I keep trying to ignore it, hoping it would just go away, but it keeps coming back. Vodkapundit reminds us that liberals love talking up the Fairness Doctrine (emphasis added):
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, said Monday she will work to restore the Fairness Doctrine and have it apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.
“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it,” Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.
Eshoo said she would recommend the doctrine be applied not only to radio and TV broadcasts, but also to cable and satellite services.
“It should and will affect everyone,” she said.
She called the present system “unfair,” and said “there should be equal time for the spoken word.”
Apparently, the Fairness Doctrine clouds haven’t lifted as there are still liberals out there who think government should mandate what the people need to listen to on the radio and on television, only this time with a 21st century twist: cable and satellite transmissions should be included.
Orwellian issues aside, the Fairness Doctrine is flawed for the simple reason that government micromanaging private enterprise is never a good thing, and this is precisely what it does. As JG Thayer points out, the liberal “spoken word” is not very profitable, because nobody really wants to listen:
For all the high-minded rhetoric behind the return of the Fairness Doctrine, the underlying goal is the same: to rein in talk radio, where conservatism has found its greatest popular success. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Jerry Doyle, Dennis Miller, are monumental success.
Conversely, liberals on the radio have been utter failures. Air America still limps along, but its market share has continually diminished and it has never made a single dime. Indeed, at some points it had to resort to shady (if not downright illegal) practices to stay solvent.
…
The station that airs Limbaugh does so because it is profitable for them to do so. Its advertisers are willing to sponsor Limbaugh’s show: that ’s how it gets on the air.
The good news is that Anna Eshoo is pretty much irrelevant. But in the meantime, let’s just chalk this up to my being paranoid again for no good reason.
Browse the headlines of the past few weeks and you’ll see various examples of the dangers of forcing liberalism upon a free society. The implosion of the financial markets can be traced back to the implementation of the CRA, which in essence, is socialism rammed down the throat of the banking industry. The tenuous auto industry, buckling under the weight of the competitive disadvantage bestowed upon it by a suffocating unionized workforce, for the “benefit” of blue-collar workers.
Along the same lines, the Fairness Doctrine is as “fair” as George Orwell’s Ministry of Love was affectionate.
Make no mistake, with a larger majority in Congress and a liberal President, the Democrats will try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine; the policy determines what the American people listen to on the radio, in the name of “fairness”. Most liberals would favor the policy. Why? Because it would in effect, stifle what is arguably the most powerful medium in the expression of conservative ideals: talk radio. Like the mortgage and auto industry among others, fairness requires regulatory intervention to delineate and rectify the inherent “misconduct” of free and logical enterprise.
The foundation for restoring the policy is being laid out.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated several times her desire to have the policy reinstated. An aide to Pelosi admits to liberals’ fear of free speech:
Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don’t want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008.
Democrats Henry Waxman and John Dingell are engaged in a battle for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The committee is a powerful one. Politically, the focus here is which of the two Congressmen gets to stick it to the pharmaceutical industry (both Waxman and Dingell have previously lead the charge in this fight). But the committee’s jurisdiction is widespread, covering energy, the environment and, significantly, radio; this is done through the Subcommittee on Telecomunications and the Internet. We’ve written about this Democratic infighting and it’s been well documented that Dingell is backed by a contingent of moderate Democrats. Waxman is notoriously liberal, arguably more so than Dingell. Waxman would enjoy nothing more than to see the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
Last month, Senator Jeff Bingaman shared his view of the media industry’s “higher calling” as justification for implementing the policy:
I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view instead of always hammering away at one side of the political-
Well I guess my thought is that talk radio and media generally should have a higher calling than just reflect a particular point of view. I think they should use their authority to try to – their broadcast power to present an informed discussion of public issues
Senator Chuck Schumer, who can always be counted on to lead the charge in front running and political cowardice on “real” issues, chimed in on election day. His comparison of conservative talk radio to pornography is especially disturbing and quite frankly, idiotic. But it is,after all, Chuck Schumer:
When John Podesta is not leading President-elect Obama’s transition team, he is a leader of another left-wing organization, the Center for American Progress. A progressive think tank, the CAP has adamantly supported the Fairness Doctrine. Last year, it issued a pubclication to this effect. With various numbers and graphs, the document proves one of the basic tenet of capitalism: free markets root out the excesses of inefficient products and services. In other words, liberal talk radio generates significantly lower ratings, and therefore, lower profitability compared to its conservative counterpart. The study recommends some ”remedies”, and in true liberal fashion, plays the race card:
Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows
Which brings us to President-elect Obama. True to his form as an eloquent speaker, he knows how to speak from both sides of his mouth. He can do this and still manage to pursuade scores of believers that he means what he “says”. Hence, he can be oppose gay marriage, yet still support Proposition 8, for example. Obama has said he is not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. But does this mean he will oppose its implementation? Jesse Walker at Reason notes that suppression of free speech and liberalism’s socialist tendencies are not exclusive to the Fairness Docrine alone:
There’s a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations’ programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership.
