As Democrats begin to feel their oats, with control of all three branches of government, there has been a renewed interest in what liberals smartly call, the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine seeks to insure that the media allots equal time to both liberal and conservative viewpoints.
That sounds innocent enough on the surface but a cursory look under the surface reveals a twisted and tangled web of deceit and chicanery.
First of all, the Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair.
Is it fair to tell you what you must listen to or see? Is it fair to dictate what a private company sells outside of illegal trade?
Well the so called Fairness Doctrine does just that. It tells privately owned media outlets what they must air. So if you are a liberal themed radio network, now you must change your format and become both a liberal and conservative network.
Attempts to reinstitute any type of Fairness Doctrine are attempts to undermine free speech, the free market and freedom of choice.
Liberal calls for a new Fairness Doctrine stem from a fear that conservative talk shows dominate the airwaves and over the years, they have become a thorn in the sides of liberal advocates. So much so that left leaning activists have tried and failed at creating their own liberal talk show ventures.
One such progressive station recently closed on February 5th. It was an AM station located at 1260 on the dial and called Obama 1260. One of the most recent big liberal ventures was Air America. That went over so well that it went bankrupt in 2006.
Yet it seems that every day there is a new conservative oriented radio or television program cropping up. Be it Glenn Beck on t.v. or Mark Levine on WABC am radio, conservative hosts are increasing in popularity. They are getting more time on the air, more listeners and more money. Rush Limbaugh recently signed on to a decades long contract which made him one of radio’s richest hosts in history.
Why is that? Is it because the liberal oriented media moguls like these guys, or is it because they like the money that these guys bring in for them? Do they give these conservative hosts more time because their ratings are slipping or do they give them more time because when these hosts articulate the conservative cause, ratings go up?
The truth is that there are more people in America yearning for a comprehensive, logical, conservative oriented approach to government. Such an approach is not what they always see from their so-called political leaders. Voters are often disappointed by their political leaders who cave in on any number of political issues or votes. Yet conservative talking heads are able to remain consistent in their views without having to bend to political compromise. So more often than not, conservative hosts are even more popular than some conservative legislators.
This popularity irks the left. They are frustrated by an articulation of conservative ideas that people listen to and want to listen to without having any desire to hear Al Franken, Randi Rhodes or Rachel “madcow’ Madow on Air America.
It is the free market which leads to the preponderance of conservative viewpoints that exists. It is driven by what is popular. Like any other commodity, radio and television is geared to what the people like. Would Milton Bradley keep on producing Monopoly if it didn’t sell? Would it be right for the government to come in and demand that Milton Bradley continue to make it if no one wanted to buy it?
Unless the government intends to confiscate the airwaves and all other forms of media, they have no constitutional right to control programming that does not violate the bounds of legal decency and ethics.
In the former Soviet Union the Fairness Doctrine had a different name. It was called Pravda. It was an official state sponsored radio and television agency which aired only what was approved or written by the government. It was an effective way to help maintain thinking in line with the way that the communists wanted the people to think.
If a Soviet Premier suddenly had a heart attack while having sex with a mistress, no one would ever know. In fact it could be weeks before the government decided to let anyone know that their leader was dead.
For communist Russians, it worked. But this is America. And in America, whether you call it fair or equal or anything else you might, it is not right. It is government control.
Government control seems to be the trend during this era of “spreading the wealth” but just how much government control do we want and where does the Fairness Doctrine draw the line?
Does the Fairness Doctrine eventually apply to the internet? Perhaps it will someday limit u4prez to only a certain amount of conservative and liberal comments . Maybe u4prez can only be online at times of parody between Republican and Democrat membership.
Will the Fairness Doctrine be strictly enforced in schools where every good word said about President Barack Obama is required to be followed by a good word about the Republican Senate Minority leader?
How far do we go?
I do know one thing for sure and that is that whenever government encroaches into new territory, they keep on going. When government creates a new tax that they promise to keep at a certain rate, they inevitably increase it.
When government regulates something, they rarely, if ever stop there. They regulate it more and more.
The saddest part of this whole discussion stems from the fact that the Fairness Doctrine is no where near being a sincere minded effort. It is a politically driven, partisan attempt to make censorship legal. It is an attempt to censor a free market society by the same people who try to claim that conservatives ban and burn books.
It is just another example of liberal hypocrisy.
But to add insult to injury let us look at liberal Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow.
Stabenow recently stated that she has begun the push for the Fairness Doctrine and feels that hearings on the matter are in the works.
