Posted on 07/11/2007 3:52:16 PM PDT by RWR8189
Liberals are hailing a report that calls for federal regulations to end the "structural imbalance in political talk radio." Two think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Free Press, complain that more than 90 percent of the programs on talk radio feature conservative hosts and themes while only 10 percent are "progressive."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has promised to examine the report's recommendations for possible legislation and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., says flatly, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
That really is a good, old-fashioned attitude, all right. But under the so-called Fairness Doctrine that the Federal Communications Commission pursued until 1987, many broadcasters observed that government regulation actually stifled the free market in opinion and effectively politics to little-watched schedules on Sunday mornings. It was known informally as "the public affairs ghetto." Stations presented only as much public debate as they needed to secure renewal of their public licenses.
But the new think tank study insists that talk radio is "imbalanced" and that the imbalance is due largely to the preferences of large radio conglomerates that are run by middle-aged white men. They demand that the government step in and break up the big radio chains and require as much progressive programming as conservative.
At this point Republicans, perhaps surprisingly, are rubbing their hands and hoping for a fight on the Fairness Doctrine. They think the threats from liberal legislators will backfire, helping to unite and activate the nation's 50 million or so talk radio listeners, most of them conservatives, and get them to the polls.
But the right could be making a mistake. Instead of opposing a new "Fairness Doctrine," perhaps conservatives should embrace it -- providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio. (Do I notice some "progressives" throwing down their papers in disgust?)
Let's start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. Increasingly, its sponsors range from foundations with an ideological ax to grind to law firms and national teachers unions. Conservatives find that stories they care about just don't make it onto NPR schedules. When the rare conservative gets invited to participate on an NPR issues panel, somehow there are two or three liberals facing him, with a liberal host recognizing the speakers.
Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. When newscasters seek legally required balance on a given issue, let's see if they can be persuaded to find the most articulate conservative -- not the most egregious and unpopular -- to reply to the liberal voice.
In addition to cable broadcasting, the new Fairness Doctrine also should reach into the press. I know print media have always been exempt, but, hey, judicial precedents change. Newspapers and news magazines not only use the public mails to ship some of their goods (often at subsidized rates), but they also run their delivery trucks over public roads and park their corner coin-boxes on public sidewalks. The current philosophy of government seems to be, if it moves, the government has a say in it, so why should newspapers get away with sitting in aloof Olympian judgment on everyone else?
It is never going to happen, you say. Well, OK, but let's just open up the fairness issue as wide as possible and see where the debate takes us.
It should be exciting, especially when we have congressional hearings that extend the concept of political and cultural "fairness" still further -- to Hollywood.
Or maybe the left would be smart to drop the matter altogether.
Cut Conservative talk radio. Ha! Now that would start a riot!
Remove the the New York Times, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and all other major print and every TV news network bar Fox from your own eye, before removing talk radio from ours.
Screw ‘em. They might as well give up that fantasy - they will NEVER go back to the days where a “Fairness Doctrine” will be in place to shut up all those mean talk radio peoples’ “hate speech”.
This is just the left’s “animal instincts” coming to surface.
correction — we need a “Truthness Doctrine” for the MSM
the article is right on....
think of it this way- the amount of time Rush Limbuagh or Sean Hannity lose on their radio talk shows to an alternative POV can be spent sitting on the sets of the Bill Moyers Journal or keith losermann olbermann offering “fairness” to those hypocritical leftist shows...
“...providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio.” I would accept the fairless doctrine if it was universal, especially since the average American would then see how stupid the right is when compared to the left. That would be like listening to Shrillary give a speech and then Thompson, or Hitler, then Jesus, not that Thompson is like Jesus, it’s just a manner of delivery. :)
Not every story has "two sides". There is a lot more diversity of opinion than that in this country.
Fact is that out of the 300,000,000 people in this country less than 5 million listen to the libs' world news, etc. shows. You'd think they'd get a clue and realize that their world and nation news shows suck. But NO... one noted nitwit, Katie Couric, continues to blame everyone but herself for her low ratings. She sucks... She's a failure....Replace her...
I am so tired of the whiney-ass liberals.
left compared with right you surely mean
Any support from the Right to limit free speech will be a huge mistake. Not only would it be a betrayal of conservative principles, but it would, in the end, be a practical loser as well.
Conservatives have tried through several Republican administrations to have an impact on the leftist bias of NPR to absolutely no effect whatever. This even when both the White House and the Congress were controlled by Republicans.
As for the major TV broadcast networks, the left has always argued that there is no leftward bias at all — and, such bias is, in fact, hard to prove since it impacts news topic selection; selection of spokesmen for different points of view; timing of the news items; and innumerable other considerations beyond obvious, demonstrable, slant by the newscasters. And, of course, from the perspective of much of the left, the news is in fact biased farther right than they would prefer - so, it is a matter of perspective and not a matter of obvious provable fact. I know that it’s biased, but would sure hate to try and prove it to a liberal bureaucrat or to a court.
Best we stick to our principles and protect free speech across the board. Playing the left’s game at any level is always a sucker play.
Because people prefer the truth rather than bulls**t. Now the libs want to force the people to listen to BS. Yeah, that should help the Rats. When all else fails, turn to tyranny. "You will listen to the ideals of Lord Pelosi, Hellary, Reid or nothing at all!"
btt
There is no way to institute a
Fairness Doctrine because of all of the interest groups that would demand time. However, the report points more to policies of FDR when he shortened the time licenses were good for from three years to six months. That effectively stiffled all contrary views.
Well it’s only fair, I mean besides CBS, ABC, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, SF Chronicle, Boston Globe, Atla Journal-Constitution, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, and The Hollywood Actors Guild, who do the Liberals have on their side?
The libs just hate free speech! And, capitalism!
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.