From "Fusion" magazine by Glenn Beck...
“Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”
Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy Administration
Conservative talk radio has a big bull’s eye on it, and Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Dick Durbin and other Democrats are aiming right for it.
Those politicians are among the people now calling for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which started back in 1928 as a way to press broadcasters to show “due regard for the opinions of others.”
The idea was that, if someone got on the radio and advocated one side of an issue, stations were obligated to air the opposing viewpoint, or risk losing their license. The policy became law in 1959, but the Supreme Court started repealing parts of it in 1984 and it was completely off the books by 1987.
Over the years, Democrats have continually made noise about bringing the doctrine back, but their attempts have always failed. Rumblings started again last summer, and have become so loud that President Bush said in March he would veto a bill to reinstate if it comes across his desk.
Of course, the politics over the fairness doctrine are entirely due to the politics on talk radio. Let’s face it, virtually all successful talk radio leans conservative. Democrats/progressives/liberals who have tried it have almost always failed.
Air America is a high profile example of that, but it’s not the only one. Proponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that the public is only getting one side of the story and is woefully misinformed as a result. One such supporter of that idea, Dianne Feinstein, insists that talk radio listeners are pushed to “extreme views without a lot of information.” That being said, she must also think that talk radio listeners are incapable of independent thought. To think that these same radio listeners actually have listened to both sides and still disagree with Democratic principles must be something incomprehensible to her.
Besides, if we’re going down the “viewer zombie” road, then shouldn’t television shows that glorify murder turn us all into crazed killers? Shouldn’t movies that focus on sex turn our kids into nymphomaniacs? Shouldn’t books that bash the President brainwash the whole country into impeaching him?
Of course not, because people aren’t just empty hard drives onto which others can download whatever viewpoint they want. People have their own brains and make up their own minds—which is exactly why networks like Air America always fail.
Regulating the airwaves may have seemed like a good idea seventy years ago, when people could get their news from only a handful of radio frequencies and Al Gore had not yet invented the internet. But it’s very difficult to make that argument in the year 2008.
In this day and age, you have to try hard not to be smothered by political information. In addition to talk radio, our world consists of network and cable television, thousands of newspapers, satellite radio, and 24/7 blogs on, what else, the internet.
Besides, it’s really easy to make the case that public information is unbalanced if you ignore a couple of important facts:
· Far more journalists are liberal than conservative. A recent report by the Pew Research Center revealed that only seven percent of journalists identify themselves as “conservative,” while 34 percent identify themselves as “liberal.”
· Our universities are overwhelmingly liberal. Anne Neal, President of the American Council of Trustees, says “the lack of intellectual diversity is the greatest problem facing higher education.” Her study found 72 percent of college professors identified themselves as liberal, while only 15 percent said they were conservative.
A case can be made that conservative talk radio has flourished because it provides balance in a world full of liberal influence. Talk radio allows listeners to talk back to the New York Times, the mainstream television media and Sean Penn. And radio hosts identify their political ideology right off the bat; there is no attempt to hide under the guise of “unbiased” journalism.
Democrats claim they have no intention of taking conservative radio off the air; they just want to force stations to devote time to the other point of view. The problem with this logic (ignoring for a moment the very blatant potential for abuse, a la the Kennedy administration), is that someone will have to decide what issues need to be rebutted, who can go on the air to rebut them, and for how long and in what format. It’s likely the regulation nightmare and constant complaints will cause stations to refuse to put any commentary on the air that could get them in trouble with the FCC—and that’s exactly what the Fairness Doctrine proponents are hoping for.
What is lost in all this debate is the fact that radio is a free market system.
That’s right, radio stations are businesses. Station owners put on programming that people want to hear.
As a result, they hope to get ratings and, eventually, attract advertising money. You can mandate that a person like Al Franken be put on the radio, but you can’t make people listen to him.
In addition, if Democrats really were concerned with “fair” broadcasting, it would mean that every time Katie Couric (or any “journalist”) makes a pro-Hillary comment or a liberal leaning remark, a conservative would be around to give an alternate point of view. But the Fairness Doctrine would regulate mainly radio; which weakens Democrats’ “fair” argument.
Government control of our airwaves is not reasonable, nor does it have any place in a democracy. We should heed the words of Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), who says listeners should be the driving force of radio: “The best way is to let the judgment of the American people decide, and they can decide with their finger.”
