves as a political megaphone—one that goes largely unanswered by any regular opposing perspective. It’s an imbalance that begs for a remedy.

--The Fairness Doctrine: How we lost it, and why we need it back
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was sold as a means of opening up competition in the communications market. The opposite turned out to have been the effect. What followed was a wave of mergers that decreased competition. The media is now dominated by a handful of souless conglomerates like Fox. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is another case of political "bait and switch".

In 1934, our government had said that the "airwaves" belonged not to the big corporations or to the government but to the people themselves. We want it back!

We've always known that the Fox network "slanted" the news. But that's not all. They make it up!

I would like to know what's in it for Rupert Murdoch to preside over a news organization that manufactures - full cloth - phony news stories. What is Murdoch's specific connection to the Bush crime syndicate? What is the bigger story --the story about how the American media devolved from giants like Murrow, Cronkite and Severeid to the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity? How did we get here?

The use of the term 'de-regulation' to characterize the government theft and subsequent transfer of your airwaves is 'Orwellian', a tactic intended to hide the real intent. The government of the US literally stole your airwaves and transferred ownership of them to right wing liars and demagogues like the Fox Network, Sinclair et al --big corporations where the likes of Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing shills had merely to wag an accusing finger while shouting "LIBERAL, LIBERAL" to sink a candidacy or --earlier --impeach the most competent President since FDR.
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

--Macbeth (IV, i, 14-15)

Reasonable, rational voices are simply drowned-out by the right wing noise machine consisting of the Religious Right and the K-Street advocates of big corporate financed fascism --a mind-numbing 'hell's broth' if ever there was one.

The right wing makes much of entrepreneurship, the right of a soulless corporation to 'make money', to earn a profit. Oh really! Are we to believe that liberal dollars are worth less than 'conservative' dollars?

Even if they were, are they worth so much less that the entire Fox organization can literally write off the 'liberal' market? If that is the FOX position, then my response is that 'liberals' should simply take up the challenge! Boycott every company that places its advertising dollar with Fox. Fox would shove their swill up your ass and inexplicably expect you to patronize their sponsors! Screw that! Boycott any business that advertises on a network that really does not care what you think!

Fox may willingly kiss off moneys that liberals might have spent with Fox advertisers. But how would the advertisers feel about that? Have their marketing departments concluded that only liberal dollars are losing value as a result of conservative mismanagement of the economy? If Fox has blown off the 'liberal market', then there is left only one conclusion: Murdoch and his minions are not in it for the money. The Fox raison d'etre, therefore, is not free enterprise, business or capitalism. They just want to brain wash you.

Republicans are incapable of differentiating between a "principle" and a "prejudice". The conservative mind-set is committed to free speech only if it applies only to them. The GOP has never favored 'free speech' for the opposition.

It's also time to debunk popular, conservative, GOP myths about the 'Fairness Doctrine'.
In the history of the Fairness Doctrine, only one broadcaster permanently lost a license to operate a television station due to bias in coverage. WLBT 3 Jackson, Mississippi attained significant notoriety for its open support of racial segregation in Mississippi in the 1950s and 1960s and its opposition to civil rights. The station also routinely removed portions of network news broadcasts covering civil rights issues, often under the pretext of technical difficulties, causing civil rights groups and the United Church of Christ to complain to the Federal Communications Commission. Several FCC warnings to Lamar, the station's owner, went unheeded and the issue was contested in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court ordered the FCC to revoke the station's license in 1969.

Hah, it sure would be terrible to bring that rule back, right?

Anyways it was repealed by Reagan, then came the deluge: talk radio! And, on the whole, that was fine, because while it would be nice if the government could actually mandate that broadcasters be reasonable and serve the public interest, we know that is not actually possible. What would be nice would be more reasonable directives about media ownership and local interest, so that we don't get more stories of small towns that don't hear about tornadoes or something because all their radio stations are owned by Clear Channel (is that just a media studies urban legend??).

