PDA

View Full Version : The Un-Fairness Doctrine: Unevening the Playing Field, by Law



stephanie
01-19-2007, 04:32 AM
Beware of liberals using such words as "fairness." In resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine," liberals are trying to kill conservative talk radio and restore their media monopoly. Period. The doctrine would selectively stifle free political discourse, which is essential for our representative government.

The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media.

Since the rule was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded -- Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show in 1988 -- and other media outlets multiplied: the Internet, including blogs, cable and satellite TV and satellite radio, among others. The conservative viewpoint has fared quite well in the new media.

This is not to say that the government's elimination of the regulation discriminated against the liberal message. The liberal viewpoint still dominates the mainstream media, cable TV, except for Fox News, and the overwhelming number of major print media outlets. Liberals also have equal access to new media outlets, though they've had enormous difficulty competing in the marketplace of ideas.

It's instructive to remember that while conservatives grew hoarse complaining about the monolithic liberal message, they didn't advocate suppression of liberal speech. Their remedy, instituted -- fittingly -- in the Reagan years, was to open up, not constrict or regulate the media market.

The results have been dramatic, with conservatives finally having a significant voice in the media, albeit mostly in the new media, though a singular liberal message still prevails in the old media, not to mention public broadcasting.

Liberals can't stand the competition. Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey is sponsoring the "Media Ownership Reform Act," whose proposed reforms include the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Hinchey denies wanting to muzzle conservative hosts. But, "This will ensure that different views will also be heard. People are being prevented from getting the right information." Really? Latest polls show 60 percent of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war. Will Hinchey not be satisfied until it's 90 percent?

This is nothing but abject sophistry. Different views are already heard -- and not just in the mainstream media. There have never been more media choices. Nothing -- except consumer resistance -- precludes liberal entry into the talk radio market. But the First Amendment doesn't require people to listen to and support your message.

Liberals had no interest in balance before the advent of conservative talk radio. They don't have any interest in balance now; indeed we're finally approaching a balance: new media versus old media. But to them "balance" means dominance, just like "bipartisanship" means Republican capitulation.

With the Fairness Doctrine liberals would use government to micromanage the content of talk radio, realizing that they simply can't compete on an equal playing field in that medium. Notably, they aren't advocating balancing the messages of the major print or broadcast media giants.

The reason liberals can't compete in talk radio, besides their hosts being boring, oppressively cynical and pessimistic, is that their would-be audience is already fed through the mainstream media.

Conversely, conservative talk has been successful, not just because it is more entertaining, professional and optimistic, but because conservative audiences were starved for a likeminded message.

The liberals' goal is not balance, but to destroy conservative talk radio by requiring that each nano-segment of every show contain the counterbalancing liberal viewpoint, instead of relying on other shows or other media to deliver that viewpoint. What will they demand next: that political candidates present both sides of every issue to ensure balance?

Such draconian hyper-monitoring would destroy those programs. Besides, there is no fair, sensible or practicable way to regulate content. Objectivity is impossible over such subjective matters.

What do the paternalistic proponents of the regulations mean by the representation of "all sides?" Would the terrorist viewpoint deserve equal time? Don't laugh, many believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and liberals routinely sympathize with tyrannical dictators like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What is truly scary is that liberals believe that media outlets predominately presenting their viewpoint are not biased. To them, the liberal viewpoint is objectively correct -- the only proper way to view the world -- and the conservative one, aberrant and reality-challenged, not even deserving of First Amendment protection. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not much.

This arrogant mindset is what has troubled conservatives for years. It's not just that the mainstream media has presented a monolithic liberal message; it's that they denied their bias and purported to be completely objective in their selection and reporting of the news and commentary. At least with conservative talk, the hosts admit their bias and are honest about when they are editorializing.

The Fairness Doctrine must be stopped again, dead in its tracks.

Posted by David Limbaugh at January 18, 2007 07:10 PM
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2007/01/new_column_the_15.html

avatar4321
01-19-2007, 06:03 AM
The truth isnt necessarily fair.

KarlMarx
01-19-2007, 07:17 AM
Maurice Hinchey? You mean MY Congressman is sponsoring that??!?!??!? Why that dirty, no good, motherfucking, son of a bitch....