That is interesting. Particularly in Stabenow’s case.
You see, you wouldn’t know it but Debbie Stabenow is also Mrs. Tom Athans.
Tom Athans is her husband and he is a radio executive. A failed one but one who is still struggling to make his mark in liberal radio.
Athans is the co-founder of Democracy Radio and after failing as Vice President of Air America he founded another liberal talk show network called TalkUSA Radio.
For the sake of full disclosure I will add that, last year, Tom Athans was also arrested for hiring a prostitute for $150 bucks but that had nothing to do with Stabenow. However; for the the same sake of full disclosure, will Senator Stabenow disqualify herself from participating in measures that would in essence force demand for her husbands networks on to national airwaves and produce a great deal of personal wealth and benefit for the Athans-Stabenow family if those measures are approved?
Does anyone else not see the conflict of interest in Stabenow’s rush to push for the so called Fairness Doctrine?
Stabenow’s push to censor conservative talk shows and to call it a Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair or decent. It is censorship and in her case it is also an obvious conflict of interest.
Just as the infidelity of Stabenow’s husband is none of my business neither is radio or television any of Stabenow's governmental business.
When I watch the Obama network, otherwise known as NBC or MSNBC, I do not believe that the government needs to intervene and needs to control their programming, I just do what most Americans do. I turn off MSNBC.
The same can be done with Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity or any other host or program that someone does not wish to see.
It just so happens that when it comes to liberal radio, few have been able to make a good case for liberalism. Hence the failure of Stabenow’s husband's liberal programming career. It is a result of the free market. It is a victim of supply and demand. There is very little demand for a great deal of liberal propaganda so there is a limited supply of it coming from a market that is based on profit.
The funniest aspect to this whole hypocritical legislative initiative is that there are few people who will argue with the fact that most of the media already has a liberal bias. Even Hillary Clinton had a hard time containing her disdain for a liberal media that turned on her in favor of an even more liberal Barack Obama. Yet that is not good enough for greedy liberals like Stabenow.
Liberals like Stabenow want to stifle speech and profit from it too.
|
|
| |
|
|
I mostly meant T.V. anyway,but you're right.
Fair enough DK,but the same theory should also be applied to television and newspaper media,not just radio
The fairness doctrine is not going to happen at all. get over it. What should be happening is the FEC is should not be giving whole markets to just 1 company via licenising. Thats your problem dk08. That is what you need to fix is the FEC.
Look, I'm all for free expression. The point is that news reporters should report the news and not go on rants about either their personal views or more likely the views of the CEO of the corporation that owns them. That's why I support the Fairness Doctrine, It insures that ALL points of view are heard, not just corporate shit.
Look, I'm all for free expression. The point is that news reporters should report the news and not go on rants about either their personal views or more likely the views of the CEO of the corporation that owns them. That's why I support the Fairness Doctrine, It insures that ALL points of view are heard, not just corporate shit.
Look, I'm all for free expression. The point is that news reporters should report the news and not go on rants about either their personal views or more likely the views of the CEO of the corporation that owns them. That's why I support the Fairness Doctrine, It insures that ALL points of view are heard, not just corporate shit.
Look, I'm all for free expression. The point is that news reporters should report the news and not go on rants about either their personal views or more likely the views of the CEO of the corporation that owns them. That's why I support the Fairness Doctrine, It insures that ALL points of view are heard, not just corporate shit.
Its not going to happen at all. The Obama admin stated yesterday they would not sign such a law. Get over it.
If the Fairness Doctrine really is fair,shouldn`t the same rule apply to television and newspaper media?
Erock they used to have a show with both Sean Hannity AND Alan Colmes,with Coulter and Bob Beckel as commentators on said channel,seems pretty fair and balanced to me.
O booo Fucking whoooooo david. Fox News has Sean Hannity and every time he says Fair and Balanced I want to puke. I like CNN as reporting goes they have Lou Dobbs who is a good guy along with some others.
Pro,CNN is a bs news channel.They have Wolf Blitzer
Arjay listen I agree with you i can't stand fox news and they alot of rediculas things but i choose not to watch the bs news channle and watch cnn. Maybe someday it will change but for now theres not much you can do about it
There's a problem with that simple answer, Pro. When a network calls itself a news network, it's no longer like every other station. It has standards to live up to. Putting the word NEWS on the name means it has the obligation to bring the news, not a whole lot of rightwing commentary, not making "mistakes" like calling Obama Osama. It's like labeling a product SUGAR, you go home, pour some of it into your coffee because you think it's sugar, next thing you know, you're in the ER getting your stomach pumped, because that sugar was really rat poison. And yes, I am comparing Fox to rat poison. News organizations have an obligation of journalistic integrity, they are not entertainment for ratings' sake, and commentary should be clearly labeled as commentary.
