The Capitol Fax Blog » Question of the day

Thursday, May 15, 2008

* Bernie had a piece today about yesterday’s WMAY rally in front of the Statehouse. He noted that Jim Leach, who has a talk show but is also the station’s news director, spoke at the rally…

T-shirts that were handed out at the event had the station logo on the back and the words “impeach him” on the front. This didn’t exactly seem like something for reporters to participate in if they want to show even a hint of fairness in the future. How can you seem to rally for impeachment and then expect the governor — if he ever takes your question — to believe you’ll handle his answer fairly?

But Leach said he wasn’t being that kind of advocate. He said the message on the shirts was “a stand the people are free to take,” and in producing the rally, “We are providing a forum for the community.”

This is a free country, so Leach, as an individual, can do whatever he wants. I’m curious about another aspect…

* Question: Should commercial radio stations, which operate on the public airwaves, be prohibited from sponsoring political advocacy events like yesterday’s protest rally? Explain.

- posted by Rich Miller

38 Comments

- RMW Stanford - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:49 am:
No they shouldn’t be forbidden from sponsoring political advocacy events. Yes they operate on the public airwaves but still they should be allowed to freely make political statements and if anything something that gets the public more involved in the political process and more active is always good.

- The Cowgirl - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:54 am:
No. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. Good journalistic practices cannot be legislated. The remedy for people who want unbiased news is to seek it out. Generally, I assume all news is biased, and therefore I seek out multiple sources with presumably different biases in order to attempt to find the kernel of truth.

- Anon - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:54 am:
Absolutely not. If WMAY had any credibility before, its certainly gone now.

- decaturvoter - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:54 am:
In this age of 24/7 cable,blogs and whatnot why not?
This is still a free nation unless you do something under the patriot act.
What has gone on in the state capitol since Little Jim left as Governor has been horrible.
The last two Governors have been useless and the General Assembly has been so lame.
There should be more pro ConCon rallies to try to reform the Illinois governmental system.
So radio stations, bloggers, and anyone else take to the streets. Make Thomas Jefferson proud of your civil rebellion.

- pickles!! - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:03 am:
where can i get one of those t-shirts?

- Dan S, a Voter & Cubs Fan - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:04 am:
Those people wear too many “hat’s”. It is their freedom of speech, but how can they “report” the news in an “unbiased” manor when the are doing 2 things at once. If they are on the clock as a reporter then no, on their own free time is a different story. WMAY is a radio version of Jerry Springer anyway.

- Garp - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:08 am:
Banned? they need to be encouraged. Not only is it good for ratings and builds station awareness but it is also a public service to voters. The voters that don’t like it don’t have to listen or attend the rallies.

- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:08 am:
While the airwaves are public, the spirit behind the laws making the airwaves public is freedom. The public airwaves are to serve the public.

Consequentially, radio stations on these airwaves are expected to serve the public. Serving the public means being involved in public dialogue. Issues within communities often are debated in government settings. As a result, they involve politics.

To expect a radio station sincerely invested in serving the community in which it is a part, to divorce itself from political issues, is, in this example, an unfair expectation. Should it really be the case?

Some take offense the moment an issue or discussion involves the words, “business”, “profit” or “commercial”. They have become over-sensitized by an education that portraits business organizations in a negative light. Conversely, they see themselves as more righteous and less prejudiced than businesses and consider those who conduct business as not sharing similar values as they. This is obsolete thinking, and definately not very accurate considering the hundreds of years of American history that proves them wrong.

WMAY serves the public. Any political advocacy taken by them is also in the name of public service. Whether they are making a profit isn’t an issue. Whether they are a commercial business is also not an issue.

We are not stupid. We are fully capable of understanding when Mr. Leach rallies against the ineptitude of the current administration, and when he is a news reporter. In my opinion, those who consider his actions as some kind of affront, are unaware of how their beliefs insults the very strength that is America - the common sense within each of it’s citizens.

