Progressive podcast kvetch and former leftwing radio talk show diva Taylor Marsh accuses conservatives of “freaking out” over the potential return of the Fairness Doctrine, scuttled in 1987 by Ronald Reagan after its dubious 18 year hold on broadcast radio.
Writes Marsh, who accuses me of being my “usual obtuse self” (glad to know you read my site, Taylor!):
The short version of the Fairness Doctrine is that in 1987 Reagan had it scuttled. Shortly after that Rush Limbaugh began his journey and right-wing radio was created and gradually took over the airwaves, with the help of their corporate friends, while the Democrats were still trying to figure out direct mail. I’m exaggerating, but Democrats were so dense about radio for so long it’s amazing there are still any progressive hosts out here working every day to get back on radio. As I’ve written many times, the Republicans have used radio to pump up emotion and GOTV. In case you haven’t noticed, radio works. Just ask Karl Rove, who has worked and worked and worked it. It’s about getting control of all the little stations in all the little towns so that you can influence all those people. The host gets to know his/her audience, they trust him/her, so when this host tells them to vote for Right Wing Randy/Roxanne, they likely will. After all, they’ve built up a trust. Republicans will do anything to get ratings, which includes leaving the facts out and plying their audience with daily doses of emotion instead. Democrats are still behind in radio, trying to reinvent the wheel instead of using their donor base to help hosts who could hold their own. Creating Democratic business consortiums that help hosts get on the air, with the best of us staying on and eventually catapulting to syndication. The Fairness Doctrine could really make a difference. Why do you think conservatives are screaming like crazy?
As I noted in Ms Marsh’s comments, this is an issue that redounds to free markets and free speech, and should be as much a liberal concern (in the classical sense) as it is a “conservative” concern. Just as I find McCain-Feingold and progressive-enforced “free speech” zones in the modern academy completely odious, I find attempts by government to define political “fairness” equally open to cynical manipulation—and for that reason alone, never mind the dubiousness of its Constitutionality—I think it a horrific idea. And I don’t even listen to Hannity or Limbaugh.
Listen to Rep Maurice Hinchey, one of the supporters of this return to enforced “fairness”:
Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because “neo-fascist” and “neo-con” talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the “illegal” war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush’s repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the “right-wing oriented media” were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria.
His answer, a bill titled the “Media Ownership Reform Act,” would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.
Hinchey, chairman of the “Future of American Media Caucus” in the House, was introduced as the new chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FCC. For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the “corporate media.”
Well, I can certainly see why progressives would like people like Hinchey deciding what it is we should be listening to, their being so disinterested and all—though I find it striking that Hinchey has just admitted that one of the big reasons for the success of rightwing radio is that it’s being listened to incessantly by Democratic legislators. Else, how to account for so many of them voting to give the President the authority to go to war?
Gulled by Michael Savage. Who knew?
Or maybe I’m just being cynical. After all, maybe it’s just the slackjawed proles who, in between sucks on the duelling straws of their beer helmets, lap up the Neo-Con lies. And so what Hinchey is pushing for is what every good progressive pushes for: the chance to save us from ourselves by annointing themselves our official intellectual protectorate. You know, just so long as when we thank them we don’t try to shake their hands.
They hate it when we get all that Jesus stuff on them.
Not surprisingly, the meeting attended by Hinchey, et al, was heavily funded by George Soros—the very quintessence of “fairness” and non-partisan political discourse. And really, who doesn’t want the real King George using his money and influence to buy legislation and pull the strings of US political media just as surely as he’s been known to manipulate foreign currencies? After all, it’s not like he’s Jack Abramoff.
At any rate, Ms Marsh was not impressed with my free market argument, which she answers this way:
Besides the fact that you are just ignorant on what happened after the Fairness Doctrine was pulled by Reagan [people who didn’t want to hear progressives ramble and rant were no longer forced to do so by the government? -ed] me thinks you doth protest too much. And a “real” liberal would be doing exactly what I’m doing, because we have been locked out of terrestrial radio for over a decade. It wasn’t until recently that Clear Channel, now bought by a conservative corp., opened their doors to more progressives.
It’s an argument between free trade and FAIR trade. Our airwaves are not fair to everyone and haven’t offered equal opportunity to liberals for a very, very long time.
As for my show, I want to get back on the air, true. I’m not asking for a protected spot like AA or another liberal start up. If I can’t get ratings and listeners on regular a.m. radio or satellite after a good opportunity, I would deserve to be canned. Thing is, I can’t even get a shot. That isn’t free speech or free trade. It certainly isn’t FAIR trade. It’s called a MONOPOLY.
[…]
…oh, and by the way, we were kept out of Armed Services radio as well, with conservative hosts having a monopoly there, too and for obvious reasons
—those “obvious reasons” being, I’d guess, that Armed Services Radio frowns on having security secrets leaked, or false stories about Koran flushing causing any more unpleasantness for troops in the field. Just spitballing here, though [ed – Maggie Katzen links to AFR’s site, which lists among its broadcasts shows from Ed Schultz and Al Franken—which hardly speaks to a conservative “monopoly,” at least as I understand the word.]