Look I agree that fox news is not that great i dont even watch it i prefer msnbc,nbc and cnn news myself. But theres an easy answer CHANGE THE CHANNEL
What Fox News is doing has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine and everything to do with the FCC. Perhaps without a Bush crony heading it (was Michael Powell in charge of it the whole eight years?), a network claiming to be a news organization will be held to some level of journalistic integrity. CNN had the right idea, while everyone over the last decade has been griping about Fox's rightwing propoganda and MSNBC's alleged lean to the left with Olbermann and Maddow, CNN just stayed the course, didn't play too much to the pressure the Right was placing on them and being labeled the "liberal media", whatever that is. CNN has proven themselves over time, and that's why they're still solidly the #1 cable news source. The Republican bellyaching about the Fairness Doctrine is a non-issue, and the selling of propoganda is something within the realm of the FCC.
DK, I'm sorry... but excessive accusations of media bias is the argument of choice for those without a leg to stand on.
dk your political views are the ones full of facism
dk your political views are the ones full of facism
dk your political views are the ones full of facism
i agree with dk08 we need to put the fairness doctrine on idiots like dk lol. Dk its simply unconstitutional, idiots free expression is what makes this country great, it gives us perspective lol
damm I hate double posts .
damm I hate double posts .
Hawk, don't be mad because you can't contend with me in a debate.
The Fairness Doctrine does need to be reinstated though. The corporate news media is a joke made up of Fox Noise and countless Fox Noise wannabees. We need more points of view than just conservative and fascist.
The Fairness Doctrine does need to be reinstated though. The corporate news media is a joke made up of Fox Noise and countless Fox Noise wannabees. We need more points of view than just conservative and fascist.
The Fairness Doctrine does need to be reinstated though. The corporate news media is a joke made up of Fox Noise and countless Fox Noise wannabees. We need more points of view than just conservative and fascist.
And just for the record, Imagine is no typical liberal. He is an extraordinary democratic socialist.
Erock, except for one or two congressmen, no one wants the Fairness Doctrine. No member of the so-called liberal media wants it, no leftwing radio host wants it, no station manager or owner wants it. I think it's a non-issue, blown out of proportion by Republicans looking for another way to bag on the left, even if they have to make something out of nothing.
It is clear that you ave tolerence for people who think like you do and noone else.Typical liberal
keep posting imagine.... you make it clear who you are.... a punk
No one fears Rush. He's a fat old drug addict that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. The only people that fear him are conservatives.
Gusse what.... Obama is opposed to the fairness Doctrine:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2
009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
Fear is not the word I would describe my feelings about Rush. I don't know about you, Hawk, but if a lawyer were able to go against public opinion and successfully defend my privacy concerning my medical records, I would thank him and go a little easy on where the cat works. But that's just me, I like to thank people who give me a hand and help me out of touchy situations. I'm sure you're the same way. Rush, though...
He may be an ingrate in your eyes but ..... Number one on the radio! I guess that is why so many of you fear him.
As to Rush, he is an ingrate. The ACLU defended his right to keep his medical records private, thereby debunking the idea that they only defend liberals, and he still has them on his regular attack list.
Oh, Friday is. Oops.
Who's comparing NPR with Air America, Wiz?
"You are mistaking Republican policies for Darwinism. We don't avoid socialism because we think only the fit should survive, we avoid socialism because we believe that every single able human is not only fit to survive, but is good and kind and will also not let the non-able just die. We don't believe that fit humans will survive while non-fit will become instinct and we will become some sort of uber-mensch, that is nazi-ism. Hmm, kinda like advocating abortions for down syndrome babies... We believe that unless you are disabled, that you are fit to survive and thrive if given the opportunity. That is why Republicans advocate opportunity over equality of circumstances." If you're not a Republican apologist, Friday, what's this WE stuff?
Come on now Arjay, you don't know me. I've had the Beebop-a-reebop rubarb pie. I grew up on Prarie Home Companion. Also, I stay up for Allo' Allo' and Are You Being Served whenever possible. But when's the last time Rush was required to thank the government and the corporation for public broadcasting for keeping his show running? Anyway, off to bed. Seriously.
Don't compare NPR to air america. I even listen to NPR.