But it gets the crazies excited when dumb liberals respond to their inability to find a popular media figure as "charismatic" and talented as Rush Limbaugh by claiming it's time to bring back the fairness doctrine. Then they can send out emails saying "they're gonna ban Rush!" and that fat addict's victim-cult can all blame the uppity women and blacks for them losing their jobs.

So, Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, you are not helping anyone's cause but Rush Limbaugh's when you off-handedly mention your desire to see some new Fairness Doctrine-ish rules be introduced. Even if what you are actually talking about here is hearings on media ownership, which won't happen anyway because the Dems are just as in the pocket of the telecoms and media conglomerates as anyone, all that will make it out to the angry AM Radio masses is "they're gonna take away Rush!"

Though maybe it is helping! The Republican party is bereft of ideas and leadership, and so that angry unpleasant talk show host is becoming their voice. Which is fantastic news for the incredibly small and shrinking demographic he represents, aging white males. Rush repulses every other demographic in America, of course, so good for the Republicans. They are letting Mr. Limbaugh have the closing speech at their annual convention, CPAC. Also on the guest list: Ms. Sarah Palin!

--Talking about a Fairness Doctrine Is the Easiest Way to Piss Off a Republican

Like rotting garbage, vapid talk about 'Republican principles' always makes me puke. Eventually, with enough corporate support, enough mindless distractions provided by the likes of its corporate media sponsors, the GOP has apparently succeeded in dumbing down a nation, reducing its 'body politic' to couch-loving morons, beer swilling bigots, and lobotomized 'Palins'.


Anonymous said...

Television is a direct link to the brain of every man women and child in America. It affects people on a subconscious level. It's addictive. It controls our whole world view. Everything. I wonder what life would be like without television? It would be easy to find out. Just toss out my TV. But I can't. There's someone in my head. Where's my bong!?

tiago said...

There are so many ways around the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, and big corporations use them.
It wasn’t hard to figure out Fox Views. Every time the Bush administration wanted their talking points aired, they went on one of Fox’s talk shows. Condi was adept at this. “Who would have believed that terrorists would use air planes as bombs’. ‘We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud’, ad nauseum.
But, Fox was not the only one to air lies. All of main stream media was in the same bed with Fox. Big corporations owned every news outlet; General Electric, owner of NBC; News Corp, owner of Fox; Viacom, owner of CBS; and Walt Disney, owner of ABC. I turned to Reuters, Ridder/McClatchy, and until Blair/Campbell neutralized it, BBC for my news.
Our glorious Department of Defense waged Psychological Warfare on the American public with it’s propaganda. In addition, the Bush administration aired propaganda using shills that pretended to be news reporters.
Another way of confusing issues was to release so much information that was conflicting that it was confusing. Most gave up trying to sort out the mess.
But Powell’s easing the rules on media ownership did not hurt to concentrate and control the news.
Washington, June 24, 2004 — A federal appeals court on Thursday dealt a setback to the nation's largest media companies by ordering the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider the rules it issued last summer, easing the way for them to grow and enter new markets. [By easing the rules by m outlets became so big, they could thumb their noses at the FCC and the American public.]
. . . . . .
Proponents of the new rules have argued that the old restrictions are outdated because technological changes, like the advent of the Internet with its many sources of information, have expanded the universe of news and entertainment outlets available to consumers. Thus, they said, increased concentration would not hurt competition.
I have friends that have told me some outlandish things they swear are the truth because they saw it on television, heard it on the radio, or read it in the newspaper.
Going on the net and doing a search gave a completely different version to the ‘facts’ on main stream media. No amount of talking can convince people that main stream media is conning them.
There is one other organization that has done a tremendous job of distorting the facts and silencing critics. One is the Jewish Anti-defamation League and the other is the American/Israeli Institute, (AEI). They have not only used main stream media, but movies, (As the swift boaters did Kerry), VCRs, and DVDs to give a false picture of Israel. [Israel is a state born from terror and maintained by terror.] In short, your senses were assaulted from every angle.

Anonymous said...

The only "news" on FOX is in the title.