What Marsh is complaining about (even while she brackets Air America from the discussion, because it doesn’t fit in with her thesis of liberal commenters being “locked out” of radio, but rather shows that raising money and starting a network is, in fact, possible, and in keeping with how the market works) is similar, in some ways, to what David Horowitz, et al, complain about with respect to the contemporary university system—though in the case of Horowitz and academia, hirings are affected not by the bottom line (as they are in most corporate situations), but rather by the desire of entrenched faculty cliques to maintain their intellectual homogeneity, particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences.
Whereas—as progressives have been carping for years—evil corporations are all about the bottom line. Which leads me to conclude that if corporate decision makers truly believed liberal radio would bring them listeners and ad revenue, they’d hire them in a heartbeat. But after the spectacular failure of the heavily subsidized Air America—despite its being given a treasure trove of free advertising thanks to the many fluff pieces disguised as “news” run by its ideological backers in the mainstream press—why would any corporation (who, incidentally, is supposed to be answerable to its stockholders, many of which are likely Democrats) pay money to prop up a proven loser?
Here’s a question: would Marsh back a Hollywood Fairness Doctrine? A Conservative Academic Bill of Rights?
Doubtful.
And neither would I—though I’d like to see more conservative academics and conservative filmmakers be given the kind of access Marsh wants the government to provide progressive talk show hosts. I just don’t believe we need government interference to get us there.
No, Marsh is simply upset that in her chosen field of endeavor, the product she hopes to peddle just doesn’t sell well. And so like any other mouthpiece of the grievance culture, Marsh is looking for the government to step in and pump up her popularity artificially. That she wishes to couch her desire for government to intercede in the choices of consumers as “FAIR” is simply another shining example of how “fairness,” to progressives, is all about equality of outcome—though they hope very much to convince us that it is really about equality of opportunity.
Hey, don’t forget, when returns the Fairness Doctrine, we’ll all eat peaches & cream!
We Touretter’s hardly ever get radio shows.
Jesus, we’ve just had a nationwide, focus-grouped, market test for liberal talk radio. Its called Air America. It failed miserably. The ratings don’t lie. There isn’t a significant market for left-wing talk radio.
That’s why there isn’t much of it on the air (unless you count NPR, ABCCBCNBC Radio news, etc.).
Not the “evil” “conservative” corporations, who would play marxist talk if could demonstrably turn a buck in a major market. Don’t believe me? Then how does offensive dreck like the Amos and whatshisname show stay on AM radio? Cos it turns a buck. Ditto Howard Stern, who is no favorite in certain “leather chairs and cigar” country club circles frequented by the senior leadership of Konservative Korporations.
Big corporations care about one thing: ratings. Because ratings points=advertising dollars. Period.
They should be pissed that they are forced to compete with NPR, unfortunately they are too fucking stupid to realize it, they think Limbaugh is the competition.
If the Left can’t win in the free market of ideas, it’ll win in any way it can. They have to be stopped.
Why do I think it would be found that the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t apply to The Daily Show or The Colbert Report?
On the other hand, such a doctrine would make it possible for the Right to demand equal time on the MSM airwaves. My God, they’d all start sounding like Fox! Ha ha ha.
Jeff: How dare you bitch slap our superiors like that. They are so above these proletariat arguments.
Oh, and welcome back. You’ve been missed.
I believe they’d push to have it applied only to radio.
And of course, there’s also talk about net neutrality, which would likely be applied to Powerline but not to Daily Kos (that being a “community”).
All pigs are equal. But some pigs are more equal than others.
well, and we couldn’t be bothered to look at the AFN site to see why they carry certain programming…..
and I can’t tell you how much RTO complains about having to watch CNN.
Hmmmm.
Shorter Marsh:
“I suck at radio! Why aren’t I on radio?”
They hate it when we get all that Jesus stuff on them.
Whaddya mean “we”, lox boy?
Well, maybe if you’re good at the Bash again this year we’ll give you an honorary “Jesus Is My Buddy” membership. But only if you promise not to defile any Aryan maidens.
I won’t be attending any further bashes. Or rather, if I wish to, I’ll organize my own.
I think there is a market for liberal radio. It’s a huge, untapped market and could make huge bucks. Out here in the boonies there’s a lot of it on low-power AM. Mostly hours-long rants by crazy preachers, and most of it ends up being racist and anti-semitic. But the talking points you hear are pretty much the same as you’d hear on AA or coming from Pat Buchanan.
I think, if she wanted to, she should be able to find one of these stations, accept the fact that she wouldn’t be paid very well. She’d have to lay off affirmative action until she made it to a bigger market, but I think it’s a money making proposition. Just might take a while.
Trust me, just because they’re farmers doesn’t make them Republicans. These are people who hate banks, hate rich people, hate corporations, hate Isreal and any other country but the US. Sounds like a lot of hate, but they also love unions, tarrifs and subsidies.
And they’re religious. Very religious. You’ll find a lot of them have great big crosses in the backyard.
And these guys are extremely anti-Republican due to some sort of “betrayal” they feel happened in the ‘20s.
It’s doable, but just like you’re not going to walk into an Exxon station and demand that they start selling batteries for electric cars, you’re not going to be able to walk into Clear Channel and force them to sell Liberal talk when there’s no market.