Friday is obviously someone who has never partaken an evening with Garrison Keillor and A Prairie Home Companion. Were he, he would know that every so often, NPR stations have to do fund raising drives, because the majority of all funding of public radio does not come from the government, not from corporate grants, but from (say it with me) LISTENERS LIKE YOU. Sounds to me like public radio and television is just as democratic, if not more so, than the alternatives.
Personally, I think we should try the fairness doctrine with the media resources that currently are completely exclusive to one side of the aisle and see how it works. So how about it, conservatism on NPR, public television and the evening network news? Yeah right.
Think so? Has anyone on this thread yet said, Good job Kempite, well written? I can pick three articles you've written, Wiz, that are better than this kind of regurgitation of Republican talking points. Stabenow assisted in running Air America into bankruptcy, I question her credibility. If she is pushing the Fairness Doctrine, she is doing so in error.
Why comment on these blogs anyway. Kempite tosses the hand grenade into the ring and we run with it. Its only going to get him 1000 bucks.
No Debbie Stabenow.
Who said it's not succeeding, Wiz? Bill O'Reilly? Kempite?
I'm sure you can think of more than one bastion of liberalism in America. Do you really think San Francisco is the Mecca all liberals face when they pray?
If liberal radio coudln't succeed in the Bush years, its not going to succeed in the Obama years. Nothing to complain about now.
Hmmmm doing well in San Francisco.... umm sorry but I am now laughing in the library lol
Air America had a bad business plan and continues to make bad business decisions, like last year, suspending Randi Rhodes for comments she made concerning Hillary Clinton in a stand-up routine on a stage in San Francisco. Instead of defending her like Limbaugh's parent network defends him, they threw her under the bus. She quit and went to work with Nova M. I'm not a fan of Air America as a business at all. You can have a good product and still fail as a business if you don't know what you're doing. But I do listen to Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, and Ron Reagan on the Nova M affiliate here in Phoenix, and when the Van Allen waves are particularly strong, I listen to Ray Taliaferro on KGO in San Francisco. I think it's a false arrogance to say liberal radio cannot compete, because in given markets, liberals are not only competitive, they're kicking arse!
Air America had a bad business plan and continues to make bad business decisions, like last year, suspending Randi Rhodes for comments she made concerning Hillary Clinton in a stand-up routine on a stage in San Francisco. Instead of defending her like Limbaugh's parent network defends him, they threw her under the bus. She quit and went to work with Nova M. I'm not a fan of Air America as a business at all. You can have a good product and still fail as a business if you don't know what you're doing. But I do listen to Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, and Ron Reagan on the Nova M affiliate here in Phoenix, and when the Van Allen waves are particularly strong, I listen to Ray Taliaferro on KGO in San Francisco. I think it's a false arrogance to say liberal radio cannot compete, because in given markets, liberals are not only competitive, they're kicking arse!
I think Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly should do a show together.
It's hard to be entertaining when hosting a political show. This is true regardless of the political bent of a given show.
having said I dont worry about the fairness doctrine it would be struck down rather quickly and this is just something people like kemp and Hannity talk about instead of real issues.
O come on if Air America had been worth listening to heck it would still around. But not even liberals I knew in Colleg would listen to it. Why? It was a crappy show.
No I don't understand. If bussiness is in the bussiness of radio its there only way to promote themselves through the limited use of the bandwidth they are allowed by the government. To suggest their are not enough "progressives" promoting the government? Is that a crime. What is being suggested is government subsidized radio should be allowed to compete without the free market(advertising) to keep them in bussiness. Free radio is free because of advertising and the free bussiness of it. There is no solution to your problem. As for the complaint of coverage, its still holds no weight. The bandwidth and frequencys are there for the taking.
I don't hate Rush Limbaugh at all. There are times when I think he's funny. I don't listen to him all the time, but small doses, especially when he's full of himself, can be entertaining. When he starts badgering liberals and exonerating Republicans, I tune him out, much like I tune Kempite out, because that's not honest. I don't think his show is factually accurate, I don't listen to him to learn about what's going on in the world, and a lot of what he says is for effect alone. But there is an entertaining aspect about his blowhard shtick, something the rest of the conservative world just doesn't have. Again, the problem is not the content of his show. The problem is having him on several stations within a given market. It's collusion. It's a dishonest business practice. Like I said, head to head, there are several progressives who beat him regularly, and none of then want or need the Fairness Doctrine. What they desire is fair business practices, not equal time.
