Conservatives Criticize Oprah Refusal To Interview Palin
Why interesting? Because President Reagan and President GWH Bush (41) both vetoed Congressional attempts to codify the Fairness Doctrine. But what was the Fairness Doctrine?
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) once believed that broadcast licenses (required for both radio and terrestrial TV stations) were a form of public trust and, as such, licensees should provide balanced and fair coverage of controversial issues. This belief was expressed through the Fairness Doctrine.
Many folks get the Fairness Doctrine confused with the Equal Time Rule. The Equal Time Rule is a provision of the 1934 Communications Act (section 315) which "requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time."
In 1959, Congress enumerated four exemptions to the Equal Time Rule:
- Regularly scheduled newscasts
- News interviews shows
- Documentaries (unless the documentary is about a candidate)
- On-the-spot news events
The FCC's interpretation of these exemptions ensures that televised presidential debates can exclude third party candidates because they're considered "on-the-spot news." (Don't ask - I don't get this. Pre-planned, programmed and advertised events hardly seem "on-the-spot news" to me.) Likewise, Presidential press conferences are also considered "on-the-spot news." In both cases, other candidates are not entitled to "equal time."
The FCC has expanded the definition of a "news interview program" to include non-news (otherwise known as "entertainment") programs like The Phil Donahue Show, Good Morning America and, believe it or not, Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, and Politically Incorrect. IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but it looks to me like Oprah's TV show would safely fit into this category.
The LA TImes notes that Oprah did not have Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on her show during the campaign. Although Obama has appeared on her program twice, both were before he announced he would run for President: January 2005 and fall 2006. (Obama announced his exploratory committee 16 January 2007.)
She has, however, committed her celebrity and money to his campaign, endorsing him for president and emceeing events in key states. She hosted a fundraiser at one of her California homes.
In 2007, the FCC generated a firestorm when it suggested the some forms of blogging might be considered campaign contributions. I wonder why celebrity appearances like Oprah's -- or musical contributions like those of Crosby, Still and Nash (DNC) and the Beach Boys (RNC) -- aren't considered campaign contributions.
For example, last month University of Maryland economists Craig Garthwaite and Tim Moore asserted that Oprah's endorsement yielded 1 million votes for Obama.
And I know convention concerts are considered "parties" for the delegates (a new ethics law prohibits "lobbyists from paying for ... music for members of Congress and their staffs"). Nothing that corporations spend at the conventions seems to be considered a campaign contribution, even though, these days, the convention is almost exclusively an event for the anointed nominee (ie, there's no "there" there ... the convention is a rubber stamp).
Celebrity and presidential elections aren't new, except in the context of modern campaigns. The first performers to campaign for a presidential candidate were Quincy Jones, Carole King, Barbra Streisand and James Taylor: 15 April 1972 for George McGovern
What do you think? Should Oprah carry Palin -- or Palin and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)? Should personal appearances by celebrities (individual or musical group) be considered "in kind" campaign donations? Is there too much "celebrity" in presidential elections?
Comments
As a registered Democrat who will be voting for the McCain/Palin ticket, I do not care about Palin being on Oprah. If these so-called enlightened women who watch Oprah had a mind of their own, they wouldn’t be watching her program.
How many diet books can a fat celebrity endorse anyway? Oprah is at the end of her career.
A registered democrat voting for McCain… That says a lot about the loyalty of Democrats. And (from a European perspective) about the lost lot Americans are in general. If you are able to vote a third time for Republicans, after 8 years of disasters like this, there is nothing else which can be done for you…
But please, don’t come later to give the world lessons or pretend to lead the rest of us. Because we will just laugh.
Oprah also promoted Obama via a cover story in her magazine. And, I see a link between her friendships in the Kennedy family and their very timely endorsement of Obama.
Yet, even if Oprah wasn’t high on Obama, I doubt she would give Sarah Palin air time. Incest and pedophiles are very hot buttons for Oprah given her own pregnancy experience. I cannot fathom her asking questions about Palin’s hard-line opposition to abortion in cases of rape and incest.
So, Kathy, what’s your take on NBC’s pulling MSNBC anchors from election night coverage for being too tough on Palin? NBC appeared pleased these guys propped up Obama and skewered Hillary. What’s up? Is NBC doing to these guys what CBS did to Dan Rather? Is their parent company GE attempting to manipulate the election process?
how can a thinking woman who is a REAL democrat vote for McCain/Palin? if you are voting based upon political positions as a true democrat where is the rationale for voting for the McCain/Palin ticket? i think it is about simply wanting to see a woman in the top executive positions and that’s it. how can an intelligent, registered, democrat support a republican agenda based upon political leanings????
As a registered Republican voting for Obama, but was going to vote for McCain, before I decided to vote for Obama, before I registered as Independent, who might still change to McCain, but I’m really a registered Democrat that will be voting for Obama, and I’m just mentioning McCain and being a Republican and Independent, to make fun of the first two posters … I think it’s ridiculous that there’s even so much hoopla about Oprah not wanting Palin on her show. Sarah Palin doesn’t want to be on any show that requires interviewing. I’ve heard she’s very, very shy, and doesn’t like to be interviewed. So that should end the story, and everyone should just leave Oprah alone.
- From a Democrat voting for Obama/Biden
Hi,Justin! That’s the funniest beginning I’ve read in a long time!
Thanks for the light touch.
Helga…OUCH
However, you have a point. I feel brainwashed and have turned the show off. I know it was a learning experience. Moving on.
For those who don’t “get it” yet…
Oprah is hypocritical when she talks the talk about empowering women and then doesn’t want people like HIllary Clinton or Sarah Palin on the show. Personally, I think women in general are missing the mark when they get wrapped up in their political views and don’t applaud the work both of these women have done. The Oprah mess has little to do with political affiliation. In fact it has to do with women not supporting each other, bias and deception. This is why it becomes easy to trample upon us. Of course, if you don’t agree politically with Palin, you would not vote for McCain/Palin at the polls. This is not a huge shock to anyone. Oprah’s show isn’t really political, although she does delve into this area at times. She often talks about about WOMEN. About emopowering WOMEN. Her audience is made up of WOMEN. WOMEN are the ones who seem to buy her magazine and other products. Her sponsors are trying to sell to WOMEN. However, she has supported someone else in the presidential race. Ya know, this is her right. However, she should not let her personal choice interfere with her work. And she should at least be respectful and fair to what her viewing audience might wish to see on the show. With power comes reponsibility. Like it or not, she is a role model. Little did I know for many years, she is a LOUSY ONE.
I strongly suspect, folks are TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT. Oprah is incongruent. She says one thing and does another. She is all about power. It is her right to abuse her power. We are strong, intelligent and independent women and have figured this out. It is our right and OBLIGATION to turn the show off. Moving on. Click.
Why interesting? Because President Reagan and President GWH Bush (41) both vetoed Congressional attempts to codify the Fairness Doctrine. But what was the Fairness Doctrine? - Kathy Gill
You do? Then you must be confusing what conservatives say be should be mandated by government, with what conservatives want to be done by citizens.
I am not at all surprised that a liberal would have a hard time separating what should be government mandated with what should be done as a citizen. It’s no wonder the entire premise of this commentary is wrong.
Some conservative critics used ‘fair’ or ‘fairness’ in making their arguments. That’s why it’s an interesting juxtaposition with the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine was a recognition that the balance of power lies with a network and/or a network show and that “networks” operate on public (citizen-owned) airways.