An Obama FCC might mean still more steps toward reregulation. Coming on the heels of Martin’s commission, it could also mean a relative reprieve-even, in some areas, a move away from command and control. A lot depends on events, and a lot depends on which interest groups acquire the most influence in his administration
And, tying in to Podesta’s thinking:
Obama has the overwhelming support of the black community. Generally speaking, that includes blacks in the broadcasting business. The Democratic coalition has a history of calling for more minority-owned enterprises, and that’s not likely to change during an Obama presidency.
And who has Obama tapped to head the FCC transition team? One Mr. Henry Rivera, a radical lobbyist to the the broadcast/telecom industry, whose passion of late has been pushing “diversity” among ownership in the industry:
Reports about the man that President-elect Barack Obama is expected to choose to manage the transition at the Federal Communications Commission emphasize his past role as a lobbyist and FCC Commissioner. But the truth is that Henry Rivera has never really left the FCC, having stayed active in its matrix of advisory groups from the 1980s right up to the present. And Rivera’s agenda is no secret: figuring out ways to help minorities get a bigger slice of the telecommunications and broadcast media pie.
In fact, as Chair of the Commission’s Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age, Rivera just sent the agency a set of recommendations on how to further this goal. It suggests three ways to enhance “the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries.
The premise of the Fairness Doctrine goes against one of the basic principles set forth in our Constitution: the right to free speech. The political planets are aligned, the actors are in position and the requisite “change” is in the air for the policy to soon be resurrected. It’s up to the Republicans in Congress and conservatives in general to take a stand here, against what could be the first ideological battle of the new administration.
As Malkin notes, Democrats don’t particulary care for talk radio when it’s helping to call BS on a porkulus bill. Senator Stabenow is doing the honors now, via Politico.
BILL PRESS: Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that’s all. You know, we’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?
SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair — that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.
The interview refers to an op-ed that Press wrote in WaPo earlier this week. The highlights are disturbing in their idiocy:
The commercial use of public airwaves is supposed to reflect the diversity of the local community, but that’s not how it works in Washington.
[...]
Starting tomorrow, our nation’s capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no progressive voices on the air.
[...]
Nationwide, progressive talkers Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller have proven that, given a level playing field, they can more than hold their own in ratings — and make money for their stations.
Bill Press is obviously delusional. Since when does the political make-up of legislative offices determine what and who gets air time on the radio? And Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller? Give them a “level playing field”? Why? If the public doesn’t care enough to listen–why bother? Absolute insanity.
(UPDATE V)
Hey, whaddya know? Bubba chimes in on the Fairness Doctrine (via Allahpundit)
(UPDATE VI)
If its Friday the 13th, it must be Fairness Doctrine Watch—either that or the fact that people are wising up to the whiff of socialism emanating from Washington these days which is leading more and more lefty politicians to call for the Fairness Doctrine. Seems like every day now there’s more hand-wringing about conservative talk radio.
(UPDATE VII)
Yes-update SEVEN. I’m too lazy to start a new thread right now, so here goes. According to FOX News the White House is saying that President Obama opposes any move to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Take it for what it’s worth. I agree with Philip Klein over at AmSpec, Obama is more politically saavy than to waste political capital on an issue that is so polarized. Barack Obama is a leftist ideologue, and knows how to play politics. As per his Alinskyite political upbringing, he does the opposite of what he says he will do—and the lemmings on the left applaud him for it. As such, the pronouncement from the White House doesn’t necessarily mean much in the sense that the buck stops at the White House on this particular issue. As Ed Morrissey notes, there has been a cavalcade of politicians making noise about the FD in the past few weeks and whose to say the new FCC won’t push it as well? Will Obama stand in the way? I doubt it.
(UPDATE VIII)
Sen. De Mint wants to vote on a bill that would prohibit the FCC from reinstaing the FD. Interesting move, but as Allahpundit points out—the White House moves in stealth-like fashion these days, and nothing is as it seems. Whether its called the “Fairness Doctrine” or some other moniker, liberals will find a way to weasel it in somehow.
Recent Comments