The unfairness of a Fairness Doctrine ( In the L.A.Times no less... )

Los Angeles Times ^ | March 3, 2009 | Brian C. Anderson

[kellynla]

That the Democrats are keen to crack down on conservative talk radio -- crack down on free speech they don't like, that is -- is now impossible to deny.

Two approaches are being contemplated. The one getting the most attention involves creating a new Fairness Doctrine. The old doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission regulation, codified in the late 1940s, that required radio and television broadcasters to provide airtime to opposing viewpoints and to cover issues of concern to their communities. The FCC, encouraged by the Reagan administration, junked the doctrine 22 years ago, rightly recognizing that the rule wasn't so much mandating fairness as imposing a government-backed curb on free expression.

But now, leading Democrats have been openly urging its resuscitation. Though the new doctrine would apply to broadcast television as well, the Democrats' real target is AM radio, where opinion is open and vociferous and where right-of-center talk shows dominate ratings -- the one medium in which conservatives and libertarians have an advantage.

[kellynla]

Brian C. Anderson is the editor of City Journal and the coauthor, with Adam Thierer, of "A Manifesto for Media Freedom."

[Da Coyote]

Shazbat! Logic from the LAT. Amazing.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The radio business has changed drastically in the past 20 years. Many AMs will simply sign off without the talk format.

[kellynla]

“By what right does the government tell listeners what they can or can't listen to when it comes to political speech?”

Who says “Communism is dead!”

[kellynla]

“Logic from the LAT?”

Check out the author.
This DID NOT come from the LAT but give them credit, they did publish it on the op-ed page.

[Right Cal Gal]

I rememer when the so-called “fairness” doctrine was in place. I remember TV stations giving editorials either in the space between programs or at the end of a news broadcast. At the end they always said “Channel X is happy to provide time to express opposing viewpoints. Please contact.....” And I often heard the opposing viewpoints. That made sense.

To force broadcasters to give up conservative talk radio, which produces revenue, to liberal talk radio, which produces NONE, is interference with trade. I’m thinking an enterprising lawyer (paging Mark Levin!) will be able to craft a great lawsuit and take it as high as it will go.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "To force broadcasters to give up conservative talk radio, which produces revenue, to liberal talk radio, which produces NONE, is interference with trade."

Yes, that's the plan: subprime radio.

The Rat Party (formerly the traditional, patriotic Democratic Party) has rebuked efforts to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine."

Instead they favor subprime radio.

[KarlInOhio]

At the end they always said “Channel X is happy to provide time to express opposing viewpoints. Please contact.....” And I often heard the opposing viewpoints. That made sense.

Philosophically I am opposed to the government telling what opinions a radio or television station can have or whether they have to allow opposing opinions on the air. I would be willing to give a few minutes here and there or even a half hour on Sunday morning normally filled with vitamin advertisements or the local chiropractor telling why vaccinations are bad and just have an radio "op ed" page if that made the issue go away.

However our enemies won't be satisfied with that. They will want a minute for minute match, so three hours of Rush will be balanced with three hours of Air America. Also, they are already setting up their army of complainers. Any time a right wing radio host says something controversial they will be mailing in demanding a response. They will try to chew up the limited time and budget the station has with petty complaints and will back up their complaints with (ACORN?) lawyers to have court fights to try to keep their licenses. They want radio stations to just give up on political talk and go back to gardening shows or brain dead "humor" shows.

[NoMarxist2010]

Shazbat! Logic from the LAT. Amazing.

I was thinking the same thing...

[jeffc]

Also printed in the same issue of the LAT:

"Tonight's hockey game will be brought to you live from Hell, where they have just opened their new ice arena."

[kellynla]

the LAT also published Jonah Goldberg's piece on the media's criticism of Rush Limbaugh( I posted that piece too)...hell is truly freezing over. LOL

[STARWISE]

The potential Fairness czar?

Obama to Tap Tech Adviser as FCC Chief

President-elect Barack Obama intends to nominate his technology adviser, Julius Genachowski, to head the Federal Communications Commission, a Democratic source close to the Obama transition team said.

Mr. Genachowski, 46 years old, is a former Harvard Law School classmate of Mr. Obama. He previously worked at the FCC during the Clinton administration. More recently, he co-founded LaunchBox Digital, a Washington, D.C.-based venture capital firm. He worked at Barry Diller's IAC/InterActive Corp. in various executive positions for eight years after leaving the FCC.

*snip*

During the campaign, Mr. Genachowski served as the top technology adviser to Mr. Obama, putting together a detailed technology and innovation plan that expressed support for open Internet or "net neutrality" protections; media-ownership rules that encourage more diversity; and expansion of affordable broadband access across the country.

An early supporter of the president-elect, Mr. Genachowski also served as a bundler for the campaign, raising more than $500,000 in donations.

[April Lexington]

This is the FIRST time a Harvard Law School classmate of Obama’s appears. Interesting. Nobody else has surfaced.

[STARWISE]

“Mr. Genachowski, 46, was a major fund-raiser for the Obama campaign who also played a leading role in the campaign’s highly successful online strategy. He remains very close to Mr. Obama—both men went to Columbia College and Harvard Law School and the two served together on the Harvard Law Review.”

http://technorati.com/posts/hO8WV7qznnr_InllyrK3lsI0oM_884UtGi2_r9UHlmw%3D

[April Lexington]

highly successful online strategy.

You mean the one where they accept illegal foreign donations?

[STARWISE]

Hmmm .. might be that little credit card voucher default thingie ... ;)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

To force broadcasters to give up conservative talk radio, which produces revenue, to liberal talk radio, which produces NONE, is interference with trade.

. . . to which the logical response, with the stock market trading at 1997 levels, is to ask,

"Why do you desire to undermine the commerce of the sponsors of radio?"

That is no way to promote the general welfare!

[lilylangtree]

“He previously worked at the FCC during the Clinton administration.”

another clintoonian regurgitation.

[Candor7]

Put me on your conservative wanted list, and file it with Ram Manual, Mr. Gynachowski. I believe your name was Goebbels in a former life.

1st amendment , Meh! We don't need it, we know whats right for EVERYONE!