A Liberal "Unfairness Principle"

National Review Online: Attempt To Force Balance In Talk Radio Is Wrongheaded

(National Review Online)  This column was written by the editors of National Review Online.

---

Remember Jim Hightower? We didn’t think so. He was the former Texas state official who was, for a few minutes, the Left’s great hope for a liberal talk-radio host to challenge the domination of Rush Limbaugh. It didn’t work out. Neither did former New York governor Mario Cuomo, another failed radio talker. And neither did, most recently, Air America, the attempt to build an entire network of liberal talk.

Nothing has worked too successfully for liberal political talkers. Rush, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, among others, are as dominant as ever. The only thing that has changed is that liberals now seem less interested in challenging conservative talk radio in the marketplace than in strangling it with government regulation. And that presents a much greater threat than another misguided attempt to find the liberal Limbaugh.

A new blueprint for a government takedown of conservative talk radio comes from the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, founded and run by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta. In a report entitled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio ,” the Center outlines a plan that would, if implemented, do enormous damage not only to conservatives on talk radio, but to freedom of speech as well.

Surveying 257 stations owned by the top-five commercial station groups, the report’s authors found the unsurprising news that 91 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative, and just nine percent “progressive.” Rather than attribute that imbalance to the generally conceded superiority of conservative programming — most radio professionals would tell you that Rush Limbaugh is simply better at what he does than any of the liberal opponents who have tried to compete with him — the report finds a deeper, more sinister case. “The gap between conservative and progressive talk radio,” it concludes, “is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system. “ According to Podesta’s Center, those structural problems can only be solved by government action.

The report proposes new national and local limits on the number of radio stations one company can own. For another, it recommends a de facto quota system to ensure that more women and minorities own radio stations. And finally, it says the government should “require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.”

The two-for-the-price-of-one attempt to have the government both stifle voices that don’t meet “enforceable public interest obligations” while raising money for government broadcasting is certainly a worthwhile strategy for the Left. Not for free speech and free markets, however.

In addition, the report claims that the Fairness Doctrine — the government rule that, before it was repealed in 1987, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial public issues — might not really be dead, and thus might not have to be reestablished by Congress. Instead, a new administration might simply decide to enforce it again. That point is highly debatable, but it wouldn’t be surprising if President Clinton, President Obama, or President Edwards were to give it a try.

The fact is, liberals simply haven’t attracted talk-radio audiences. It’s not their market. But since they still largely have Hollywood, academia, the New York Times, PBS, NPR, a network news division or two … they’ll survive. And we on the Right will, too, if we keep the Center for American Progress’s dangerously wrongheaded ideas off the table.

[processor2]

Liberals are amazing in their hypocrisy.

They want to censor and silence those they disagree with, like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News,
while simultaneously telling us how tolerant and open-minded they are to diversity.

Liberals....tolerant... yeah,right

IF YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE TRUE INTOLERANCE, all you have to do is disagree with a liberal, and then listen to the hatred spew.

For proof, just read the comments below from some of these so-called tolerant liberals.

...

[jacksteen1]

Liberals don't pretend to be the chosen people of God like the filthy conservative fundamentalist pea-brained Republishits...THAT"S WHY, when we point out their blatant LIES and DECEIT and CALL THEM ON THEIR HYPOCRISY, the Republicrap get all upset and cry "Sauce for the Goose!"

You people are pathetic. You squandered a budget surplus by giving away the store to the corporations and the ultra-rich...started a war that has become a meat grinder for the sons and daughters of the lower classes...and you're running ANOTHER failed actor and a cross-eyed mormon inbred Yellowhammer as your choices for President!

"Yes Ma'am, Madame President Clinton!!"

[katg21]

Freedom of speech...hah, only if you have liberal views. Now that really sounds fair.

[jegibbons]

=="Liberals are amazing in their hypocrisy.
They want to censor and silence those they disagree with, while simultaneously telling us how tolerant and open-minded they are to diversity."== THANKS processor2 I couldn't have said it better myself.

"IF YOU are losing the debate; MAKE sure there IS NO DEBATE!" is what this UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE is really all about! It's like the guy who turns the SCRABBLE board over because he can't think of a word. The word fairness is intended to disguise the real issue which is WE CAN'T WIN, playing by the rules!

I figure I'd better post now before CBS drops this topic completely!

The LEFT got rid of Don Imus. Ann Coulter wears a bulls eye; who is next?

Where's the same Constitutional Argument they are fond of bashing George Bush with?
The 1st Amendment!???

And they want to know why O'Reilly refers to them as Loons. They are cowards, despots, and hate mongers, is what they are.