Build the market.
Jeff, you’re wasting your time arguing with Marsh. She’s doing a pretty job arguing against herself.
So, which is it, Taylor? Are liberals unfairly shut out from the AM band, it’s thousands of frequencies selfishy hogged by corporate fascists, or are liberals simply bad at producing any sort of media that directly argues their point of view rather than implanting it in movie scripts and supposedly objective news? The above suggests that the problem isn’t really artifically blocked market access, but the incompetence of liberal talkers themselves(case in point: Taylor Marsh). I guess if you’re a liberal it doesn’t really matter, as the inequality of abilities is just as unfair as those of race or gender.
Either way, it seems Taylor and I agree that the problem isn’t access, so the Fairness Doctrine won’t help people in her situation, namely the unqualified. While the Fairness Doctrine might get her on the airwaves, it won’t make her show suck any less, and so the Doctrine is more likely to put the entire station out of work instead of just her.
Let me suggest a better idea for beleagured liberal talkers, one that speaks directly to their problems, and works in a way befitting of their ideology. Instead of the Fairness Doctrine, the government should simply provide a publicly funded station for them (call it “NPR” or something). That way, no matter how much cash the station hemorrages due to low ratings, it can stay on the air. Perhaps, advertisers could be given tax credits for lost revenue, and the hosts of the show could receive job training for that or another profession. We could call it No Idiot Left Behind.
Jeff, people like Taylor useless by no fault of their own, and I think it’s rather heartless of you to simply turn her away when she needs help.
Air America failed so miserably in the free market of ideas that they had to steal funds from poor inner-city children and elderly just to keep Al Franken’s mouth open.
That said, I live in provencial and myopic NYC where up until 9/11 the only reference to Conservatism I ever heard was that Rush Limbaugh was a right-wing nutcase out to destroy America. My first real introduction to conservatism came through reading weblogs and about three years ago I actually listened to Rush, both of which of course dispelled the myth that us ‘sophisticated city peoples’ were open-mined and tolerant of the Other.
Those inside the bubble have no idea they exist inside a bubble. I’m glad I got out.
Not satisfied with their control of ABCCBSNBCPBSNPRLAtimesNYTimes, aka the mainstream media, progressives now want to dominate talk radio in like fashion. Since the media market for left wing views is already oversupplied, entry for yet another venue of leftist indoctrination is destined to succeed like Air America. The solution therefore is to nullify the laws of supply/demand and use the force of government to mandate that the public be given even more of what they already are oversupplied with. Another brilliant idea from the reality based community.
Should we also note that true progressives insist upon the Orwellian definition of *equality*?
Heh- beat me to it.
George F’ng Orwell– he’s coming, he’s coming, he’s coming
Also, about that picture of her up in the corner of her blog, what the hell is she doing? Where exactly are her fingers, and why does she look so close to reaching a writhing sense of self-satisfaction? What ever one things about equal time, no way I’m sharing a mic with her.
This is the same government that gave away several hundred billion worth of “our” airwaves to the broadcasting corps, right?
Just checking.
What say we charge ALL over-the-air broadcasters what their bandwidth is worth on a free market?
Had some din-din with some liberal chums (I live in the SF Bay Area…what choice do I have?) and one lamented the “absence of anti-war songs out there like in year’s past”. I commented that they were, indeed, “out there”. Just look at credibility-deficient Rolling Stone’s list of “best” songs from 2006. Just about any obscure Bush-bashing ditty gets the kudos. These aren’t exactly getting “Every Breath You Take”-esque spins, either. If any at all. No, popularity or radio play don’t make songs great, but the point is my pal would have known about them if it were beneficial for a local radio station to play them with any regularity. Because of market pressures, playlists are as rigid as John Kerry’s windsurfing board for ANYONE to get a song on the radio. But that’s the market.
Would fans of this government-controlled radio programming favor every Neil Young song from “Living With War” played must be balanced out with Ted Nugent? I say pass a government regulation that every Dave Matthews Band tune played on the radio be balanced out with The Wiggles, or dead air.
LionDude,
You could have mentioned such popular artists as Greenday (whose album, “American Idiot,” has lyrics with such gems as “President Gasbag” and “redneck adgenda”) or Yellowcard (singing about the Iraq war:”There’s still no shame from the man to blame”).
There are plenty more punk and emo examples that get plenty of airtime.
At what point will they start forcing intelligent people to produce liberal claptrap, for lack of ability to speak convincingly among the true believers?
Today, they’re counting the minutes Glenn Beck is on the air. Tomorrow, Jeff is ghostwriting for Aravosis.
It’s a slippery slope, people!
The short version is: it’s over. Fucking genius, Taylor. I’m feeling the historical context all over that shit.
I think we should do a PSA:
Dear democratic programmers,
Most companies don’t consider it a good idea to advertise their products on a show where the DJ’s are promoting higher taxes and income redistribution during drive time. They generally find it better to tie thier products to shows that tell people that they should be less reliant on Washington’s financial micromanagement and extoll the virtues of having nice stuff due to working hard. This is mostly because people want to spend their own money on stuff they want, not give it away for stuff they don’t want.