I can see that you hate Rush Limbaugh. Hopefully you do not think that his rise to power is some sort of propaganda mechanism to the like of Goebbels. People listen to Rush, because he has a good radio show. The guy hardly works most of the time. He is on for a week then goes on vacation to give other conservatives a chance during his small time slot. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
And Maditude raises an interesting point, this polarization, the idea that there are only two valid political strains of thought. As a socialist, I don't buy what the Democrats have to sell, and I'm sure there are a lot of Libertarians who feel the same way about Republican talking heads. I've always believed Libertarians offer the best of both the left and right worlds. And we socialists want to destroy the US from within and set up a proletariat regime bent on penalizing the bourgoisie for two centuries of shackling the working citizens of the world to their godless machines and selling their blood and sweat to the highest bidder, one drop at a time, right?
Howard Stern was also harassed by the FCC constantly and eventually realized the ridiculousness of it, so he went to PRIVATE SATELLITE RADIO, where he could tell all the fart jokes he wanted. I don't think Howard Stern ever was on 600 stations at any given time, I doubt he was ever on a third that many. Considering the kinds of fines the on-air talent, the network, and the stations had to pay concerning FCC violations, Stern was a risk a whole lot of stations simply couldn't take. Stern was popular, but I doubt there was ever the kind of saturation at the height of his prowess on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES than Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity currently enjoy.
Howard Stern was syndicated and made more money than Rush when he was on terrestrial radio. Are you suggesting that the competition for farts jokes and smut was oversaturated?
Syndication is a means of offering a radio show in the band so that it can be heard. Non the less in Clevelands market. Rush can be heard on two stations at the same time. Two frequencys. That is not a monopoly. There is plenty of dead air in between those frequencys. I don't see that as oversaturation of a market. You complain because Rush makes boatloads of dough in a market that used to make pennies on the dollar through advertising. If advertisers want to pay premium on the Rush show, thats their perogative. That does not however justify market manipulation, because the Democrats hate Rush.
That should be evidence to you that progressive radio is indeed profitable, why on earth would ClearChannel have them if they weren't? ClearChannel owns many stations here in Phoenix, with every format you can think of. Rightwing, sports, Christian, music, AM and FM, they're all over the board. I know, elsewhere, they own a few progressive stations. Something else I know is, Rush Limbaugh is on 600 stations in North America, and you can't have that happen unless you have several stations carrying him at the same time. Now, who benefits from this? The network carrying Limbaugh certainly does. Limbaugh gets like $20 million a year for what he does. How can it benefit the stations? If he's on three stations in a given market at the same time, the stations would cannibalize one another. Ratings-wise, his competition whips his arse in a station-to-station comparison. Collectively, though, Limbaugh dominates, even though the stations themselves lose in the ratings. This can only work if you have one company owning all those stations, and by doing do, they are dominating the PUBLIC AIRWAVES. It would be like putting a WalMart on three of the four corners on a street intersection, each would lose money in relative terms because they would each be seeking the same customers, but collectively, they would wipe out the Mom and Pop store on the fourth corner, even if that store could outsell one of the WalMarts. It's a competition killer. It's a monopoly. Considering talk radio is a medium requiring use of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, it is plain to see they should be regulated to prevent monopolistic practices. Hence, this is not a matter of equality within every station, it's a matter of ownership of the stations.
There are progressive radio show on clear channel if thats what you are mentioning. Even on the local level. Whatever, its nonsense to even suggest that the radio airwaves have to be split up when clearchannel is only using two friggin frequencys on the AM band.
If you listen to progressive radio, there is not a single on-air personality who wants the Fairness Doctrine re-instated. This is not an issue of content, as the hack who wrote this wants you to believe. It's a matter of monopolization of the media by a small handful of corporations. When you have a single entity holding several TV and radio stations and a newspaper in one market, that entity has power over access to information. This is something for the Sherman Antitrust Act, not the Fairness Doctrine.
Network News has a liberal slant, talk shows have a conservative slant. Neither have a libertarian or a socialist view. The fairness doctrine doesn't cover this omission.
I don't understand how anyone can legislate content. How about a simple solution. Make the words "liberal" and "neocon" one of the seven dirty words you can't say on the radio.
Another strawman argument by the biggest scarecrow here. Hawk and I talked about this like adults a few weeks ago. Comparing anything to the old Soviet Union is a lot like that rule in Internet debating, the first one to call the other a Nazi loses the debate. Once again, keep your partisan attacks on the party level, hack.
|
<< Home