The rest of the slop is a skillful blend of psyops, distortions, propaganda and half-truths, all designed to serve the wealthy elite and solidify their control over the American Empire.

CNN and MSNBC aren't much better.

Take a recent example, the airliner that crashed landed in the Hudson River.

For hours on end, all three ran non-stop coverage of that event, even after we had already found out that NONE had been killed and there were NO serious injuries.

At the time, Israel was busy raising hell in Gaza, committing all sorts of war crimes, but the "news" outlets chose to focus on the Hudson story.


Another good example are the stories they run about the lost, then murdered child.

I'm not trying to sound callous here, but there's around 15,000 kids that disappear in the USA each year, so why focus exclusively on one, unless it was a planned distraction?

Like the planned distractions on the morning segment of FOX, where they have female anchors showing so much leg, their undies are damned near visible.

While morons look on and drool and fantasize, the news gets planted in an oh so subtle way into their sex addled brain.

I like looking at a pretty woman's legs as much as the next guy, but not when I'm trying to get REAL news that affects my life.

wayne fontes said...

Did you guys all miss that fact that cable news (Fox) isn't broadcast over the public spectrum and not subject to the fairness doctrine?

wayne fontes said...

My complaint is that the 1996 law has not gone far enough to ensure that US citizens have access to media.

Since you are complaining about Fox and right wing talk radio's content I don't see how it's a question of access. I agree that the decision to allow the level of concentrated media owner ship we currently have was a bad one but breaking up that concentration wouldn't affect talk radio. The right wing shows make money and the left don't.

What do you say when you speak of access to the media? The ability to create content or receive it.

SadButTrue said...

Wayne makes a good point, but perhaps approaches it from the wrong direction. It is no coincidence that the worst abuses of truth are carried out on the cable channels, which are not subject to the same level of regulation as are the airwaves.

I think the fairness doctrine might itself approach the problem from the wrong direction. "Fairness" is too often interpreted as meaning giving equal time to complete fabrications from the right to 'balance' concrete facts from the left.

Wouldn't it be better to put the emphasis on TRUTH, rather than fairness? But then of course you run into a couple of philosophical problems as to how one goes about defining what truth really is.

Clearly though, it is not contained in pronouncements from the likes of Bilge O'Reilly - a far-right extremist pundit who sees anyone who disagrees with him in any way as a leftist radical. His definition of extremist includes about 80% of the American public, and 90% of Europe and Canada.

Unknown said...

wayne fontes said...

Since you are complaining about Fox and right wing talk radio's content I don't see how it's a question of access.

Of course it's a question of access. The ACCESS to dissent has been denied for so long, you, apparently, no longer know the difference.

What some people call 'liberal' was considered to the right of Attila the Hun a mere 20 or 30 years ago. About two generations have absolutely NO CLUE what 'liberalism' is all about.

And that was all by design.

Secondly, it id not about the left v right paradigm. It's about the FACT that there IS such a paradigm and ITS A FALSE ONE.

Again --that was by design because it effectively DESTROYS meaningful debate. On this point, the name 'Wolf Blitzer' comes to mind. My problem with Wolf is not so much left v right. I suspect that Wolf doesn't know which planet he lives on. I have NEVER heard Wolf 'get it'. Because he doesn't 'get it'.

I agree that the decision to allow the level of concentrated media owner ship we currently have was a bad one but breaking up that concentration wouldn't affect talk radio.

A new fairness doctrine would.

A requirement that stations serve their communities would.

Requirements that stations be responsible would.

I spent my adult life and even some of my childhood and teen years in broadcasting. I remember when stations were required to be responsible and responsive to their coverage areas.

I was required to pass a pretty stiff electronics exam before I could monitor a transmitter.

I also remember when 'talk radio' was relevant. Today --it is not only EXTREMIST by my standards, it simply misses the point. These guys are just regurgitating shit that has passed focus group muster.

Some of it is just bald faced lies but just as much is just meaningless drivel.

Rush et al don't have to worry about making sense; they have no competition. That I have to explain this in an article seems to me evidence that the media today is just a noise machine of no relevance but the service it renders as the brainwashing 'arm' of the big machine--the MIC.