Let that sink in and call me back when you get a better business plan.
Funny stuff. I guess she’s never heard of Pacifica… or are they another right wing radio outfit?
On the merits, it’s really amusing how liberals basically suffer involuntary diarrhea if anybody proposes to ask strip clubs to restrict their business to the commercial zone near the edge of town (’prior restraint, you know… can’t have it’
but enthusiastically leap (apparently without any reservations) at the notion of the government determining the content of political discourse (fairness doctrine, campaign finance reform, gays in the boyscouts, etc). I guess their ready use of the term “fascist” is explained by the ‘takes one to know one’ doctrine…
TW: Into the Valley of the Death’s Cousin’s Buddy’s Sister, Minor Illness, rode the96.
Taylor:
“I am going to force my type of views down everyone’s throat whether they like it or not.”
what.a.loser
Why would anyone in their right mind give their time or attention to this loser ?
I believe they’d push to have it applied only to radio.ÂÂ
Hinchey said as much on the Laura Ingram show this morning.
A chicken in every pot and an Alan Colmes on every talk radio show.
In addition, although locally I have two mostly “conservative” radio stations, just about every other station has a liberal bent to it. Even the sports channel waxes liberal when they can.
It just amazes me because liberal ideology assaults you from just about every angle. Yet, Fox News, and a few popular radio programs, is a monopoly on information and opinion.
We get Air America here in Detroit. It sucks. To boot, while many conservatives WILL interview liberals, I have yet to EVER hear a serious conservative on any of the liberal shows.
Yaeh, funny thing, that. They’re successful in a handful of locations that are highly populated with leftist sorts, and therefore get….
.
.
.
wait for it…
.
.
.
RATINGS!
Which is radio talk for money. No listeners, no ratings, no advertisers, no money, no more talking on the radio. Deal with it. And no, you can’t have my money.
The Fairness Doctrine is affirmative action for stupid people.
No shit.
Anybody listened to Dan Patrick on ESPN radio lately?
Or the Tuesday Morning QB, Greg Easterbrook? I just love goign down a 5 page column and then at 3.5 pages in, finding several nice paragraphs on politics and how Bush/whoever the Rethug dejour is is making us all evil by association as Americans. Then, back to football.
What Liberal Media?
my fave from the AFN programming list was Jim Hightower. I mean he has “spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be – consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.” top article at his site currently has “King George” in the first sentence! that’s some good lefty-ness right there.
erm… didnt Milton cover this and knock it out of the park in Areopagitica? I mean, really, I thought he put this to rest already.
Hey, Matt. Agreed. How’s things?
kelly – it’s not so much Dan Patrick as his assclown sidekick Olbermann. Although Patrick does seem scared to ever contradict Olbermann or call BS on him
Hinchey said as much on the Laura Ingram show this morning. </blockquote>
This is where the idea is vulnerable. Republicans should push to have it applied to print and TV as well. Dems will end up abandoning it on their own.
Agreed, kyle.
But recently Dan has been introducing said assclown sidekick as “the man changing America one vote at a time” of some other obsequiesness.
Yeah, that kinda gives the game away.
Print, TV, and film, with the willingness to leave out print and film. That’ll still be enough to kill it.
I demand equal time on Eschaton.
Example of my work:
“(CONSERVATIVE) OPEN THREAD!”
Yes, legislation for an industry which is already on the cusps of obsolesence. If one wants to push the public for paid access systems (satellite) this will do it!
Well, a radio-only Fairness Doctrine will only cause the market for internet podcasts to explode into the non-blog mainstream like sliced bread.
Someone once said the internet regards censorship as a network difficulty and reroutes around it. The market of ideas will not snub that capability.
Techie,
Off the subject here a bit, but a bit of a defense for Gregg Easterbrook’s TMQ column. He’s actually fairly even-handed when it comes to Dubya, especially about environmental policy. He’s often defended and called attention to Bush’s never-reported environmental plus record (1st Pres. to establish emissions standards on commercial deisel engines, re-upping the Clean Air Act, etc.) but Mr. Easterbrook does hammer out the usual groaners when it comes to the War in Iraq. A highly recommended NFL column, fellow Protein Wisdom-ers. Check out ESPN Page 2 and scurry past his occasional political rants to get to the great NFL stuff if you wish.
So Democrat liberals managed to regulate free speech on the air, with Democrat-liberal-approved bureacrats defining what was conservative speech that had to be balanced by approved Democrat liberal speech.
And then the Johnson Ranger in (may he rest in peace) ole Uncle Clyde’s basement found its way to a longwire east of Cincinnati and began to emit a mighty 50 watts of conservative talk, linked to podcasts of Rush Limbaugh.
The FCC moved in and found it and seized it.
Then a Viking was resurrected, and then a DX-100, and soon so many old junkers were padded down to 250 meters for bootleg liberty, that Hinchey threw his arms up in disgust at such piracy. He gave up trying to silence his opponents.
Of course, HD radio might do the same thing, eh?
Applying the Fairness Doctrine to print would in all likelihood be struck down as unconstitutional. Insisting on TV would probably be enough to point out the rank partisanship at work, however.
