Air America Founder: Rush Limbaugh Is Right

As we've been documenting, the latest paranoid delusion among media purveyors on the right is that a revival of the "Fairness Doctrine" -- a mid-20th century measure which enforced a balancing of viewpoints on the then-scarce resources of terrestrial radio -- was in the offing, despite the fact that such a revival lacks any tangible support from major lawmakers, media reform advocates, or President-elect Barack Obama himself. Despite this, the phantom of a resurgent "Fairness Doctrine" has persisted.

Hopefully, then, this news will be of comfort to "Fairness Doctrine" opponents: Jon Sinton, founding President of Air America radio, has weighed in on the matter, and guess what? He's against the "Fairness Doctrine" as well! In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Sinton sides with an ideological opponent to stake out his position against the measure:

As the founding president of Air America Radio, I believe that for the last eight years Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been cheerleaders for everything wrong with our economic, foreign and domestic policies. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, I couldn't agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.

Sinton adds, "It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built." Until some major stakeholder or policymaker of influence starts advocating for the "Fairness Doctrine," I'm going to continue to wonder why it has occurred to so many people that worry needs to be expended over it.

Comments

[jsgaetano]

Because the reich wingers need a smokescree... err... a talking poing.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is their new Terri Schaivo.

[Appleton]

Mr. Limbaugh is well aware that the fairness doctrine will never be revived, and for good reason. However, the issue does provide useful fodder for his rants, and once it becomes clear that there is no chance of its restoration, he can loudly announce that his campaign was victorious, increase his advertising rates and continue to profit handsomely from the muddled masses that constitute his listener base. P.T. Barnum would be proud.

[badtimes]

Fear of the revival of the Fairness Doctrine is a strawman put up by Limbaugh et al. to stir up their listeners. As noted in the first paragraph.

[rabiddog6708]

Ru$h is right????.......$atan just alerted the Weather Channel that H.ell had just froze over.

[restoreamerica]

Fairness doctrine was killed in 1987, Rush Limbaugh appeared on the scene in 1988.... Coincedence? Maybe. I will have to say that Rush in his early years was strictly a satireist that was pure entertainment, using "crazy liberals" as the object of his monologue. I do not think that for a moment he believed anything that he "advocated".
However as his popularity increased he saw to opportunity to speak to these people who kept calling him and saying "dittos" concerning his retoric. He found a goldmine and he ran with it.

In the mid nineties, he began believing his own BS and made a fortune bashing President Clinton
( Day XXX America held hostage!) (from Jan 20 1993 until November 2000).

It has worked for him for years so he will continue doing this as long as it works. The other right wing wackos on the radio and TV are just clones of Rush tapping into these easily led dittoheads. (Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, M. Savage, Laura Ingram, and many others.) The corporate media likes this one sided view that prmoted their short term gain and power, but do not realize that long term our entire system will collapse with these policies. Hope it is not too late.

[bobtr900]

Still there is a problem with the lack of a Fairness Doctrine. It is, among other things, the fact that right wing radio/tv is the only thing heard on the airwaves. There are NO left wing outlets, other than Air America Radio, and it is never heard in most areas. True, it is an opposing point of view, but it is almost unheard in most of America. We liberals never heard an opposing POV until Olbermann came on in August, 2006. That was probably due to the fact that NBC/MSNBC got scared of something due to it's constant pimping of the Bush-Cheney-Republican-Scalia-O'Reilly-Limbaugh mindset of 'profits and lies' even unto death for our troops and the Iraqi people.

The other problem is that 'right wing' radio/tv is nothing more than 'hate speech' and therefore a violation of millions of Americans civil rights, including mine. As hate speech, it incites to violence.

Mayhap, the 'right' and the 'religious right' intends to end all of our civil rights. That would not surprise me, being the hated lefty and so called godless liberal that I am. Actually, I have a God, it's just not money or George 'jesus christ' Bush(small j and c, out of reverence for the real Jesus Christ).

[sdskelton03]

Our freedom to dissent and our freedom to arms are the most important of our freedoms. They are non-ideological and form the basis for all of our other rights.

I can think of nothing less liberal than the federal government using its power to silence its critics.

[RadicalRepublican]

I think jury trials, freedom from illegal search and seizure and freedom of religion are pretty important too.

A couple things equally non-liberal are criminalizing victumless actions and imposing control over our own bocies. Government sure misuses its power

[breakfast]

The idea of re-imposing the "Fairness Doctrine" is yet another distraction from the important issue.

The important issue is media concentration in the hands of a few, huge, multinational media conglomerates. Antitrust legislation should be enforced, and the media conglomerates should be broken up.

America needs to re-learn the lessons of the past, when we had the good sense to block the concentration of power, financial and otherwise, in the hands of the few. Antitrust enforcement is one of the few tools we have left to counter the clear and present danger of fascism in our country.

[rushthelibs]

The left uses that same argument against Wal Mart. Whether it be a mega-corporation or a mom and pop shop, they are still governed by one all important principle; advertising dollars. This has more to do with programming than any conservative bias. The fact is that Limbaugh and the others generate value in relation to advertising dollars. Conservative programming is not popular because it is the only choice on the airwaves; it is the only choice on the airwaves because it is popular. Localism will not change this.

[derekc06]

i agree on one point... the problem does begin with the american people... however, no media outlet that takes any sort of pride in credibility can justify putting rush limbaugh on the radio...

the same goes for o'reilly and the like... these sorts of snakes that twist 'facts' (or simply resort to fabricating them) are an embarrassment and slap in the face to the american public...

if only we had enough brains to change the channel... or to support local business... or to stand up for the rights and well-being of fellow american workers... wake up people...