- Little Egypt - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:10 am:
Jim Leach has never been known for being unbiased. With that said, the press is always uses the First Amendment as an excuse to do what they want. What we think the press should do and what they do are two different things. I personally think the press should hound Blago until he leaves office. The national press would do that if this were the U.S. President or some other top elected or appointed official. I get aggravated that Blago is getting by with so much. He should have been gone by now if the press had been on their game. Rich, this isn’t meant as a slam to you. I really don’t know what more you could do to further Blago’s ouster.

- wordslinger - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:11 am:
No. The Fairness Doctrine has been dead for about 20 years now, as anyone who listens to Rush or watches Fox News knows.

As the communications revolution was beginning, Justice Brennan wrote it was limiting rather than expanding freedom of speech. There are so many ways to get news and gather information now that I think we can handle radio stations as advocates.

Bernie’s an ethical journalist, and I understand his point. But let’s face it, the subjective decisions on what does and does not get covered reveal the bias of every media outlet.

I tilt toward First Amendment absolutism. I’m more comfortable with a commercial radio station sponsoring a political rally than I would be with a commercial radio station afraid to do so because of fear of the government.

- Doug Dobmeyer - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:12 am:
hmmmmmm was Rush Limbaugh there? Journalists should cover the news, not make the news. When I was a reporter in the Statehouse I gave up my advocacy role, as it should be. Otherwise I would have written a propaganda piece.

Don’t confuse the First Amendment with the role of a biased media. Just like the Second Amendment the right to bear arms doesn’t give people the right to unregulated wild west tactics.

Journalists get to vote for whom they want. They have to give up some participatory involvement when they report the news, otherwise the public would never be able to discern the truth on an issue.

Doug Dobmeyer

- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:18 am:
===He should have been gone by now if the press had been on their game. ===

Reporters filed hundreds of stories in the ‘06 election about corruption allegations. Just shy of 50 percent of the voters chose to ignore those stories or decided it wasn’t a big enough issue to change their minds.

- Leave a light on George - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:18 am:
A professional journalist should cover news not make it. The first amendment guarantees they can violate that principle. However, words mean something and they come with a consequence. Just ask Rev. Wright. If the reporter had any cred as a reporter it is out the window. His reputation has a commentator may be enhanced on the other hand.

- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:18 am:
Let’s try to stick to the question, please. Thanks.

- Squideshi - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:21 am:
The Fairness Doctrine may be dead; but FCC licensed broadcasters ARE STILL prohibited from making agreements, or engaging in activities, which do not provide “equal opportunity” to all “legally qualified candidates” for the same public office, amongst a slew of other restrictions.

The FCC actually has a handy little list of regulations still in effect, if you care to see them.

- Amuzing Myself - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:25 am:
No, they should not be banned. While their journalistic integrity may be questioned by some, the factual nature or accuracy of their reporting will ultimately be decided by their audience. If they stray too far, their ratings and advertising will suffer. As was mentioned before, radio stations like WMAY, which are local and small operations are in reality different that major news outlets around the state, even if they operate under the same or very similar codes of “ethics”. It’s much more difficult for a WMAY to separate its small number of employees/reporters from editorial opinion like the Tribune or Sun-Times can …. or even the SJ-R for that matter.

- Reddbyrd - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:27 am:
Huh?
Capt. Fax doesn’t the question persume WMAY has any credibility?
The one guy still messages for WhackyJack McCain on his voice mail
Bring back One Eye Jack!

- Vote Quimby! - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:36 am:
They operate on public airwaves but are a private company with rights. ‘Polititainment’ events such as these…if it hurts them economically then they won’t be around long. Advocating action is not necessarily a bad thing by anyone.

- A Furious One - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:43 am:
I’m too furious to comment on this at the moment, other than to say thank the Lord for people like Jim Leach! He did what so many SHOULD have done, but didn’t! So a great big THANKS, Jim Leach!