You would think the libs would be glad that conservative voices are ghettoized to talk radio and Fox. The reason they are not is that they do not see their own left views as left—hence, fairness = no conservatives.
I understand the 500kW WLW transmitter still exists. Just needs some minor repairs, an antenna, and a hell of a big extension cord.
How can you tell the difference?
You mean like restricting the ability of people to criticize politicians during an election? I’m sure we have enough justices who would look to foreign law (North Korea, or maybe France) to let it pass.
And then the Johnson Ranger in (may he rest in peace) ole Uncle Clyde’s basement found its way to a longwire east of Cincinnati and began to emit a mighty 50 watts of conservative talk, linked to podcasts of Rush Limbaugh.
Ahhhh… I thought I sensed the presence of a fellow HAM operator.
The force is strong with this one.
Possible unintended consequences of a reinstated “fairness doctrine” that might just make it worthwhile (especially if these rules apply to NPR):
1) An 80 year old Opus-Dei, Legion of Mary type Catholic expounding on Papal infallibility and the virtues of natural family planning.
2) A Neo-Confederate explaining how blacks were actually happier under slavery.
3) A NAMBLA pervert pointing out the many beneficial aspects of man-boy love.
4) A Maoist accusing homosexuals of “bourgeois deviationism”.
5) A tin foil hat wearing, parents basement denizen informing us that the lunar landings never took place.
6) A member of an obscure Protestant sect gleefully describing the torments that Hell has in store for Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Methodists…well, just about everybody.
7) An old John Bircher speculating about which members of the Bush administration are part of the Communist conspiracy.
8) A Kahanie type Rabbi calling Arabs pigs and monkeys.
9) A Nazi registering his dissatisfaction with the “Zionist Occupation Government” and with the fact that he is forced to live amongst all these “mud people”
10) A member of the Nation of Islam naming those portions of the country that are to be cleared of white people in order to make room for the new Black homeland.
I know I’d turn on the radio more often.
Joe B.,
You just described the “promise” of public access TV. You know, those cable channels with nothing on them.
Cordially…
Rick,
Nobody watches those channels . Just imagine if “All Things Considered” really did have to consider all things.
”…And now, with his take on the Big Bang theory, is Dr Eco Ugundlaye, who will argue that the universe was actually created by ant droppings…”
These dummies. Is it really possible to destroy conservative talk radio with a fairness doctrine? You can’t silence conservatives. We’re rich and craven! A fairness doctrine would just drive conservatives away from old-fashioned AM radio and toward the growing world of internet and satellite radio. Meanwhile, NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC, and ABC would have to spend half their time promoting creationism, discrediting global warming, and advocating for the GOP’s fascist agenda. Net losers: liberals and free speech.
And obviously, to get liberals to oppose the fairness doctrine, conservatives need to get Bush to endorse it.
I’m pretty sure numbers 3 and 10 have actually been carried on NPR.
uh, yeah, for number five just listen to Art Bell sometime.
Marsh has been “countering” me all day with things like “You are obviously too stupid to understand,” or “you obviously can’t read,” etc.
So very sad.
The sissification of America continues on the left. Can’t win at baseball? Don’t keep score. Too stupid to make grades? Don’t have them. Can’t cut it in the employment marketplace? Join a union. Can’t get ratings? Legislate air time.
And let’s not forget the ever popular “big corporations” mantra. Let’s see those guys are owned by who again? Oh yes, shareholders. And they have, what do you call them? Yeah, employees. Such monstrous creations are inherently evil. Ask any Hollywood cliche-ridden script.
If these intellectually bankrupt basket cases weren’t so dangerous, I’d be laughing.
And increasingly, shareholders have … what are those things called again? Oh yeah: jobs.
The investor class is still growing—yet another piece of reality that the “reality”-based community keeps failing to take into account.
<evil, maniacal neocon-symp cackle>
Yeah but Jeff,
She is merely countering the rational arguments being presented & thus fufilling her “fairness” doctrine by presenting both sides. What are you stupid?
I promise I did a search so forgive me if I am repeating a point, but did not Keith Olberman just pee his pants last night at the tv show 24? Is he planning on a self-imposed version of the fairness doctrine to spend tonight railing against the liberal fantasy Bush snuff film ? Shouldn’t he forced to according to dimwit Marsh?
Keith Olberman.
“when returns the Fairness Doctrine, we’ll all eat peaches & cream!”
Q: But I don’t like peaches & cream.
A: When it returns you’ll eat them and like it!
He’s coming? Sorry mate, but he’s already here.
Snowflake rules!
It is unbelieveable that our country has come to this juncture at 150 MPH. Marxism, or freedom? The Democratic party has made it clear in which direction they wish to go. Power is their “handle”, and screw free speech and, when they really think aqbout it, screw the Constitution. I mean, why should anybody but the press get to say anything for two months before an election? And, even better, we have a Supreme Court who apparently has never read the first amendment! And a president who didn’t have the balls to veto this piece of shit legislation. I loved Bush at first, until he started pulling this political shit, and fighting the Iraq war like LBJ fought ‘Nam. Either fight this war or go home. Fuck John (“Gimmeee Gimeee”) Murtha, murderer Ted Kennedy, and all the other assholes who are angling for the votes of the illiterate, the dead, and the illegals…and don’t forget the conjoined triplets who vote in three different jurisdictions…
Marxism is in our future, and anyone who got their education (as I’ve said before) after 1970 is in full cheerleader mode. There is no wrong or right to these people. Muslim extremists who will kill anybody who does not kiss their ass are O.K. with our left wing bretheren. Who are we to judge people who kill indiscrimantally? They might kmow that the secret of the universe is that you may kill any one who disagrees with you! Jeebus was wrong! Do not love your brother unless he kisses your ass! Who the fuck are you to question my fifth grade assumptions?
