Posted on 01/31/2007 6:37:00 AM PST by rface
I'm not out to hush Rush Limbaugh, put a lid on G. Gordon Liddy, shut down Sean Hannity or ravage Michael Savage. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the dissemination of right-wing opinion on the public airwaves. This is, after all, America.
I do have a problem when all this conservative talk is not even remotely balanced by voices from the left. (Quick, name one prominent, nationally-syndicated liberal radio host.)
Due to the near total absence of the viewpoint of the left from the public airwaves, I think it's high time to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. It's a policy that was adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949 that had as its centerpiece the requirement that stations air contrasting points of view on controversial news issues.
The policy was grounded in the fact that the public owned the airwaves, not the companies given license to operate them. Companies awarded licenses were once considered to be public trustees and mandated to offer fair and balanced broadcasts.
Millions of citizens can be reached via TV and radio, and the airwaves are an essential, and scarce, resource for the kind of basic information that's necessary and vital to maintain an informed citizenry and a functioning democracy.
The Fairness Doctrine was done away with in 1987 and the effects can be seen and heard everyday by those Americans searching for voices from the American left.
More often than not, it's the sound of silence.
Maybe the biggest misconception concerning the Fairness Doctrine is the inaccurate notion that it would require shows to be internally balanced or that opposing viewpoints would have to break down along 50/50 lines. Nothing of the sort. Steve Rendall, writing for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in 2005, put it well when he wrote: "The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views."
Sadly, in many large American markets, the only perspectives presented on both TV and radio are from the right or the hard right. It's difficult to spot a labor leader, an environmental activist or an anti-war/peace advocate.
You probably think liberals get poor ratings. Not true. The most egregious example of a prominent liberal getting yanked off the airwaves was when MSNBC cable TV channel canceled Phil Donahue despite his having the highest ratings in his time slot. This occurred in the run-up to the war in Iraq. FAIR Founder Jeff Cohen cited a study commissioned by NBC warning that "the Donahue show could be a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
Low ratings?
Louis Slaughter, D-N.Y., has a resolution before Congress to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, wants to hold hearings to help reinstate it.
And really, it's not about left and right. It's about what's right and wrong for this country.
Getting only one side of any issue day-in, day-out is a raw deal for the republic.
Gene Racz covers Middlesex County and is co-author of "Bury My Heart at Cooperstown" (Triumph, 2006). He can be reached at (732) 565-7306 or gracz@thnt.com.
will it also apply to television and newspapers? not a chance!!!! so, please tell me what is fair about it?
That's the deal, they don't see the liberal bias in all of the other media sources - they're like fish saying "what water?".
There is absolutely NO WAY "fairness" will be imposed on the left leaning media.
Trying to justify "hushing el-Rushbo".
NOT, It is about what YOU, Gene and the rest of your lib pals, think is right and wrong for this country. D@#$%& socialists.
This is garbage. There was a liberal talk show, Air America. It tanked because people wouldn't listen to it and they failed to pay their bills. The whole Fairness Doctrine is just the left's way of trying to shut up the people.
Al Franken? Janeanne Garafolo?
The market isn't interested, so another liberal wants to tilt the playing field...
"And really, it's not about left and right. It's about what's right and wrong for this country." ..............NOT TRUE, it all comes down to $$$$$$$. Commercial radio is just that. If the program sells the sponsors pay big bucks for advertisement. If the show bombs, they lose sponsors. If a station has to rely on G. Soros for funds, it obviously bombed. Put more alternate view stations on the wavebands and let them run on their own merits. Why do people listen to Rush et.al.? They are sick of the MSM, and they do their own research.
The free market is what right for this country- not some political committee choosing our radio shows.
Any liberals who can sell their format to advertisers can entice network execs to put them on the air. But the public doesnt want to hear it. All that Bush bashing (the epitome of liberal issues) is stale as last night's coffee. Look at the failure of "Air America". Look at the failure of Phil Donahue.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/donahue.ap/index.html
So Gene Racz believes that because people tune out rabid liberals on the air waves, the government must come in with its intellectual affirmative action and force stations to have programming that will lose money. And if you want to know about ratings, how about Err AMerika, that liberal flagship that is really just a rubber inner tube floating in a fetid swamp. That's a ratings grabber.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Funny isn't it? It wasn't a Republican Congress that pulled Phil's program but rather the ultra-liberal broadcaster MSNBC. Why was it pulled? The free market won't put up with Communist pieces of crap overtly slamming our military. The American advertisers won't put up with a loudmouthed chump like Donahue using the public's airways to spew anti-American hatred on American TV, or Radio for that matter, and the network would end up suffering a sever loss of revenue.
Let them put out their "fairness doctrine" but prevent them from using our tax dollars to subsidize the networks once their advertising sales tank.
Jeff Cohen of FAIR says that NPR is "conservative".
Really, heard it with my own eyes.
Ed Schultz, Alan Colmes, Amy Goodman. I don't know why people say none exist.
Of course, exceptions were made for PBS, MSNBCBS, ABC and every other leftwing news channel because they are supposedly broadcasing news, not opinion.
Could it be nobody wants to listen to liberal sh*t on the radio? Just MAYBE?
They already do. They typically get people who are a silly parody of a conservative and put them on the air outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1. They do it just to make conservatives look bad. But then again, Rush could have lots of seminar callers for the 'left' viewpoint and he can tear them to shreds.
Stuart Smalley...er...I mean, Al Franken.
How about Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Jeanine Garafalo, Pete Wilson, Mario Cuomo etc. Too bad they are unable draw an audience or else they would be easy for even you to name Gene.
Right. Who decides? Rats decide.
Lying b@$t@$rd.
The Right doesn't have lock on talk radios for political reasons. They have a lock on it 'cause they can sell advertising. If a Left Wing talker can sell advertising, stations will rush to carry him.
Problem is, lefties are dialed into music or NPR. They don't need Lefty talkers.
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.