> It's an old story. Political scientists and foundations
> bemoan "voter apathy." Then when the electorate
> gets engaged, whether it's on taxes or immigration
> reform, the concern flips and there is talk about the
> negative impact talk radio has in stirring passions up.
> Liberal groups are once again decrying that perhaps
> four out of ten Americans are listening to the likes of
> Rush Limbaugh. That's why so many of them are talking
> about reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
> Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It claimed to
> require broadcasters to provide equal time to all sides
> of "controversial" issues. In practice, it mainly gave
> incumbents leverage over their opponents. The
> Reagan administration killed it in 1987 after proving
> Congress hadn't authorized it. It was dreamed up by
> Federal Communications Commission staffers in
> 1949 and was quickly dubbed the Blandness Doctrine.
> "It led to timid, don't-rock-the-boat coverage," recalls
> Bill Monroe, the former host of NBC's Meet the Press.
> The Fairness Doctrine had fans on the right and
> left. Accuracy in Media and Phyllis Schlafly saw it as a
> way to pressure liberal network spin. But the telecommunications
> revolution has made the debate largely
> irrelevant. The decline of the networks' viewership
> and the rise of CNN, C-Span, talk radio, and blogs have
> shown that the answer to media bias is more competition,
> not control.
> In practice, a revived Fairness Doctrine, coupled
> with the FCC's license-renewal power, would be a
> muzzle. The Nixon administration used it to torment
> left-wing broadcasters. The Kennedy administration
> used it as a political weapon. Consider the words of
> Bill Ruder, President Kennedy's assistant secretary of
> commerce: "Our strategy was to use the Fairness
> Doctrine to challenge and harass rightwing broadcasters
> and hope that the challenges would be so costly
> to them that they would be inhibited and decide it
> was too expensive to continue."
> Democrats have now suddenly become Fairness
> Mongers, and for a while this summer were flocking
> around calls for its return. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of
> California floated the idea on Fox News Sunday. Sen.
> Dick Durbin of Illinois said the doctrine needs to be
> reinstituted because "I have this old-fashioned idea
> that when Americans hear both sides of the story,
> they're in a better position to decide."
> Both sides? Does anyone honestly believe that
> liberals lack for outlets in the American news media?
> In radio alone, the most extensive network in the
> country is National Public Radio, partially subsidized
> by the government, and a clear vehicle for many liberal
> voices. It's true most of the popular national hosts-
> Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael
> Medved-are conservatives. Liberals have a lower
> market share because, according to listeners, conservative
> talk radio provides information that isn't
> carried, or is mocked, in the mainstream media
> and press.
> There are Republiucan senators who are also
> upset at how much talk radio can drive
> public debate. Minority Whip Trent Lott isn't
> a supporter of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine,
> but he sure is hot under the collar about how populist
> talk radio hosts came out four-square against the
> immigration compromise he supported. Mr. Lott
> admonished fellow senators in May to decide if they
> are "men or mice" and complained: "Talk radio is running
> America. We have to deal with that problem."
> His comments set off a storm of controversy.
> "We know what Senator Lott meant. Talk radio is
> getting in the way of a political goal, and therefore talk
> radio needs to be dealt with," said national radio host
> Neal Boortz. "Let's hope Lott doesn't want to deal with
> this problem by trying to kill the messenger."
> In the House, Republicans are much more willing
> to stand up for free speech. "There's nothing fair about
> the Fairness Doctrine," is how U.S. Rep. Mike Pence,
> an Indiana Republican and former talk-show host,
> put it in June before the House voted 309 to 115 in
> favor of his bill to block any future president or the
> Federal Communications Commission from reinstating
> the Fairness Doctrine.
> Many Democrats were spooked by the power of
> hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to
> make their lives miserable and reluctantly backed the
> Pence bill. Even Democratic U.S. Rep. David Obey put
> on a brave face as he rose to support the Pence bill.
> "Rush and Sean are just about as important in the
> scheme of things as Paris Hilton," he told the House.
> "I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility
> by being forced by a government agency or anybody
> else to moderate their views enough that they might
> become modestly influential or respected."
> Obey is of course fooling himself. It was precisely
> the fear of populist talk radio that compelled over half
> of Democrats in the House to back the Pence bill
> rather than court the anger of the airwaves.
> But that doesn't mean the Fairness Doctrine
> wouldn't be on the top of the "To Do" list for the next
> Democratic president. It could be reimposed by a simple
> vote of the FCC, which would quickly be dominated
> by Democratic appointees.
> What's really behind the proposed return of the
> Hush Rush Rule is that liberals just don't like the wide
> interest in certain public policy matters that talk
> radio generates. They are all against voter apathy
> unless it is stirred up on the issues that make them
> uncomfortable.
> | John H. Fund, The American Spectator's Politics columnist,
> | is author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens
> | Our Democracy (Encounter Books).
> --
> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> for them, it's failing.
It's an ownership issue. I agree, the fairness doctrine is not the answer
but no one company should own more than one radio voice in a given market.
Not six eight and ten like Clear Channel does. The radio waves belong to the
public not to corporations or license holders.
|