- North of I-80 - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:45 am:
No; 1st Amendment issue & station is not a tax $ supported business. Stations are private enterprises/corporations. If they endorse a candidate, then it is considered paid advertising… not the case here.
They are not advocating a political party or candidate… they are encouraging the public to pay attention to criminal and/or procedural matters of govt. Could almost say that Capitol Fax encourages similar activism by pointing out same issues. If no one cares or this is a fringe issue, station ratings will drop + advertisers will withdraw… I suspect the opposite is happening here.

- BandCamp - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:46 am:
No.

But I have a problem with “News Directors” having their own radio show. He should wear one hat. I agree w/Rich about credibility as a journalist…I wouldn’t take a question from him.

WMAY should’ve had one of their radio personalities who doesn’t gather news be at the rally.

- JonShibleyFan - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:52 am:
I don’t know if the weight of the law should prohibit a media entity from taking an advocacy position, or if that would even pass constitutional muster.

That said, I have often found these supposedly grassroots efforts are, in fact, corporate political shilling (see Chicks, Dixie for a textbook example). And while there is nothing inherently illegal about this — a company is generally free to run their business however they see fit, within the confines of the law– it can ring very hollow.

I am inclined to agree with the tack Bernie takes in questioning Leach’s actions, not from the point of view as a “personality,” but rather from his position as news director.

I don’t think there is, or should be a legal test - heck, we have an entire news network dedicated to advancing a specific point of view. But I think it strains Leach’s credibility as a journalist.

When I first read about this yesterday, I did a little googling of Leach, and found a great opinion piece on this in a 2-year-old BlogFreeSpringfield entry. Said better than I have, and examined more extensively than Bernie’s column:

http://tinyurl.com/3sd4ow

- Captain America - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:13 pm:
News Directors/journalists should be non-partisan - prohibited from participating in any partisan political activities. Leach breached the canons of jouurnalistic ethics.Radio stations should be allowed to promote non-partisan causes.

Talk show hosts can do anything they want - they’re not journalists.

- Speaking At Will - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:44 pm:
As a independent station manager, and a talk host host myself I come to this issue from a biased angle. I admit that. However I think that commerical radio stations should be encouraged host these type of rallys. The apathy in this state and country is amazing. Anything that can be done to further the distribution of the ridiculous nature of this governor and his administration is a positive thing.

- JonShibleyFan - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:54 pm:
But Speaking, no matter if every citizen of this state agrees with you, a governor’s “ridiculousnes” is subjective, not news.

An error is news. Alleged corruption is news. A threatened veto is news. Not going to the capitol is news. And a journalist’s obligation is to report the news.

Let pundits, infotainers and the apathetic masses decide whether that news is ridiculous or not.

- David Starrett - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:57 pm:
I agree that there are some pretty serious journalistic ethics issues here, and I’d even agree that journalists (as distinct from call-in hosts, who are entertainers) should be prohibited from hosting political rallies. That said, the prohibiting should be done by the news outlet and not the State. Ordinarily it would be the News Director who would set such a policy. Obviously that won’t be happening here.

If we get into regulating political speech activities by news media, the slope gets very slippery very quickly. Karl Rove has taught us that the truth is now political. People tune-in to the “truth” they find most reinforcing. Hence the success of Fox (faux) News. The social implications of this would be way off topic, but the point is how would a regulatory authority treat Fox?

Better to stay out of it and let the marketplace of ideas take its course.

- Ghost - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 2:00 pm:
No, in fact such actions benefit the community. it provides targeted events for people to attend that may not otherwise occur without such sponsorship.

- Dan S, a Voter & Cubs Fan - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 2:04 pm:
My basisc complaint with this issue is Jim Leach. He wears what ever hat will get him the most publicity at a given moment. In the aftermath of the 2006 tornado he was the “greatest ” journalist on the face of the earth. But every time he is on the air as a talk show host he tries to be the “Rush Limbaugh” of liberalism, while being rude and obnoxious to callers.