[derekc06]

yes let's return to the days when there were... three... media outlets...

i disagree... is isn't that the government needs to step in and redistribute control of the media... the problem lies at the heart of the american public... our rampant consumerism and our inability to hold corporations accountable for their capitalistic greed are what keeps us from being the great country that we could be...

i mean think about it... the problem isn't the advertisements... the problem isn't the large media conglomerates... it's that we, as a nation, so readily buy into them...

people like to complain that the quality of american journalism has plummeted into the proverbial abyss... but they seem reluctant to look at and speak up about the things in our society that allow and perpetuate such things... it's us people, the change starts with us...

[frappe]

I agree with you completely. When you have a situation where only five companies control 80% of the media, you have a situation ripe for abuse. Clearly, the political situation has evolved into a sort of coporatocracy where the news is largely managed and elections are bought through corporate lobbyists and special interests. The current situation flies in the face of our constitutional principle of "checks and balances"...and with Cheney's influence over these past eight years, the imbalances grew dangerously large, with increased concentration in the Executive branch at the expense of the Judicial and Legislative. In a word, the situation is one big MESS.

[maxfax]

Brilliant commentary. Antitrust enforcement in the Bush administration? Virtually non-existent.

[Whinger]

In the eyes of some a fairness document is only a god dammed piece of paper to be used and abused when it suits the needs of the ultra rich and their puppets!

[b-rad81]

Who farted?

[Pdubya]

patriot act is patriotic

fisa protects speech

intervention is prevention

stimulus is sound

fair is free

[RadicalRepublican]

1984?

[cheferic]

this article is one of the worst attempts to inform that I have ever read on this site .I know less now and have more questions about this topic than I did before the article was written. Language such as 'terrestrial radio' (Mars rocks,Jupiter light,Uranus alternative)doctrine as measure,major lawmakers(as opposed to minor ones?),and ideological opponent (we are reasonably sure there wasn't a wrestling match in the offing) ,does not help to clarify whatever the point is. If the author is against the Fairness Doctrine he should clearly state so, and if so,he should explain why?I suppose since the author is able to asses the 'paranoid delusions of others he could pursue his degree in psychology although that requires clear writing skills as well.The last sentence of his article has his subject questioning why so much energy is being expended on the entire point and we are left to agree and wonder why this was not explored in the article either.Mr.Linkins once again your writing leaves me worse for reading.

[That Guy]

Oh snap

[ShinjiIkari]

The problem with arguments that the Fairness Doctrine is automatically in play because of "the abundance of choices on radio today" is that this argument presupposes that everything gets equal weight. And this just ain't so. Some commentators, like Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter, market themselves in as many media as possible, relying on promotion to heighten their profile; then, when a mainstream source starts looking around for an "authority" on some topic or another, up jump these folks whose only claim to authority is their ability to bloviate for three minutes and get off air in time for the commercial. These "authorities" are essentially self-appointed.

Also, the abundant choices simply are not equally available. Until recently, the only progressive talk in Chicago was an AM station that had to sign off at sundown; recently they picked up some FM translators.

Finally, there's hardly any way to fact-check these guys. Limbaugh and cohort can go on about Obama having no birth certificate, safe in the knowledge that they don't have to "prove" a negative. Fortunately, the web has various avenues to the truth.

Until the airwaves are deemed government licensees, and their total content is subject to government scrutiny (within the rights and responsibilities of the First Amendment), the Fairness Doctrine would work as well as anything to keep the excesses of propagandists in check.

[Pdubya]

b.s. i jockeyed in the early 80s when a mom and pop could be on air and compete with the conglomerates. fcc rules writtend squashed the little guy, opening up the market for consolidation and federal propoganda.

[frappe]

I disagree with Air America's founder. How can you possibly have any sort of fairness, absent the Fairness Doctrine, when the vast majority of radio, tv, and print is owned and operated by right-wing conservatives? All you get is a tsunami of right-wing garbage of the ilk we hear from Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and a varied assortment of other right-wing demagogues. The sheer number of them create the false impression that there is a uniformity of belief that the conservative perspective is the popular perspective. GARBAGE!

[rushthelibs]

If your point had any validity at all one would think Republicans would be doing better in the polls. You make the statement, “The sheer number of them [conservative programming] create the false impression that there is a uniformity of belief that the conservative perspective is the popular perspective.” This makes no sense. The latest election shows that a majority of Americans subscribe to liberal view point. This suggests that your idea of a, “false impression that there is a uniformity of belief that the conservative perspective is the popular perspective,” is completely in your head.
Conservative programing is successful because both conservatives and liberals choose to listen/watch. The left cant compete on a level playing field (air america) so they have to resort to legislation and activist judges. The sad thing is that this next congress might actually pull it off. But remember one thing; some of us still believe in ALL the Amendments, including the second one. You will never shut us all up.

[frappe]

Rubbish.

[frappe]

The only reason why the Republicans got such a drubbing during the last election was because it was impossible to ignore their complete incompetence, greed, and utter disregard for the needs and concerns of the vast majority of the population. CHANGE was the only logical answer for such a situation.

[rsaillant1]

Karl,

You sneaked in here using a false identity....again!

[frappe]

Did the Air America founder perhaps mean to say that Rush Limbaugh was Right ...of Attila the Hun?