Fairness Mongers
Ubiquitous
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.
Bob Eld
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:EKCdnbz9GsDjnuna...@comcast.com...
> Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael
Conservative radio controls over 90% of the Talk radio in the US, yet
Conservatives are only about 30 to 40 percent of the people. The reason is
because the corporate owners of the radio waves are mostly conservative and
like Murdoc over at Fox, blort out their brand of political pap while
ignoring the rest of the market.
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.
Of course, it is a direct result of Reagan deregulation to give broadcasting
rights to major corporations without limit regardless of the public
ownership of the air. It's all about money and corporate greed. Gee where
have we seen that before, been to a gas station lately (another but related
subject). Ownership and licensing rules need to be thightened up to insure
that All voices can be heard.
BTW, Conservative talk is not the ownly thing dominating a portion of the
air. Try to find Classical Music or Cool jazz. Again, corporate greed
panders to the lowest common denominator trying to make the biggest buck
from the public air. Like parks and roads, the public airwaves should be
available to all without dominance by a few giant corporations.
Thanatos
"Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Conservative radio controls over 90% of the Talk radio in the US, yet
> Conservatives are only about 30 to 40 percent of the people. The reason is
> because the corporate owners of the radio waves are mostly conservative and
> like Murdoc over at Fox, blort out their brand of political pap while
> ignoring the rest of the market.
Nope. Air America proved that their *is no* market for liberal talk
radio. People just don't want to listen to it in enough numbers to make
it worthwhile.
Ubiquitous
the so-called Fairness Doctrine: "Of all the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of
talk radio . . . the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called
Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech."
Almond goes on to explain that the reason he favors the Fairness Doctrine is
that it would squash free speech. "Talk radio's bullies," he asserts, "know
the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural
flim-flam."
Unless the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, Almond asserts, "Americans of all
political persuasions will continue to seek out 'news' and opinions that
merely reinforce their biases, rather than forcing them to question those
biases."
And he should know. In May 2006, Almond penned another op-ed for the Globe, a
self-indulgent "open letter" to the president of Boston College in which he
announced that he would "resign" as an "adjunct
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.