The right wing shows make money and the left don't.

How would you know? There are NO left shows. There is simply no way that you can prove your assertion. It is just propaganda that you have regurgitated.

Secondly, have you ever read an Arbitron? In all modesty, I have some expertise in this area, trained by research experts at Arbitron themselves. The numbers 'conservatives' get these days mean absolutely nothing in the absence of real competition.

Secondly on this point, you've created a conundrum for yourself. On the one hand you say that conservative talk shows make more money than liberal talk shows though there are no liberal talk shows. In the SAME breath, you deny that 'access' is not the problem.

What do you say when you speak of access to the media? The ability to create content or receive it.

Both! Obviously a lot of talent is without jobs. Just as obviously, there is a vacuum, a DEMAND that is NOT being met because progressives and liberals who have NOTHING to listen to. That doesn't sound like good business to me. Are you trying to tell me that 'liberals' and 'progressives' DON'T shop, don't spend money, don't patronize advertisers?

Surely, advertisers must understand that 'liberal' dollars are just as worthless these days as are conservative bucks. But what if the dollar had NOT collapsed due to CONSERVATIVE ECONOMICS?

Don't you think an advertiser would want to reach a 'liberal' consumer? Why would he just blow him/her off?

With you inconsistencies, I think you have proved my point. I daresay you cannot name a single radio program in which ANY KIND of meaningful dissent can be heard. Name one!

Now try to convince me that that is NOT an 'access' problem.

Another point re: Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly! None of these guys are bright. Any informed 'liberal' could wax the floor with them.

Because these idiots are not particularly bright, you will NEVER hear Limbaugh or Hannity allow an intelligent person on their programs.

A final shot: I have repeatedly posted reams of documentation from US Govt sources, well-known economists et al that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that EVERY Democratic President since 1900 has out performed EVERY GOP President economically in almost every category, most significantly and most prominently GDP and job creation.

Wouldn't you agree that that is important information?

Why do you suppose you have NEVER heard that information from Hannity or Limbaugh?

What have they to hide behind their big, stupid mouths?

You will find that information and much, much, much more on THIS blog specifically. Would you hear those verifiable and indisputable facts from ANY right wing ideologue?

Of course you would not!! Are you prepared to tell me with a straight face that that is a good thing?

Are you prepared to defend the position that the American people should be kept in the dark on crucial issue simply because the RIGHT WING dominates the media and by doing so they have mislead the American people, kept the American people ignorant, and, in worst cases, LIED to them outright?

Are you saying that these liars are justified in lying, misleading and, in other ways, deceiving their audiences simply because the bastards make money?

If that is your position, then you have proven my point. And if that is your position, then fuck you and all the liars you listen to!

A final shot -- I know of only one moral dictum that may be proven to be of moral value and that is: behave in such a manner than what is true can be verified to be so.

It is my position that Limbaugh et al violate that defensible and provable moral dictum hourly and daily.

They are not merely liars, they are crooks! They have harmed the nation. The debacle left behind by Bush is the proof of it.

Unknown said...

wayne fontes said...

Did you guys all miss that fact that cable news (Fox) isn't broadcast over the public spectrum ...

I should have been more precise.

It is not ONLY the Fairness Doctrine alone that should be restored and/or given MORE teeth.

Moreover, FOX is a network and includes both cable and broadcast outlets. In Houston, for example, the FOX OWNED outlet broadcast on UHF and was, I am sure, also available via cable.

The Communications Act of 1934 included LIMITS to ownership to include other media, including Newspaper. In other words, the number of NEWSPAPERS owned by a mogul figured into how many electronic outlets would be allowed him/her/it under law.

I also should have advocated not just a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine but of EVERY provision of the Communications Act of 1934 PLUS a few new ones to include new technologies.

Moreover, the act of 1934 was NOT replaced but 'amended' by the The Telecommunications Act of 1996 --a bill that apparently relies on 'increased competition' for development of new services in broadcasting and cable, telecommunications, information and video services while it reasserts Congress' leadership role as the dominant communications policymaker.