Help me... I'm being represented by the un-holy trinity, Hitlery Clinton, Schlemiel Schumer, and Maurice Hinchey...

P.S. What a name --- "Maurice" --- like who names their kid that? Someone who wants their kid to get beaten up on a regular basis?

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

dirt mcgirt
01-19-2007, 09:51 AM
I think the MSM is slanted and the accuracy of reporting is unreliable. I can't label all of it liberal though. The major news networks do have shows and journalists that lean one way or the other. However, fairness is pretty much subjective and having fairness standards to regulate private news outlets is a totalitarian concept. Let the free market dictate news coverage. If people think it's slanted in the other direction then they don't have to tune in. If people are looking for an outlet that portrays itself objectively then someone can come in there and meet that demand. The article is spot on- and I almost never agree with David Limbaugh which says a lot.

darin
01-19-2007, 09:54 AM
I think the MSM is slanted and the accuracy of reporting is unreliable. I can't label all of it liberal though. The major news networks do have shows and journalists that lean one way or the other. However, fairness is pretty much subjective and having fairness standards to regulate private news outlets is a totalitarian concept. Let the free market dictate news coverage. If people think it's slanted in the other direction then they don't have to tune in. If people are looking for an outlet that portrays itself objectively then someone can come in there and meet that demand. The article is spot on- and I almost never agree with David Limbaugh which says a lot.


Can you name one talking head on a major non-cable network who is slanted heavily towards the right?

dirt mcgirt
01-19-2007, 10:22 AM
Can you name one talking head on a major non-cable network who is slanted heavily towards the right?
Yes. Chris Wallace.

But I know where you're going with this. ABC, CBS, and NBC does not make up the entire MSM. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and conservative radio have programming catering to the right.

darin
01-19-2007, 10:26 AM
Yes. Chris Wallace.

But I know where you're going with this. ABC, CBS, and NBC does not make up the entire MSM. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and conservative radio have programming catering to the right.


Non-Cable. I've never seen a right-leaning Pundit on CNN or MSNBC.

I'd argue against Wallace being 'Far-Right-Leaning', anyway. He's more centrist/center-right, than 'far right'. I asked for 'far right' because 95% (subjective guess) of network news is UBER-Far LEFT.

Where's Chris Wallace these days? I thought he was still at Fox.

dirt mcgirt
01-19-2007, 10:44 AM
Non-Cable. I've never seen a right-leaning Pundit on CNN or MSNBC.
Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Nancy Grace all lean right.


I'd argue against Wallace being 'Far-Right-Leaning', anyway. He's more centrist/center-right, than 'far right'. I asked for 'far right' because 95% (subjective guess) of network news is UBER-Far LEFT.

Where's Chris Wallace these days? I thought he was still at Fox.
Chris Wallace is still at Fox. He hosts Fox News Sunday which airs on the non-cable Fox Network before it's replayed later on the cable news network, Fox News.

5stringJeff
01-19-2007, 11:48 AM
The issue isn't who leans left or right. The issue is that the government is attempting - against the First Amendment - to stifle free speech. It's abhorring.

KarlMarx
01-19-2007, 12:09 PM
The issue isn't who leans left or right. The issue is that the government is attempting - against the First Amendment - to stifle free speech. It's abhorring.
I doubt that the dems would be worried about fairness if they had the Rush Limbaughs, Hannitys and Laura Ingrahams instead of conservatives.

KitchenKitten99
01-19-2007, 01:07 PM
The truth isnt necessarily fair.

and neithers life, no matter how much liberals try to make it that way. If everything was fair, where would the drive to succeed through hard work, honesty and integrity come from?

CockySOB
01-19-2007, 03:19 PM
I doubt that the dems would be worried about fairness if they had the Rush Limbaughs, Hannitys and Laura Ingrahams instead of conservatives.

Actually, the Democrats should be worried. After all, their experiment in talk-radio has shown them that there just isn't that many people who are willing to listen to them. In other words, the librull message just doesn't attract people like their elites believe it should. So rather than refine their message and policies, they seek to make the public a captive audience.

Air America failed. The librull experiment in talk-radio failed. And now like the consummate politicians they are, the librulls are trying to do by force what they failed to do via the market - convince people that their message and policies are good and proper.

Talk about a fascist mentality....