The Fairness Doctrine Is Just What The Right Needs

The second best thing that could have happened to right wing talk radio would have been McCain winning the presidency. The first best thing: McCain losing.

Barack Obama's victory gift-wrapped the AM broadcast Lords of Loud's most excellent goody since Bill went Monica all over the Oval Office. They now have the four-year gift that they'll make sure just keeps on giving.

Think Reverend Wright's oft-repeated anti-American "not God bless America, G-d America" tirade - you would think if he had actually been doing this so incessantly for over 20 years, someone would have dug up another rant - has been placed in the archives? Not a chance. Less than a week as president-elect and the honeymoon that never was, is over.

Even when Fox News political reporter Carl Cameron told Fox News non-spinner Bill O'Reilly on Fox News cable, that McCain campaign officials told him that the dope on Palin was that she was a dope, there were some right wing talkers who hypothesized that the dirt was dished by the Obama campaign.

Which brings us all to the question of the Fairness Doctrine, or what radio's Lords of Loud call, READ THE REST OF THE FAIREST OF THE FAIREST DOCTRINE ANALYSIS HERE

Award-winning TV writer and author of Great Failures of the Extremely Successful, Steve Young was an original talk show host at L.A.'s KTLK and blogs at steveyoungonpolitics.com

Comments

[rcampbell]

Yeah, we can't have any of that fairness stuff. Why, fairness is downright un-American!!! Down with fairness and never let it be raised again.

[ohiomark]

If the "Fairness" Doctrine was actually about "fairness", that would be one thing, but it's not. It doesn't apply to newspapers and television, many of whom are far left.

It's NOT up to the government to decide content on the radio. How would you like it if they decided what music would be played?

[RoloTomassi]

Another BS argument against the fairness doctrine. Of course it applies to television [it certainly did in its former incarnation]. The only thing that could possibly seen as unfair is the possibility that media moguls might have to choose between ideology and profits, particularly if they were required to offer a time slot to Left-leaning media, and said programming were to be more profitable than their preferred Rightwing nonsense.

So yes, I can see the unfairness in that...I mean, how would poor Rupert ever reconcile such inner turmoil brought about by possibility of programming profitability not being the same animal as his ideological preference? Oh, the unfairness of it all!

You Rightwingers know that media outlet owners are predominantly Rightwingers as well, and you simply want to keep radio and TV political broadcasting within the dominion of the Right without fair competition alloted to Leftwing programming.

As usual, whatever claim comes out of a GOPer's mouth, it is assured that the opposite is true. Your claim of unfairness is the biggest indicator that it is very fair indeed.

[Topsailsman]

Your argument is specious. To understand the Fairness Doctrine you have to understand the origins of broadcasting in the U.S. Due to limited bandwidth, the government held that private interests could hold licenses to broadcast but had to operate in the public interest since the airwaves are owned by the public. Over the decades, one aspect of public interest was presented as the Fairness Doctrine. It is completely reasonable that private entities using public airwaves be expected to provide fairness. Today, however, with cable/satellite TV in the majority of homes, satellite radio, the internet, there is no longer a "limited bandwidth" available to people. I think that most of the former regulations are rendered worthless including the Fairness Doctrine. However, since private broadcasters are no longer really required to operate in the public interest, I believe that the bandwidth should be auctioned off every 4 years to the highest bidder. Significant numbers of people have already abandoned regular radio and over-the-air television, the government should raise some revenue from private parties that hold the licenses at artificially low prices. After all, all they air is infomercials.

[LightSword]

If you like censorship, then sure, the fairness doctrine is good.

[canucklivinginUSA]

First we impose this fairness doctrine on talk radio. Whats next? Blogs? Sorry, as much as I find right wing talk radio repulsive, I do not believe in shutting them down. I want to see them suffer by losing their audience. I want to see them cry and perhaps swallow a whole bottle of percocet. Why would you guys deprive of this joy?

[ohiomark]

If the "Fairness Doctrine" is so fair, then why is talk radio the only broadcast medium to be affected? Why not apply it to TV and newspapers as well? (that was a rhetorical question, we know why)

The "truth" is the the Censorship Doctrine is designed to shut down talk radio by making it so difficult to achieve balance that program directors will drop the format and go back to playing music.

The Libs and the Democrats know this and they don't care if it shuts down "liberal" talk radio because nobody listens to them anyway. The liberal way is, if you can't beat them, pull their plug.

Liberals don't care about free speech, they only care about free "liberal" speech.

[TexasDem0]

How about a truth in news law similar to the truth in advertising law?
If it calls itself a news outlet, it is required to be truthful.
Three strikes and the license is suspended.

[Token Nihilist]

That sounds cool on a message board, but there's the problem of defining "truth," first of all. Are we talking about "truth" understood as "that which is undoubtedly the case," or "truth" as in "that which is most likely the case pending further evidence?" Those are just two understandings of truth, and there are as many understandings as there are people in the world. I've read the disclaimers that accompany advertisements, and if the "news" happens to find itself subject to the same mind-numbing over-specificities, I doubt anyone would have a reason to catch up on the world's events.

[RoloTomassi]

That content be FACTUAL is simple enough as a bellweather for truth in broadcasting; the problem is, the Rightwing is so often about spin and denial of factual information that such is a deal breaker, particularly when it comes to talk radio.

It's not that anyone would try to shut down rightwing talk radio, it's simply that there isn't enough factual information value in rightwing talk radio for it to pass the test.

So if you look at it from the POV that straight, factual news broadcasting bears no penalty, but exclusive, onesided opinion requires equal time for response, it can be logically asserted that the rightwing resists a Fairness Doctrine because they know that their broadcast brand names function on propaganda and outright lies, and would be hamstrung by requirements of factual reporting, and that media moguls would alter programming rather than submit to offering opposing views equal time.

[bmora]

You would think the right wing nuts would demand fairness doctrine legislation since the media was allegedly in the bag for Obama.

[TexasDem0]

Good point. It just shows they know they're lying.