I feel very old, because I still seem to have a moral code, no matter how hard I try to lose it…
Jeff,
Did you happen to mention that she looks like a pleather knockoff of an alligator handbag only without the common sense?
When the fairness doctrine returns, does that mean Bell will have to hire The Amazing Randi as his co-host?
The Fairness Doctrine is coming back? It’s about time… those alt-weekly tabloids have been monolithically leftist for long enough!
Seriously, pulling out your own gun and shooting yourself in two more places than the mugger thought was necessary is not how you defeat him.
The way to beat the “fairness” concept is to show its absurdity by extending it to its logical conclusion: the end of freedom.
Imagine a nation based on the principles of “fair” speech, “fairness” of association, “fairness” of religion (!)… see how long *that* lasts.
Freedom necessarily means that other people will make choices, think thoughts and take actions that we don’t like, but have no moral right to interfere with. That might not be “fair”… but it’s morally right.
Well just to scare our liberal friends:
Christian Zionists
BTW they are in Congress too.
Really Scary thought eh?
Oh yeah, welcome back.
And Bill Bennett is not a racist. Just for old times sake. LOL
Magic word? Soviet55 – figures
How about half of Mauren Dowd’s column space each week for Michelle Malkin? Or half of Paul Krugman’s for Don Luskin?
No, we couldn’t do that. Wouldn’t be fair to the reader.
Point is, left-perspective viewpoints, as Jeff points out, have a run of many formats – print, television (with the exception of FNC), entertainment and film (with exceptions such as the afforementioned Olberman-wetter, 24). The left just can’t deal with the fact that they don’t have this one form dominated.
One of our local stations just went to “progressive talk”. Guarantee you that when the ratings book coems out, they’ll be looking for a new format once again. AM Salsa, perhaps.
Locked out of terrestrial radio?? Is she kidding? Find me a morning or afternoon “drive time” show that isn’t hosted by liberals/moonbats. I’m not talking about pure political shows like Limbaugh or Hannity. I’m talking about the “morning zoo” type of shows.
I hear as much BDS on those shows as I see on Dem/leftist blogsites.
The New Guy,
A Johnson Ranger? I used to own one of them units. In fact if I dig deep enough in the basement I may be able to find the home made antenna tuner with an open top monimatch swr indicator and roller coils from a surplus aircraft ARC-5 (I think) transmitter. And what ever happened to my box full of 25 cent 1625s?
Gone are the days.
MW: running18
I need a pic of myself throwing back my hair and grinning like I’ve just sat on an apple core for the first time EVER.
I think I could be a star.
ha ha! our Air America station went to Catholic.
Sorry to interrupt the wank-off. I can’t believe I skimmed the comments first but I thought I’d check to see if anyone else made the obvious point (not 100% sure this hasn’t been made already) –
What evidence do you have that the Fairness Doctrine might be reinstated?
The CQ article that has the winger blogs all abuzz :
And who, all by himself, has decided this is in consideration? Dennis Kucinich.
What other subcommittee member has come out in favor? Any other sources for this new democratic initiative?
You’ll find none, I suspect, except for the fringe blogs. Who gives a fuck. One nutty House member mentions a personal obsession of his and the wingers lose their shit. Sounds like, oh I dunno, manufactured outrage.
Any attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine would fail miserably, and rightly so.
Like someone above pointed out, you can’t see her hands, but it looks like they’re down and in the front. OH GOD, WHAT IS SHE DOING WITH HER HANDS?!!
Here’s the political campaign contribution list for Walt Disney Co. chairman Robert Iger which leaned heavily Democratic in the 2006 cycle. But the AM radio stations Disney has a stake in (even after its stock deal with Citadel) in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, etc., make the bulk of their money off shows like Limbaugh and Hannity. If someone like Iger, or Michael Eisner before him, wanted to be “fair”, they certainly could yank half of those shows off and stick someone like Ed Schultz or Al Franken on. They’d also see their monthly billing totals go straight in the crapper, because the marketplace has shown that conservative talk does better than liberal talk in most markets.
ABC/Citadel does have liberal talk station, KGO in San Francisco, because it gets listeners and makes money. If it worked that way in other cities, they would do that, too, because there’s money in it. But they tried liberal talk radio for a while on KABC in Los Angeles (pre-Air America) and not only fell further behind Clear Channel’s KFI but also were passed by Salem’s KRLA before changing direction.
Having a government edict that orders a station like KABC to go back to 50 percent of its former programming that gained raitings on the level of the Emergency Broadcast System test tones would simply be a way of hurting the viability of those stations, at a time where other options, like podcasting, Internet radio and other new media options are already cutting into traditional medias finances. Some activists may want it, but its hard to see even the pro-Democratic corporate execs supporting slitting their own throats on their radio profit margins.
