Posted on 02/20/2021 3:32:22 AM PST by Kaslin
George F. Will once said that without William F. Buckley there would have been no National Review; without National Review, no Goldwater; without Goldwater, no Reagan; and without Reagan, no fall of the Berlin Wall. Ergo, William F. Buckley ushered in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today we might draw a direct line from Rush Limbaugh, to Donald Trump, and from Donald Trump to the remaking of the conservative movement, and from the remaking of the conservative movement to... we’ll have to see.
What will their legacy be? We would like to hope it will include free speech.
Limbaugh credited his rise to the Radio Hall of Fame to Reagan’s repeal of the ironically-named “fairness doctrine.” In his book The Radio Right: How a Band of Broadcasters Took on the Federal Government and Built the Modern Conservative Movement, Paul Matzko documents the sordid history of how this archaic but powerful principle of federal broadcast law was effectively weaponized against free speech and conservative talk radio. Beginning in the Kennedy administration, an FCC (formerly FRC) policy known as the Cullman Doctrine forced radio stations to grant equal time to opposing viewpoints, free of charge if the respondents said they couldn’t pay. This nearly crushed what remained of the “radio right” following the ascent of the big television networks like NBC and CBS (no surprise that most respondents demanding equal time on conservative stations said they couldn’t pay)
Reagan’s repeal of the fairness doctrine, along with the amendment of the Cullman Doctrine, rescued conservative talk radio, and paved the way for a revival of the industry. By the 1990s, Limbaugh found himself at the center of virtually every major AM station lineup. His ratings – in the tens of millions weekly – dwarfed cable news and achieved a less visible but far more widespread influence over the discourse than print and TV combined.
Now, having enjoyed decades of talk radio commercial success, conservatives are again in danger of forgetting the lesson of the vulnerability of free speech in the media. This experience from the second half of the 20th century shows us that the government should not bring back any “fairness doctrine” type regulation to social or any other media. Until Reagan, Kennedy and the presidents who followed were able to use this pernicious doctrine to silence the voices of their political opponents in the name of the public interest. Informed voters should be alert enough to inquire as to which segment of the “public” the government has in mind.
Today, social media censorship presents a challenge to conservatives. The temptation for the likes of Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, is to propose neo-fairness doctrine regulations to prevent Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms from silencing conservative dissent. Facebook and Twitter are private actors – much like the silenced radio stations of the 1960s – and as such, they may permit or deny anyone they choose access to their property. That is the very meaning of “ property rights”
Historians such as Matzko acknowledge that Kennedy’s suppression of conservative voices was effective. Thanks to the muzzling of his strongest critics JFK’s popularity didn’t suffer in the aftermath of several embarrassing scandals and unpopular positions, since they were under-reported by the TV and print media.
Unlike Trump, who threatened but did not attack social media, Kennedy employed tax audits and “enhanced regulatory scrutiny” to effectively silence his enemies. He went so far as to secretly fund front groups that exploited the fairness doctrine to the detriment of conservative media. These actions, among others, led Matzko to write that “John F. Kennedy Did What Donald Trump Only Wishes He Could Do.”
While Trump’s restraint in not bringing antitrust suits or using other measures against Big Tech may have contributed to his loss in 2020, it did preserve the free-speech which is the essence of the internet. Social media is, at least for now, free to air whatever viewpoints they choose, and dissenters are free to create their own competing platforms, or of course continue to take advantage of the always-reliable AM broadcasting.
Most importantly, the precedent of regulating “fairness” in the media has not been re-established for the new Biden administration to wield against conservatives in their last remaining bastions of talk radio and the internet. Had social media companies been forced to rebrand themselves as “publishers” rather than “platforms” under Section 230, the crackdown on conservative and other dissenting ideas would have likely gotten worse. It is worth noting that the day after Limbaugh’s passing, eight of the top-performing links on Facebook were from right-of-center publications – no doubt spurred on by the outpouring of condolences and memorials for the late radio giant.
Talk radio remains free because of President Reagan’s repeal of the fairness doctrine. Perhaps historians will include in Trump’s legacy the refusal to enforce a 21st-century equivalent of the fairness doctrine on the internet. And so we might update George Will’s mantra to read: No Rush, no Trump; no Trump, no free Internet. Let us hope so.
A thought-provoking article.
I was into Ham radio and shortwave when I was a kid, trying to get back into it. There’s very cheap software defined radios you hook into USB now, I’m talking $25. The standalones are near $1k still.
Sadly there’s almost nothing on Shortwave in central USA besides some pretty out there religious broadcasting and Radio Habana Cuba heh.
Talk radio could always focus on people listening while they worked, while “talk television” mostly dealt with people who don’t work. The chasm between those two groups has never been wider; they have absolutely 0 in common.
If Fairness Doctrine came back you could have the following scenario: a 50,000 watt NPR station runs three hours of progressive talk. By law they then would have to put three hours of conservative talk on. Somehow, the libs would find a way around it.
Once, NPR’s morning show did occasional 7 minute long profiles of conservative figures. Hey we’re at least showing some
balance...for seven minutes.
Listeners protested.After donating money to NPR they want to have to listen to something about a conservative (that might
not be biased?). The feature was dropped.
Providence RI: Clear Channel, now known as iHeart, puts progressive talk on WHJJ.
Ratings plummeted. “The progressive talk experiment is over”, they said, and replaced the hosts with conservative ones.
AM 1200 in Boston area, same thing. Former Air America outlet soon started running
Rush, Hannity, Levin.
For a guy so hated and loathed by the left, Rush sure is dominating “Black History Month!” I think he would enjoy that.
The most worthwhile books are those without pictures. Perhaps, when done well, the most worthwhile broadcasts are those without pictures.
If Fairness Doctrine came back you could have the following scenario: a 50,000 watt NPR station runs three hours of progressive talk. By law they then would have to put three hours of conservative talk on. Somehow, the libs would find a way around it.
Once, NPR’s morning show did occasional 7 minute long profiles of conservative figures. Hey we’re at least showing some
balance...for seven minutes.
Listeners protested.After donating money to NPR they want to have to listen to something about a conservative (that might
not be biased?). The feature was dropped.
Providence RI: Clear Channel, now known as iHeart, puts progressive talk on WHJJ.
Ratings plummeted. “The progressive talk experiment is over”, they said, and replaced the hosts with conservative ones.
AM 1200 in Boston area, same thing. Former Air America outlet soon started running
Rush, Hannity, Levin.
“The chasm between those two groups has never been wider; they have absolutely 0 in common.”
Especially when the television watchers regale each other with stories about how much better/smarter/more important they act as if they are.
Well, that probably goes both ways - though I suspect those actually listening to the radio while working are on average better/smarter/more important than those who sit home watching daytime television all week. From a productivity/taxpaying standpoint, they definitely are “more important”...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.