The Fairness Doctrine

On a larger point, I don't think it is a coincidence that the nation's politics have become more polarized with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. But you can also add in the growth of cable allowing everyone to view whatever channel they view as "on their side", magazines and websites geared toward the hard left and hard right and the declining status of "mainstream" newsweeklies and daily newspapers. People now get to choose their own facts.

 

You mean what's happening to the left-wing newspapers and big 3 TV networks?

All jokes aside, we agree let the market decide!

 

I’d argue the Fairness Doctrine would do a world of good in radio, where the majority of conservative talk show hosts are more or less put on the air conglomerate ownership groups want them there. In some areas, it's not even a question of quality or ratings. The statement above about "no ratings…no audience…no job" is inaccurate. Rush Limbaugh didn't rise to prominence because he was such a good fuckin broadcaster; he rose because he was a mouthpiece for some of the nation's richest media men. They put him there, they kept him there, and they bribed radio stations not to replace him. Period.

This is an industry where conglomerates willingly take bribes from music production houses to air certain songs. Where DJs at key pop stations are paid to give softball interviews to certain performers or, in some cases, paid to cut down other performers. The whole industry is joke on the FM side and has been for 40 years. We're now there on the AM side, too.

 

The minute the democrats are back in control, and RW talk radio starts to slide, as it will inevitably will at some point, the safest bet in town is that then you will hear the republicans yammering about bringing back the fairness doctrine. Remember how hot they were for term limits... until they got elected?

Same old, same old.

 

Here's a decent, and respectably non-partisan summary of it fo folks who may have come in late.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

 

Except right-wing talk radio grew when the Democrats were in control of the Congress and White House in the early 1990s. And I don't remember any Fairness Doctrine talk then.

 

I'm in favor of bringing it back, so NPR will be forced to buy "conservative offsets" on the open market.

 

So if we had a renewed Fairness Doctrine that required that if a daily newspaper article paints a person in a bad light, that they be given the right to respond and their response must be given the same play as the original article, would this board be in favor of it? If a renewed Fairness Doctrine required that blogs -- which can influence our politics as much as talk radio -- to post responses from candidates who were not endorsed by the blog, would this board be in favor of it?

Lets face it: the reason people want the Fairness Doctrine is that they don't like talk radio. Fine. But in a society with satellite radio, hundreds of cable channels and the Internet, do you think the Fairness Doctrine will bring about a more informed populace? Do you really think that a Fairness Doctrine will bring civility to politics (except in rare moments of crisis, civility has never been part of our political history)? If you don't like talk radio, then try to beat Rush, Hannity, Boortz, etc. in the marketplace of ideas.

Lets also not forget that the Fairness Doctrine is a political hangman's noose for use by whoever is in the White House. It has often been used to browbeat what were seen as unfavorable stations into moderating their coverage. Is there anyone on this board that would want Karl Rove's minions listening to radio stations in Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Mexico to find stations that were not sufficiently balanced so the White House can threaten them with losing their license in Fairness Doctrine proceedings? If you don't think that any White House -- Dem or GOP -- wouldn't use that power in an election season, you have the naivete and gullibility of a 5-year old girl.

"The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio in order to serve its sordid or its benevolent ends."
--Justice William O. Douglas

 

Correct! That is when Rush exploded & Hannity got established along with many others (myself included).

Also, coming from someone who has done a fair amount of talk radio at a major level let me ASSURE you Rush is that good. He is the best by a LONGSHOT. It's no fluke and no one "put him there" as if anyone could have done it with the backing of the mysterious "powers that be".

That argument is insane, besides what is keeping his rating sky high & success far exceeding all others? What does he have 20-25M listeners per week???!!!

To say he got noticed by some conservative power guys in CA (I know/worked with a lot of that group. Many are former Reagan guys) being based in Sac and had some help or backing now that would make some sense, but certainly no more help than say Air America and a whole host of others.

Ailes and the rest back winners that can make them money by being good. We don't have PBS or Air America (money pits for ideology) type of operations on the right.

Just some info if you are going to make your arguments

John

 

Best post I have seen in a long time.

Good to see. Also good to see that some on the left aren't enamored with Stalinist/Maoist thought police tactics.

Free speech is as Liberal (and Libertarian) as you can get. It is what America is all about!

Well done.

 

* Crickets *

 

Ah, but this is RADIO we are talking about. Purportedly airwaves that belong to all of us, so I can see where there is some concern about a skewed/partisan slant. Papers and websites don't use a medium owned by all of us in the same way that radio does.