The Fairness Doctrine, which holds that the government has a right to mandate “balance” in broadcast media, is an oozing pimple on the face of liberalism. And like most pimples, it is difficult to get rid of and grows uglier the longer it is present.
Last summer, we wrote the following against the Fairness Doctrine:From a policy perspective, the government should regulate speech – especially political speech – as sparingly as possible. (Some consider campaign contributions to be speech, but I consider them to be exercises of influence – a different thing entirely.) Free speech is the ultimate weapon owned by the citizens to exercise their sovereignty over the government. The content of that speech should be their decision alone.
Unfortunately, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow must not read this blog. The Politico reported this exchange between Stabenow and liberal radio host Bill Press:
From a tactical perspective, liberals look intolerant and fearful when they push the Fairness Doctrine. An independent observer would look at their efforts to use government power to muzzle the other side and think, “What are you afraid of?” There is nothing to fear from conservative ideas. Learn from them, steal any of the good ones and oppose the rest of them. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan forged a great career from doing exactly that…
I have several fairness doctrines. They’re called the remote control, the radio dial, the mouse and the off button. When I use them, no one’s free speech rights are abridged. Alternatively, if you don’t like speech from the other side, there are three constitutional things you can do about it:
1. Ignore it.
2. Debate it.
3. Defeat it at the ballot box.
But to use government power to censor it? Restrict it? Shut it down? That may work in Communist China, but not in the land of the free and the home of the brave.BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?
Those who favor the Orwellian-titled “Fairness Doctrine” have a backwards understanding of our First Amendment. Citizens who exercise their right of free speech are not accountable to the government. It is the government that is accountable to citizens exercising their right of free speech. Down with the Fairness Doctrine!
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.
BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Down With the Fairness Doctrine – Again
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Adam, I could not agree more!
One would think there would be more people on the "left" side of the aisle standing up against this silliness.
I think most Liberals want their rep to vote for its revival for a really good reason.
After all, the word "fairness" is in it... and doesn't that sound nice?
Seriously though, back when talk radio became big, the Liberals mocked it as a dead format. Of course it wasn't and it was too late for them to get involved because they got involved too late in the game.
Secondly, liberals largely don't listen to talk radio. They don't want to discuss issues, they want to be told what the answer is without exploring it. Therefore, there are few liberal radio shows that discuss politics for that reason. You can't have a show without listeners.. the advertisers won't advertise on shows that no one listens to.
Liberals are just big babies, which is no shocker.
Comrade Tovya is very good at spouting right-wing talking points. Unfortunately, as is usually the case, those talking points are wrong.
Initially, I will agree with CT on one point: progressive politicians were very, very wrong about talk radio, and spent a generation missing the boat.
But in the past ten years, a new generation of talk radio hosts have come along, who, when given the opportunity, have scored solid or better ratings even when going head to head with Rush Limbaugh and other right-wingers. The biggest untapped market in talk radio is left-wing political talk. You don't have to listen to me -- look at Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow (now on MSNBC) and others. Every time a liberal talker has gone head to head in major markets with the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, the lefties have eaten substantially into the ratings of the right-wingers, and in many cases have gotten BETTER ratings -- only to see their shows cancelled or moved to less desirable time slots for ideological rather than economic reasons.
The problem is that the lefties can't get on the air, because the big radio syndicates are all owned by right-wing ideologues. Yes, of course they want to make money, but they have in countless cases put lefties on thinking that they would bomb, and then when the ratings went up instead of down, they pulled the plug anyway. The issue is NOT whether there's an audience for left-wing talk radio -- there clearly is. The question is how to get it on the air when the owners of Clear Channel and other big syndicates simply won't put the lefties on regardless of the ratings.
I'm not for a pure return to the Fairness Doctrine either, because it is almost assuredly unconstitutional. But I'm also not for right-wing media bosses refusing to put on commercially viable talk show hosts because they don't like their politics, thus allowing dimwits like CT to say that nobody wants to listen to left-wingers on the radio. The free market is definitely NOT ruling the airwaves in this case.
Adam, you need to recognize the legitimacy of the complaints here, because they are valid and documented. It's not about censorship, it's about giving all viewpoints an equal shot at success, and not allowing the ideology of the owner of a media company to interfere with such access. If you get ratings, you should be on the air, regardless of which end of the spectrum you espouse. Period.
When you've got proof that uneducated talkers like Hannity, Limbaugh, and others (the smarmy Chris Plante of WMAL comes to mind) are reding talking points from the RNC and Karl Rove, isn't that a political ad, not a radio show?
I dare Limbaugh & others of his ilk to spend 15 minutes of each hour having a "crossfire-type" discussion with opposing viewpoints on a topic by politicians or interest groups.
Until then, all we have is an echo chamber of right-wing pablum regurgitated by "entertainers".
These are public airwaves so there is a implied responsibility, but just like the mortgage, securities, & banking industries, no regulation is supposedly good for freedom.
Not from here...it's boring and insulting.
These radios hosts are Chicken-Hawks and Chicken-S**t.
Post a Comment