So --basically, cable operators are NOT exempt and should not be.

My complaint is that the 1996 law has not gone far enough to ensure that US citizens have access to media.

Big Dan said...

I hope you all watch Free Speech TV, the only good channel on TV. LINK-TV is good, too. But Free Speech TV is essential.

Big Dan said...

I would like to know the NAMES of the people who write Drug Limbaugh's show. I don't think he writes it. WHO writes it, that is important to find out. If he has on a guest host, they don't miss a beat, because the writers are the important ones. The people who tell him what to say. WHO are they? Who picks what news stories go on ABC, NBC, CBS? Out of hundreds of stories, they all have the same exact stories at the same time, and the same commercial breaks at the same time. Click around between the 3 of them ANY day you want, and test this. There's something funny going on. Again, who is doing this? Some people, we don't know their names, are meeting and deciding what's on the news on ABC, NBC, and CBS.

Big Dan said...

I didn't mention FOX, because it's assumed that is simply "off the charts". There's also something funny going on, on ABC, NBC, and CBS, too.

Big Dan said...

Did you ever think that liberal AM shows are purposely being squashed from the air, and we're being "told" they're not profitable? Gee, that would be hard to believe. (sarcastic)

Anonymous said...

When I was a kid, my family regarded CBS as the best of a bad lot.
I was too young to be aware of the Red Scare and the murder of the Rosenbergs by the state.
Since then, my studies have led me to the conclusion that good people were "shut out", (Murrow among them), as media came into lockstep with the Cold War bullshit which was used to cow the public into obedience to the "realists" preparing for nuclear war.
The suicides of blacklisted writers and artists, who found their names on "patriotic" rolls of those to be banned from free speech, were ignored.
Corporate America had taken over absolutely during WWII, and the new age of Imperial Power destroyed labor,(see Taft-Hartley), destroyed free speech and marginalized all who would dare question the righteousness of the March of Freedom.
We now live in a media culture in which the "left" is next to nonexistent.
Any push toward basic civil liberties is now "liberal" and suspect by the knuckle dragging Jesus freaks marching to the tune of Freedom.
The control of information and popular taste is so complete that few have any idea of what the history of labor, women's rights, or dozens of major issues which people DIED for might be.
I read that the number of votes for a pop star teevee show was greater than the number of votes in the last congressional elections.
Hitler said again and again that politics was a matter of emotion, that "facts" only frightened and confused people.
Media reform?
When the D.C. whores have sand enough for that, many other matters will be dealt with also.
Like political murders.
Like the Reichstag 911 terror attack.
When pigs fly.
Don Smith

Unknown said...

wayne fontes said...

I don't listen to any right wing radio, your assumptions to the contrary. Does telling me to fuck off make you more like Rush or (you fill in the blank) some unnamed left wing commenter?.

I didn't tell you to fuck off. I would, however, like to see you get educated.

re: "... reams of documentation from US Govt sources, well-known economists et al that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that EVERY Democratic President since 1900 has out performed EVERY GOP President economically in almost every category, most significantly and most prominently GDP and job creation." I'd like to see those stats. Could you repost the links?

You can browse my archives. I written hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages citing official government stats --US Census Bureau, Department of Commerce-BEA, Labor Department, numerous economists including the conservatives Joseph Schumpeter and Milton Friedman (whom I interviewed personally) as well as the so-called 'liberals' --Paul Krugman, Keynes, and others. Browse my archives. Knock yourself out. Following is but a precis but every fact stated is verifiable with original sources linked to and cited on this blog.

The following stats are just a sample of the numerous, seemingly endless instances in which the GOP has been dead wrong and the Democratic party has been absolutely correct. Let's take a look at the history before it gets re-written:

Any Democratic President has presided over greater economic growth and job creation than any Republican President since World War II.

When Bush Jr took office, job creation was worst under a Republican, Bush Sr, at 0.6% per year and best under a Democrat, Johnson, at 3.8% per year.