- zatoichi - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 2:44 pm:
How is this event any different than any other stunt a radio station does to get ratings or for that matter any group who comes to the Capitol hats/shirts/signs/mics over some topic. From Steve Dahl’s Disco Demolition at Comiskey years ago to some DJ’s man on the street interview or WXRT sponsoring concerts (and talking about it endlessly) radio has done this stuff a long time. “Personality” and “news” on radio blurred long ago. WMAY is a talk station doing what they think will make them interesting to get more listeners for ratings. Politics is simply another topic to fill air time that gets a rise out of listeners. After a while almost all the talking heads (lib and con) become interchangable blabbers doing anything to fill the hour over the latest outrage. Some of it is pretty good or funny. Most other parts are just background noise. If Leach got you to listen to his show then he did his job. It’s simply entertainment. Now if Leach can get his schtick to the Jon Stewart level that would help, but he would be long gone to much a bigger market if he did that.

- Cogito - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 3:29 pm:
Speaking of Jon Stewart, when asked what he thought was wrong with the news media he said that it was its never ending attempt to balance everything out. Or as I remember he put it, “If you go to the zoo and see the monkeys throwing their feces at the visitors, there is nothing wrong with saying ‘Bad, bad Monkey!’”

Yesterday a radio station was standing in front of the Capitol and saying “Bad, bad Monkey!!”

This appears to need to happen more often. Maybe the SJ-R can free Bernie up to do more of just that.

- so-called "Austin Mayor" - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 3:57 pm:
“Should commercial radio stations, which operate on the public airwaves, be prohibited from sponsoring political advocacy events like yesterday’s protest rally?”

No, they should not be prohibited.

Better that they wear their politics on their sleeves than that they pretend to be impartial or >>choke

- S. Illinois - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 4:02 pm:
Blogs utilize the publicly-financed internet, cell phones utilize the “public airwaves”…should there be limits on utilizing either of these outlets for expressing an opinion?

Having said that, I do think it challenges credibility to have reporters actively engaged in a political event, especially while representing their employer.

- Just a Thought.... - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 4:22 pm:
…but MAYBE public corruption and public official incompetence ought to get the spotlight over a ‘public airways’ issue?

- ex-spfld - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 5:16 pm:
Who is Jim Leach?

- BandCamp - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 8:15 pm:
ex-spfld- LOL. ouside of 627xx… you may be right, and you may have just put this question in perspective as it pertains to Springfield and its market of listeners.

I’m still giggling like a school girl…

- Bruno Behrend - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 9:48 pm:
The entire political class of Illinois is using “public funds” to sustain and grow their engine of waste, fraud, and abuse. Why shouldn’t a radio station be allowed to offer alternative ideas?

As long as Daley & Stroger can tax thier constituents into oblivion to fund his patronage and contracting armies to lobby for more tax increases, and the education establishment can use their purchased school code to soak taxpayers to grow their bloated bureaucracy (another patronage army), why should station (or media outlet) be prohibited from using whatever means they can think of to offer alternative ideas.

In direct response to Captain America…

Correct. Talk show hosts aren’t journalists. They are usually advocates. That is what often makes them more intellectually honest - as they do not hide behind a pretense of “objectivity.”

- FlackrBackr - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:44 pm:
There is a strict divide between providing news and providing commentary. There is a credibility gap when a single individual provides both. In fact, a newspaper that is worth the paper its printed on will never let a single person provide both news and commentary. The fact that WMAY allows the same people provide both news and commentary undermines the very news they provide to the public. This is extremely unfortunate, and WMAY can and should do better. While SJ-R has several columnists who do both (which I also find unfortunate), at least their news goes before an editor before it is published, which hopefully assures that any bias is removed before public consumption.

- FlackrBackr - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:58 pm:
Looking at Leach’s comments again, i’m astounded. I’ve always seen him as an intelligent fellow, but the fact that he would put his reporter credibility on the line by being associated with this is truly unfortunate.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.