[jimmyc1955]

My point is simple - it isn't about right vs. left. It isn't about control of AM radio or about how many screens somebodies movie is playing on.

Its about how the anger and hate on both sides is ratcheting up - only to solidfy market shares and get people to buy, tune in, and argue more. The more we listen, watch or buy the happier both edges of the political spectrum are.

I don't listen to AM radio talkers - they spend so much time trumpeting themselves I get nausiated listening to the concet. But I get the same reaction when I see Al Gore - so full of his self annointed rightous indignation - all staged for the consumer.

We as Americans can fight back by not pitching pissing matches with each other but in healthy debate without rancor. Agree to disagree - and respect the opinion of others.

The more time we all spend in flinging s**t at each other - the more you make Rush richer - Gore closer to election and Michael Moore more famous in countries that hate what we stand for.

[jimmyc1955]

Rudy654

You presuppose I care about Rush Limbaugh - I don't.

Your metaphore is appropraite. How may AM radio stations are in your market? 10, 20, 40?? How many of them carry Right wing talk radio? 1, maybe 2?

So - AM talk radio is not dominated by right wing nut jobs. There are just as many choices.

But still you miss the point.

I am pointing out that lies and deceits exist on both sides. Hate speech exists on both sides. Rhetoric exists on both sides not to inform but to inflame. Michael Moore isn't out to educate you - he is out to make you mad - angry - and to blame somebody he doesn't like.

Rush Limbaugh is out to make you made, inflame the blievers so they will tune in - and he can sell advertising. Al Gore wants you to buy his books so he can make money. He isn't about a cause - he is about himself - so is Rush - so is Hannity - and all the others.

Your being had - in your case from the left.

[jacksteen1]

You didn't even address my question (page 4 of these comments) - why did CBS choose a high-school graduation picture of that salamander-brain Limpbow ?

His current physiognomy suggests he is in the last stages of tertiary syphyllis. Let's see the running sores he caught during his s/e/x vacations in South America, CBS!

[rudy654-2009]

"Your dodging the question - do Al Gore and Michael Moore publish and use lies, deciet and misinformation for their own benefit?"

Your question is rather stupid because you are intent on justifying the monopoly of hate radio by comparison to the likes of Michael or Al Gore, whose movies I have never seen, btw.

But let's go with your stupid question and suppose for a moment that every time you want to see a movie, the only ones you get to see are those created by a monopolized Gore-Moore movie enterprise? Would you be just as pleased by their control of what you see and hear, as you are about the monopolized control of the AM radio waves by hate radio? You go figure it out.

[xzavierbrown]

unfair??

the fact is that most liberals have the attention span of a gnat. if the issue goes beyond that 15 mins of interest..its gone..not unless of course it was delivered by a cartoon or some hand puppet..i.e. the popularity of liberal leaning comedy central. speaking of fairness when will comedy central create a show about 'lil kerry' or 'lil clinton' or lil obama'??

you guys are cash cows for the liberal media

[jimmyc1955]

archangelric

Each point one at a time

1) Fantasy is not unique to the right - look through all the deliberate errors in any Michael Moore film or in Al Gores books and movies and you will see that fact and truth are as unrelated on the left as they are on the right.

2) Don't confuse the people and the government - they are not the same. The FCC was created, as an earlier poster noted, to ensure that limited spectrum was used properly to ensure all broadcasters could be received without interference from other broadcasters. The FCC now auctions spectrum - do you get any of the proceeds or does the government keep it?

3) Free Markets demand nothing of the kind. Regulated markets do DICTATE how many voices in any market one person/group/corporation is allowed to have. Free markets permit total monopolies - regulated markets prevent monopolies. As such - who then decides who gets what spectrum, and license with regard to fairness? Could 12 different staions, owned by 12 different owners, all choose to have non-stop conservative talk radio if they want - or is it content you want to regulate?

[jimmyc1955]

The use of Fairness Doctrun is out of context on this issue.

The Fairness Doctrine was created to ensure that politicians got fair access to broadbase time. If politician A had 1 hour of time on radio station WXYZ - then his opponent was to also recieve 1 hour of time on that same station.

What your proposing is that those who are NOT running for office must also have a fairness doctrine because they engage in political speach. If you apply that concept just slightly more broadly - that means that opinion pieces on TV must be fair - and it will be up the the "parties" involved to define and decide what is fair.

So - for every smarmy comment from Katy Coric we should have an equally smarmy comment for Ann Coulter???

[jimmyc1955]

rudy654

Your dodging the question - do Al Gore and Michael Moore publish and use lies, deciet and misinformation for their own benefit?