Economic growth under President Carter was far greater than under Reagan or Bush Sr. In fact, economic growth in general was greater under Johnson, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton than under Reagan or Bush. Democrats always outperform a failed party: the GOP!

The job creation rate under Clinton was 2.4% significantly higher than Ronald Reagan's 2.1% per year. The "top performing Presidents" by this standard, in order from best down, were Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Kennedy. The "worst" (in descending order) were Nixon, Reagan, Bush.

Half of jobs created under Reagan were in the public sector --some 2 million jobs added to the Federal Bureaucracy. Hadn't he promised to reduce that bureaucracy?

Reagan, though promising to reduce government and spending, tripled the national debt and left huge deficits to his successor. Bush Jr's record will be even worse.

By contrast, most of the jobs created on Clinton's watch were in the private sector.

Put another way: any Democratic President beats any Republican President since World War II.

Check out:

On the brink of a great depression, the GOP is still lying its ass off [graphic]

Why Barack Obama Must Insist Upon the Prosecution of George W. Bush for Capital Crimes --in which you will find an animation based upon verifiable economic data that dramatizes the extent to which ONLY the very, very, very rich have benefited from GOP economics i.e, the 'economics' that is touted in loud, bellicose voices of like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity --their ilk and wannabes.

'Corporate Prisons': the GOP's Formula for More Crime, Declining Education, and Slave Labor; Texas: The Gulag Wasteland Bush Left Behind ]

How the GOP, Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr Betrayed, Pillaged, then Sold the U.S.

'I have a scam': the Real Cause of Impending, Utter Financial Collapse

The GOP: Architects of Another 'Great Depression'

Steve Kangas: The Origins of the Overclass

How the GOP Enriched the Rich and Made Everyone Else Poor!

The United States as a Net Debtor Nation: Overview of the International Investment Position [PDF]

American Economic Development Since 1945: Growth, Decline and Rejuvenation

Gen. Smedly Butler, War is a Racket !

Today's Pig is Tomorrow's Bacon

The Quarterly Journal of Economics: Income Inequality in the United States

What has been the result of GOP incompetence and endemic criminality? Try this: Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes

Bush Sr's Faustian Bargain with China or How US/China Trade Threatens to Wipe Out the US Middle Class

Milton Friedman's Role and His Influence on the Two Worst Regimes in US History

I should not have to fuckin repeat ad nauseam what should already be common knowledge.

It would have been had the fuckin right wing media not been deliberately lying to the America people or trying to brainwash them.

Hitler had Goebbels. The American GOP has FOX and lesser known kiss ups!

I dare say that 90 percent of Americans are, like you, ignorant of these facts for several reasons:

1) American educational systems have utterly failed to teach even the rudiments of economics;

2) the right wing media does NOT WANT the people to know that EVERY Democratic President since 1900 has OUTPERFORMED EVERY GOP Prez in every important category (job growth, GDP et al) since 1900.

Unknown said...

Another thorn in the GOP side: JIMMY CARTER is officially among the top five performing presidents since WWII.

Ronald Reagan cannot could not Carter's shit. Ronald Reagan, the man who betrayed his nation at Rekjavik, is among the WORST economic peformers since 1900, and, until Bush Jr, among the worst since WWII.

Under Reagan, the US lost its industrial base, jobs 'trickled out' (to Taiwan et al) even as wealth 'trickled up' an an increasingly tiny elite.

At present --as a result of the Reagan/Bush/Bush debacles --a tiny elite of about ONE PERCENT owns more than over 90 percent combined.

I don't think Fox likes to talk about that and it is highly unlikely that these goddamned shills will ever face the truth let alone tell it.

We should not merely lobby to RESTORE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, we should boycott FOX, it's sponsors and work, in other ways, to deny this deliberate propagandists any access to OUR 'air waves' and a public utility called a CABLE.

Anonymous said...

The handful of corporations owning about 92%, last I looked, of all US media, newspapers, magazines, cable, broadcast radio and television, also own the exit polling for our elections. In both 2004 and 2006, there were significant adjustments to accommodate the reported official results.