04 BEST
“Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”
Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy Administration
Conservative talk radio has a big bull’s eye on it, and Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Dick Durbin and other Democrats are aiming right for it.
Those politicians are among the people now calling for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which started back in 1928 as a way to press broadcasters to show “due regard for the opinions of others.”
The idea was that, if someone got on the radio and advocated one side of an issue, stations were obligated to air the opposing viewpoint, or risk losing their license. The policy became law in 1959, but the Supreme Court started repealing parts of it in 1984 and it was completely off the books by 1987.
Over the years, Democrats have continually made noise about bringing the doctrine back, but their attempts have always failed. Rumblings started again last summer, and have become so loud that President Bush said in March he would veto a bill to reinstate if it comes across his desk.
Of course, the politics over the fairness doctrine are entirely due to the politics on talk radio. Let’s face it, virtually all successful talk radio leans conservative. Democrats/progressives/liberals who have tried it have almost always failed.
Air America is a high profile example of that, but it’s not the only one. Proponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that the public is only getting one side of the story and is woefully misinformed as a result. One such supporter of that idea, Dianne Feinstein, insists that talk radio listeners are pushed to “extreme views without a lot of information.” That being said, she must also think that talk radio listeners are incapable of independent thought. To think that these same radio listeners actually have listened to both sides and still disagree with Democratic principles must be something incomprehensible to her.
Besides, if we’re going down the “viewer zombie” road, then shouldn’t television shows that glorify murder turn us all into crazed killers? Shouldn’t movies that focus on sex turn our kids into nymphomaniacs? Shouldn’t books that bash the President brainwash the whole country into impeaching him?
Of course not, because people aren’t just empty hard drives onto which others can download whatever viewpoint they want. People have their own brains and make up their own minds—which is exactly why networks like Air America always fail.
Regulating the airwaves may have seemed like a good idea seventy years ago, when people could get their news from only a handful of radio frequencies and Al Gore had not yet invented the internet. But it’s very difficult to make that argument in the year 2008.
In this day and age, you have to try hard not to be smothered by political information. In addition to talk radio, our world consists of network and cable television, thousands of newspapers, satellite radio, and 24/7 blogs on, what else, the internet.
Besides, it’s really easy to make the case that public information is unbalanced if you ignore a couple of important facts:
· Far more journalists are liberal than conservative. A recent report by the Pew Research Center revealed that only seven percent of journalists identify themselves as “conservative,” while 34 percent identify themselves as “liberal.”
· Our universities are overwhelmingly liberal. Anne Neal, President of the American Council of Trustees, says “the lack of intellectual diversity is the greatest problem facing higher education.” Her study found 72 percent of college professors identified themselves as liberal, while only 15 percent said they were conservative.
A case can be made that conservative talk radio has flourished because it provides balance in a world full of liberal influence. Talk radio allows listeners to talk back to the New York Times, the mainstream television media and Sean Penn. And radio hosts identify their political ideology right off the bat; there is no attempt to hide under the guise of “unbiased” journalism.
Democrats claim they have no intention of taking conservative radio off the air; they just want to force stations to devote time to the other point of view. The problem with this logic (ignoring for a moment the very blatant potential for abuse, a la the Kennedy administration), is that someone will have to decide what issues need to be rebutted, who can go on the air to rebut them, and for how long and in what format. It’s likely the regulation nightmare and constant complaints will cause stations to refuse to put any commentary on the air that could get them in trouble with the FCC—and that’s exactly what the Fairness Doctrine proponents are hoping for.
What is lost in all this debate is the fact that radio is a free market system.
That’s right, radio stations are businesses. Station owners put on programming that people want to hear.
As a result, they hope to get ratings and, eventually, attract advertising money. You can mandate that a person like Al Franken be put on the radio, but you can’t make people listen to him.
In addition, if Democrats really were concerned with “fair” broadcasting, it would mean that every time Katie Couric (or any “journalist”) makes a pro-Hillary comment or a liberal leaning remark, a conservative would be around to give an alternate point of view. But the Fairness Doctrine would regulate mainly radio; which weakens Democrats’ “fair” argument.
Government control of our airwaves is not reasonable, nor does it have any place in a democracy. We should heed the words of Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), who says listeners should be the driving force of radio: “The best way is to let the judgment of the American people decide, and they can decide with their finger.”
04 BEST
No comments:
Post a Comment