Posted on 12/08/2002 6:06:40 AM PST by bigaln2
That isn't the way the Fairness Doctrine worked when it was implemented. It wasn't the stations that had to have both sides presented -- it was each individual show that had to give equal time to all sides. That meant also allowing Third Party spokespeople, and the limits for allowing them on were much looser than what we see today with debates.
So it wouldn't be Limbaugh and Hannity registering as Democrats to meet a station quota, it would be forcing them to air all sides of any issue that they discuss on each and every show. Of course, they don't have to actively seek other sides, but they would have to allow other sides if they asked for equal time.
That's what the Fairness Doctrine was.
-PJ
Liberals, the Leftists are not successful in talk radio or any medium that requires an exchange because theirs is an ideology of preaching. They talk atcha, not withya, it's as simple as that. Note the tendency of all Leftist leaders al the way up to Krintong to make speeches that last for hours and must be trated as the final word on, well, on everything under the sun.
There is simply no meaningful debate on the Left.
One good thing came from the Fairness Doctrine. Does anybody but me remember the third-party mayoral candidate from (I think it was) Pittsburg who got on the Dick Cavett show one night because of a 'fairness' ruling? The guy turned out to be the hit of the show; he was funnier than the comedians they had on.
"The answers may inhere in the nature of liberalism, said Robert Thompson, a professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University. Where radio conservatives have thrived by drawing hard distinctions between right and wrong..."
When it's Raines, it's poor. (Apologies to Mortons Salt.)
I subscribed to the Times for years; cancelled my subscription when the rag endorsed for re-election the "documentably dysfunctional" president with "delusions" -- its own words.
I thought the Times could go no lower--then along came Raines.
Understanding that intellectual rigor and agitprop are in opposition, Raines systematically eliminated all evidence of the former while increasing the latter. His unique achievement has been a seamless blend of yellow journalism, white noise and red shift...
A related NYT apologia: The Man From Might Have Been
It is, but not for the reasons cited. Liberalism is about a top-down attitude, that there are elites that know what is best for all of us, and those below them should just march in lockstep. On a radio show with interactive callers, this attitude has about as much appeal as a root canal - the callers are folks who wish to state their own opinions and take on the host in debate. Conservative positions are more grass-roots, individual oriented, and such folks are more inclined to facts over emotions, and reason over sentiment, and are inclined to defend their positions - hence the appeal of conserative hosts to conservative listeners. And even honest liberals can tune into talk radio and learn something - the radical concept of thinking for yourself...
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.