Just for you, no-Heet.
That took all of about 5 seconds to Google.
Do your homework next time, Beet.
Link- http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070117a.html
hmmmm…. this was not apparent when I looked yesterday. You are correct, these three people are in favor if the story you linked is accurate. I must say that I’m skeptical of the coverage your link provided. There was no comment from the supposedly pro-FD people (and no, I’m not trying to be funny) so we don’t really know what these bills are all about.
A final comment : there is no indication this has any support in the House or Senate beyond these three guys and so I still think it is a tempest in a teacup.
Keep talking like that and we will no longer need to put newspapers down on the carpet when you show up.
Maybe but I think you’ll be disappointed in my ideas on media ownership. The conglomeration of media is fucking everything up…
Determining content is not the government’s job. It is it’s job to right market failures when they make the population dumber/sick/under water.
You’d be better served photoshopping something together Jeff, because there is no way you can ever achieve that hung-over, post-menopausal Mary McDonnell/ Merle Haggard love child look. You could try duct taping some sun dried turkey skin to your arms to simulate that pre-brachioplasty arm flab, but it almost impossible to capture the dark ringed desperate gaze that comes from years of fighting those STUPID, but strangely successful fascists that seem to dominate much of the wingnut media today. If being a star is your true goal you could always release a sex tape or take out a full page spread in the world renowned Sherman Oaks Sun. For the hair I would suggest tie-dyeing an old mop w/ a cheap California merlot & cutting it to look like Andy Warhol’s do. In truth (to power) you’d have little hope until you abandon your strange fascination w/ arguing from a rational perspective & just settle for the 1953 Miss Missouri (pronounced miz-err-ah) crown, after all it has done wonders for Ms. Marsh so far – sans apple core of course.
Unfortunatly, there are those that define “dumb” as “doesn’t agree with me”
It appears to me that the public is better informed than ever before. Or at least have more sources of information, and a wider variety of ideas. why fuck with success?
Hmmmm…I must’ve missed that particular constitutional amendment
I do remember about a year and a half ago Chris Hitchens popped in on Al Franken’s show (yes, I know Hitchens isn’t a conservative…but the discussion was about Iraq and I think Hitchens views generally reflected some conservative thoughts) when Franken was trying to push the whole “why aren’t President Bush’s daughters serving in the military?”
Hitchens, as I recall, put a heavy boot on that nonsense.
here’s what I sent to ms. marsh, let’s see if she responds or ducks it.
I strongly disagree with your position on the fairness doctrine. The market we have right now is “fair” (for purpose of this argument I define fair as a known set of laws/rules applied equally to all market participants, competitive results determined by citizens and business entities freely choosing which service they desire to purchase/use, and the main role of govt is to ensure that all participants follow the known set of rules, provide a court system to adjudicate claims/disputes and administer justice to law violators), however, forcing businesses to air content they don’t want to is the exact opposite of fairness and will result in a less fair market.
If you truly desire a return to the fairness doctrine days then you should also argue for fairness doctrine rules on other similar media like TV news, print news, etc.? Would you support that? If not, why? Also, your synopsis of why “right wing” talk radio succeeded after 1987 is dreadfully wrong. You show contempt for conservatives, their values, their independence, and their intelligence by making the wrong assumption they lack the inability to do two major things: 1) make the simplest consumer choice possible…to not consume a particular good, and 2) to determine for themselves if the good provides value to them, is accurate, entertaining, is worth their time/money and is desired more than an alternative good. I know not all AM talk radio is totally unbiased and 100% unaffected by slant or spin, but neither is MSM, and I would argue that AM talk is less right-biased than MSM is left-biased. (full disclosure: that is my opinion and I don’t have empirical research/data to support that last claim)
What is it that you can’t admit and accept about the free-market success of certain ideas and philosophies with which you (perhaps) disagree? I vehemently disagree with many left/liberal/democratic values/ideals but I don’t think that Democrats win voters by nefarious means or hi-jacking media outlets. I can admit that left/liberal/democratic party values and ideals appeal to a large group of people and those people are free to choose to accept those ideals. I have to live with that and if I want to change their opinion than my philosophy/ideals/values must win in a free competition for their vote. I don’t whine or cry about it. I accept it for better or worse.
How exactly have left/liberals been “shut out” of radio? There is no back-room cabal that denies left-wing/liberals access to funds to purchase radio stations. In order for your shut-out theory to hold, you need to offer evidence of a coordinated collusion of millions of diverse, separate, dispersed individuals and corporations. Free advice for you: won’t find it because it doesn’t exist,…and here’s why.
