Talk to campus conservatives, and at many places, you find horror stories of speech codes and other First Amendment restraint you would expect in a remake of Red Dawn. A friend of mine was suspended from an East Coast college for the crime of putting a popular Internet image of Hillary Clinton making a goofy face on his dorm room door. This is the atmosphere that fermented a young Barack Obama, where attacks on conservative speakers, mob rule and blatant gestapo thought-policing are not only practiced but encouraged by faculty. Hey it works on campus, why not everywhere else? The Fairness Doctrine looms, especially if the Dems grab 60 in the senate and Obama closes out. Brian Anderson of “South Park Conservatives” gives us warning:
True, Obama says he isn’t in favor of re-imposing this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC junked it in the ’80s, required broadcasters to give airtime to opposing viewpoints or face fines or even loss of license. But most top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are revved up about the idea, and it’s hard to imagine Obama vetoing a new doctrine if Congress delivers him one.
Make no mistake: a new Fairness Doctrine would vaporize political talk radio, the one major medium dominated by the right. If a station ran a successful conservative program like, say, Mark Levin’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative, even if — as with Air America and all other liberal efforts in the medium to date — it can’t find any listeners or sponsors.
Keep in mind, including talk radio, 95-percent of all media institutions are liberal dominated. Take into account all the TV networks, newspapers and wire services. It’s a monopoly Rockefeller or Gates would drool about. Still, it’s not enough. There’s that one voice of dissent.
John Kerry has also voiced support. If the Democrats go into full schadenfreude-mode with a win (like they did in 1993, just think of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) this will be front-of-the-line legislation come January. Of course, it could end up biting them in the ass.
If they bring back the Fairness Doctrine, I think I’ll start an organization to flood the FCC with complaints whenever there’s media bias from any of the big networks. Then we’ll follow up and see how they respond . . . Given the way the news has been reported this year, the Fairness Doctrine could easily backfire on the Dems.
No kidding. As I write this, they are playing audio of Sarah Palin being drilled by a reporter on MSNBC. That’s fine and dandy, but when is Obama or Biden going to get the same vetting? We’ll be waiting a long time. People are shocked the MSM never talks about William Ayers. Just think how bad it could have been, if it wasn’t for Hillary Clinton, no one would know a thing about Jeremiah Wright.
Of course, the FCC would have to care …
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
I don’t want to see the fairness doctrine or something like it return to being the law of the land. But let’s recognize that Reagan killed it because it worked for the right — and it did on talk radio. And if the left moves to re-institute it for political purposes, well that’s just more of the same. And I’m not sure at all that it would vaporize conservative radio. The game would be played to follow the rules, but bury the unprofitable programming — which liberal talk radio always seems to be.
My mind aches at the thought of our country actually putting up with this stupidity.
“But let’s recognize that Reagan killed it because it worked for the right — and it did on talk radio.”
I’m not so sure that’s the case. Many Republicans opposed dumping the Fairness Doctrine at the time because they felt it would open radio to be another liberal hen house.
Interesting question on Reagan’s reasoning. I always felt he was again’ it because he was again’ the Government overstepping its bounds. It certainly smacks of violating the First amendment.
I don’t know what year it was done away with, but my guess is Rush Limbaugh’s radio show was hardly on anyone’s radar screen at the time, if it existed. There is no doubt Rush benefitted from its abolition and his meteoric ascent would not have been possible without it.
I know some conservative talkers like to make a big deal out of this, but I’ve never believed there is any real likelihood of its being reinstated. I think this is one of those genies that, once out of the bottle, cannot be put back in. There certainly would be 1st Amendment challenges flooding the courts.
And, to quote an artist who appeared on this site earlier in the week (Gil Scott-Heron), “The Revolution will not be Televised.” If this somehow got pushed through Rush would use his platform (prior to his show being cancelled) to encourage everyone to buy a ham radio, then he’d use those airwaves to plot the revolution. This would not only backfire, it would likely result in wholesale action against legislators.
I don’t disagree that some lawmakers are stupid enough to want this, and when I put the words “stupid” and “lawmakers” together in my mind an image of Nancy Pelosi instantly appears. But I can’t imagine one could even get a plurality of Democrats to support this. “Fairness Doctrine” sounds too obviously Orwellian to garner much support.
Wikipedia says the Fairness Doctrine was the egg and Limbaugh was the chicken that sprung from it:
CF,
Based on the chronology, I doubt Reagan felt it “would work for the Right,” although there is no argument that it did. Back in ‘87 I don’t think anyone imagined a show like Rush’s could even have sufficient local popularity to stay alive on one station, let alone hundreds.
It’s interesting to ask why it has been so enormously succcessful for the Right, and not the Left. Is it what some contend, that the Left has always had the MSM, so talk radio is a redundant platform they don’t need? Or, is it that the Left isn’t as politically active as the Right, and is not interested in 3 or more hours a day of political talk? Or is it that the Left simply hasn’t found its Rush Limbaugh yet, and once that person arrives Left leaning talk radio will take off?
[...] 3. Do you enjoy Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Other conservative talk-radio? Well, if you do, you better start taping the shows because if Barry is elected chances are they will all disappear, along with a lot of free speech. In other words, the Unfairness Doctrine. [...]
The Fairness Doctrine will be bad enough, but what’s worse will be the policing of the blogs for “hate speech.” You don’t think it’ll happen? Look at what happened to Mark Steyn up in Canada.
“I think I’ll start an organization to flood the FCC with complaints whenever there’s media bias from any of the big networks.”
From what I understand about the Fairness Doctrine is it would not apply to “news reporting”. So-called journalists would likely be presumed unbiased, therefore complaints about what CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. “report” would just be ignored.
If Republicans had any guts, should an BHO-Pelosi-Reid government hell come about, then they would force the Fairness Doctrine be applied in Education and in Entertainment.
Oh, wait, if you start telling movie studios what they can and cannot show then you a censoring McCarthy-ite. But if you do it to talk radio and the internet then you’re a free-thinking proponent of dialog and debate.
Love is Hate. Peace is War.