Your myopic focus on AM talk radio is, in my opinion only part of the problem. Correcting one part without correcting all parts is what this argument is all about. AM talk radio only addresses a small percentage of the US population. Michael Moore also addresses only a small percent of the US population. Mr. Moore will address those who WANT - desperately want - to believe what he spews forth - and he has been proven to have deliberatly lied over and over.

So - If you propose to correct the AM talk radio - what do you propose to correct Michael Moore and Al Gore use of the movie theater?

[thinkbeyond]

Everyone, including Hightower and Franklin, seems to be missing the point as to why liberal talk radio fails. True free-thinking individuals, true "liberals" if you will, don't want to be told what to believe, even by someone they might agree with. Right-wing conservatives need Limbaugh and Hannity to tell them what their opinions are. Their hold on talk radio supremacy is secure.

[actornaught]

"I had a cop who harassed me ... I... found out where he lived, and poured sugar in his gas tank late one night. To add insult to injury, I very carefully smeared poison ivy on his car's door handle. The cop never bothered me again.
...
Posted by processor2 at 04:11 PM : Jun 26, 2007"

Interesting post. Did you say 'hypocrisy'?

[processor2]

Liberals are amazing in their hypocrisy.

They want to censor and silence those they disagree with, like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News,
while simultaneously telling us how tolerant and open-minded they are to diversity.

Liberals....tolerant... yeah,right

IF YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE TRUE INTOLERANCE, all you have to do is disagree with a liberal, and then listen to the hatred spew.

For proof, just read the comments below from some of these so-called tolerant liberals.

...

[actornaught]

WHAT in the Fairness Doctrine says that rush, fox, or anybody, CAN'T say what they've been saying all along? WHAT says they would be censored?

Why is neocon radio & tv afraid?

By the way, rush is a liar, he's admitted it. Remember "carrying the water"? Also, remember years back he called himself "the epitome of righteousness and virtue"? What happened their, rush fans? How about the many times he said he was "someone you wouldn't be afraid to leave your daughter alone with in a motel room"? Creepy stuff to look back on.

[sparks224]

Seriously though, don't you think rush looks high in that picture?

[archangelric]

3 facts

1.) Conservatives listen to talk radio, it doesn't confuse them with reality, word images can be created in fantasy.

2.) The FCC was created to regulate the AMERICAN PEOPLE'S airwaves for the benefit of the people. There were limits created early on as to how many radio outlets could be owned by 1 company, as having only a very few editorial voices was considered a major danger to the Republic. The Federal Communications Act recognized this issue and the commission was supposed to insure a multitude of voices as stations broadcast in the public interest.

The Big Media Monopolies are a relatively new creation, they exercise a private censorship of ownership; they censor views that do not support their methods, motives, lifestyle.

3. Free Markets also demand that No one have more than one voice, one station (having more constitutes an unfree restraint-of-trade against each other; i.e.each is supposed to be competing with counter programming); would that we actually had free markets anywhere in our economy.

It appears that this proposal is an attempt to return radio to a system similar to what it was in place not too many years ago; before Clear Channel, etc. The limit on stations was very small, and we had much freer markets.

[jimc52]

Propaganda and Polarization both start with a "P." What we need is neither liberal or conservative rhetoric. We need talk that brings America back together again. Flinging words and hurtling insults at each other isn't going to make America work..neither the left or right have the total answer. It requires both to pull together. The polarization and the hypocrisy which causes it, is what makes America sick. Neither Rush or his counterpart on the left are with it. Frankly, I am sick of the blaming and want to get on with pulling this country back together again. Just watch a movie from the '70s and ask yourself how much America has become divided from the way we lived then. Ultimately, we are all loosers when either side creates the kind of hate and friction we know all too well. The National Review Online needs to think about this and change their rhetoric.

[rudy654-2009]

"They are, and have always been since their establishment, a means of censorship."

Before the FCC, there was the FRC. But the history of controlling the radio waves goes back to the sinking of the Titanic, which was the actual catalyst for government control of the airwaves. As a response, the Radio Act of 1912 required all ships to leave their radios running 24 hours a day. It also required all radio transmitters to be licensed. However, it didn%u2019t solve the problem of spectrum scarcity, as it didn%u2019t assign the government power to require a station to broadcast on a specific frequency. In fact, the provisions under the Radio Act of 1912 became unenforceable.

The Radio Act of 1927 established the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), which then was able to assign frequencies and limit broadcasters, thus clearing up the airwaves.

The Radio Act of 1927 not only gave power to the government to assign frequencies and revoke licenses for noncompliance with rules, but it also created a provision for creating beneficial broadcasts for the public. This may be because of an %u2018underlying assumption%u2019 of the act that the public owned the airwaves. This assumption no doubt led to the idea of radio functioning for %u201Cpublic interest, convenience, and necessity."