Businesses are driven to make profits that investors deem sufficient for the risk of the venture. The vast majority of radio station operators air content they know/believe will maximize profits (I admit some incredibly small percentage of operators won’t do that and will substitute some other goal). If radio station operators didn’t maximize profits then investors would simply take their money and invest it in a radio station company that did maximize profits and earn a higher return for them. Those are the hard realities of a market driven economy where capital flows to the highest return businesses. Capital is controlled by a very large, diverse, dispersed group of individuals and corporations. It is extremely unlikely, and I assert, nearly impossible to co-ordinate the actions of such a diverse group of investors to accept sub-optimal returns on their billions of dollars of invested capital by investing in radio stations that consistently and continually over a 20 years refuse to maximize profits by running “right-wing” radio shows. Please explain to me how so many millions of separate, unaffiliated, diverse investors have been forced to, or have agreed to act in collusion to earn less than optimal returns on their capital investments.
It just isn’t so. Sorry.
It would only take one savvy radio company to offer an alternative to right-wing focused shows that would tap your claimed massive, repressed, un-met demand for left-wing talk radio. Advertisers would flock to that station to advertise to that massive market. Ad slots are limited, so the strong demand would result in higher rates than paid to other AM talk stations, thus earning the radio company higher rates of retun on invested capital. Before you know it capital would flow relentlessly to expand that model to take advantage of the higher returns it generates. Alas, that isn’t happening.
So, we’re left with you having to explain how Karl Rove/Republicans/Conservatives/Right-wing nutjobs have accomplished all this in defiance of free capital markets and the rules by which those markets operate.
I would love to hear your theory because I’d love to employ it to force investors in my company to accept lower returns than they can freely get by investing in my competitors.
Craig Behnke
Hinchey also continues to opine that the Dan Rather TANG documents were planted by evil genius consigliere Karl Rove. So apparently there just aren’t enough media outlets willing to air his pet theory. Don’t know, offhand, what Amanda Marcotte makes of that kind of paranoia.
Supply and demand. Liberals should look into it.
I wonder why liberals never complain about entire prime time TV shows that are basically pro-Democrat/ Anti-Republican campaign ads. Like the show Brothers and Sisters
Hey, he has evidence!
(that no one else, including Rove, knows anything about)
Rush is successful because people want to listen to him. No one is forced to listen to him. (Air America was started like a 527, with donors and investors. Air America isn’t doing well not because of the lack of a fairness doctrine, but because it’s horrible and people do not want to listen.) In the free market of ideas, Rush has every right to exist. It could be argued that Rush counters the dominate liberal media bias found at more mainstream outlets like NBC, CBS, NPR, The New York Times, Time and Newsweek, Vanity Fair etc…
The real seriousness of this issue is that liberal/leftists secretly and seriously want to FORCE people to listen to them. And liberals want to shut down what they fear; conservative ideas.
Why are liberal/leftists so afraid of the free market of ideas?
Bottom line: If liberal/leftists get to decide what’s “FAIR”? We’re F***ed.
Hey, Diane Rehm just told NPR listeners to “cut down the tall trees.” Should I be worried?
Marsh is so dense she doesn’t even realize why some Democratic congressmen want to re-institute the fairness doctrine.
As in the pre-1987 days, the regulations that broadcast stations would have to follow would be so complex that many stations would simply opt out of the political talk format and move to sports or home improvement/gardening shows. The result wouldn’t be “fairer” political talk, but less political talk. Marsh and her ilk would probably have less of a chance to succeed under the new fairness doctrine than they do today.
But since the right rules talk radio, the left overall would benefit from its absence. This is really just an attempt to squash conservative speech through bueracratic red-tape.
Let’s start with NPR (even though I’ll miss Shamrock & Thistle).
There’s nothing to prevent “Shamrock and Thistle” from playing “The Girl I Left Behind Me” or “Garry Owen.”
Although it’s a sad sign of the times that those are regarded as “liberal” rather than, y’know, our common cultural heritage, like all those f***ing protest songs they ram down your throat.
Right wing radio came into being because the other media at the time (networks, newspapers, CNN) already had (and still have) and strong left-leaning tilt. This is what led to the success of Rush Limbaugh, as people who leaned right suddenly found an alternative. Even today, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and Hollywood relentlessly promote causes of the left and denigrate anything supported by the right. As usual, of course, the politicians are way behind the curve though. The rise of the Internet has given avenues for many other points of view and takes on world events. The concept of “fair” is obviously subjective and the Fairness Doctrine would just be a tool used by people who wished to impose more control over what is said on the radio airwaves. Given that people have so many sources of information today, there is no excuse for passing a law requiring “fairness” (whatever that is) on any media outlet.
T-web,
Marsh doesn’t care why. She simply wants her chosen vocation to be federally mandated, supported and enforced, like any good socialist would.
T-Web said…
Bingo!
Notice how those of us on the “right” admit that talk radio is mainly “conservative”. You never hear such honesty from liberals regarding the dominate liberal culture and bias in mainstream media.
I know you’ve already been corrected, and that your were gracious enough to concede the point, but still: did you even read the post?
Because it’s right there. In the post. I quoted Hinchey. I linked to a story that talked about the meeting.
Jesus.
Methinks she’s just plain ignorant of English conjugation: “you doth??” No.
Nice letter, Craig.
Heet wanted to get in his fair share of “manufactured outrage” I guess.
[…] bigots [the planks of that agenda being, per Dr Caric: affirmation for a color-blind Constitution; equality of opportunity over equality of outcome; federalist principles; a traditional idea of the First Amendment and free […]