Right Tries To Redefine Free Speech…Again
The Right is back to their old tricks, as if they ever left them.
Now it’s not the Fairness Doctrine. It’s the Censorship Doctrine. Instead of giving both sides fair access to the airwaves, it’s taking it away from the Right.
No one need to look further than my debate with Sean Hannity and Brent Bozell of the Media Research Centers on Hannity’s syndicated radio show last Tuesday where both Hannity and Bozell quickly re-labeled the Fairness Doctrine as the Censorship Doctrine, which in all honesty was Sean’s invention which Bozell happily hopped on.
For the record, the Fairness Doctrine was a U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present issues in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. Not just say you’re balanced. Actually be balanced.
The Right has always been artists for their capacity to frame the debate in terms that romanticizes their argument while demonizing the opposition’s. Bill O’Reilly who has made a living out of deeming anyone who doesn’t think as he does as “secular progressive” or SPs. “Secular” to read “atheist” of “agnostic,” and “progressive” to mean “not as our founding fathers would have wanted.” On the other hand, O’Reilly’s assesses his own views as God-reverent and traditional (a further delineation that O’Reilly considers “all that is good).
To think that this style is anything less that tagging your adversary as the bad guys, would, in effect, make you a secular progressive. O’Reilly’s defense would be that not all those on the left are God-rejecters falls flat with his list of SP Democrats who practice “traditional” religions that tend to believe in God.
But misleading the public is free speech, just as much as telling the truth is. The Left just wants its opportunity to choose which to give the public. And truth be know, the airwaves are owned by the public. The stations only license its use. If the stations, as they are presently, only choose to serve half the public, is the public being served?
Bozell used the time-worn argument that Mario Cuomo - remember his radio talk show, between Fred Allen and Jack Benny - didn’t make it in radio. Today, Jones Radio’s Ed Schultz is listed in Talkers Magazine’s Top Ten Talk Shows and is the top revenue producer on Liberal talk radio, yet most of the public never has a chance to decide whether they like him or not.
All’s fair in love and war…just not in talk radio. Since “fairness” doesn’t cut it with the Right, perhaps the Left needs to frame their own argument better. Instead of being placed on the defensive, which is exactly talk radio’s attack style, utilize the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” strategy.
“Yes, Sean. There is censorship…by the Right and of more than half the public.”
You, my right wing hunk, have just been served…Fairly.
Steve
Comments
11 Responses to “Right Tries To Redefine Free Speech…Again”
Leave a Reply
-
Special Message For You...
I don’t see allowing listeners on any part of the spectrum a balanced representation of thought. Bring on some independent and green thought too. Or any viable point of view. It would be desirable if animosity, name calling and any other sort below the belt behavior were excluded. Perhaps loss of air minutes would be a good penalty. How could fairness ever be unwelcome in our Democracy????
Because then the right would have to tell the truth for once.
I left a “Limbaugh” in the toilet before I came to work.
I saw a big pile of dog-Limbaugh on the lawn today.
This commentary is dead on the bullseye. I travel the United States, daily, for a living. The hatred and division, and I’ll go as far as to say the racism, that is generated and fanned every day by these right wing “commentators”, is appalling. The trash that they emulate over the air waves, and protected by freedom of speech, stands to be reevaluated. To direct their audiences to work against their president elect(ie gov.), with the sole purpose of regaining political power, is not for the betterment of any American. One host recently said that he was heading the conservative movement and he was going after the Democratic power. He stated that conservative radio was the means to push the Republican parties agenda. Is this balanced broadcasting? It’s sad how they envy and demean a man that, at the mere mention of his name can command an audience of millions when all they can attract is an audience of radicals. For too long, in their protected forum, they have been declaring themselves as “leaders” when in reality they are antagonists.
I always flush a “Bush” in the morning.
“…If the stations, as they are presently, only choose to serve half the public, is the public being served?…”
In reality, about 30% of the country identifies as Republican, 40% Democrats and the rest are independent/undecided. The independent/undecided get ZERO air time.
Also, Ed Schultz is AGAINST the Fairness Doctrine. I’ve been having an e-mail exchange with him telling him this is the wrong position. Let me explain why.
Ed Schultz is heard in Chicago on an unpolular, low-power, daytime only AM station. I believe it is a similar situation in LA, New York and many other markets around the country. In comparison, Limbaugh and Hannity are heard on an AM powerhouse station in Chicago that ASSURES good ratings. Limbaugh usually posts at least a 4.0 rating whereas Schultz’s Chicago station pulls only a 0.1!!!
So Schultz (and Stephanie Miller) are stuck on a crappy station while Limbaugh coasts to big ratings on a great station. If they were forced to switch stations you’d see Limbaugh with toilet ratings and Schultz would be a major star.
If the Fairness Doctrine was reinstated Schultz could argue that the Chicago powerhouse station should have at least one non neo-conservative voice (it has 18 hours daily of republican crap). Not only would the Fairness Doctrine assure Schultz of big ratings in major cities but with it would come Limbaugh type pay.
So why is Schultz and Stephanie Miller against the Fairness Doctrine? Do they not want big ratings and big contracts?
Pure stupidity.
I’d also like to point out that the Fairness Doctrine could’ve prevented the Iraq war.
How?
The country was awash in lies that Iraq had WMD and was an immediate threat to the U.S. Also the country had been told the lie that Saddam and Bin Ladin were in collusion.
We on the left knew these claims were bogus and laughable.
But we had no access to major media to reach the masses and tell them the truth.
So the lies went unchallenged except on a few websites.
If we had equal access to our airwaves (free tv or radio) the lies would’ve been debunked sufficiently to stop the war.
One million Iraqis would be alive, along with 4,000 American soldiers and 3 trillion dollars would still be in the Treasury.
The CIA calls this “Information Dominance”. They know that their lies must exist unchallenged. This is why they don’t even want to give up 5% of their airtime, for they’d be exposed as the charlatans they are.
Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.
*** Same for the recent $700 billion bank gift and dozens of other major stories! Heck, 99% of the country doesn’t know about the Downing Street memos!! You can bet if those memos exposed President Gore every American would know every word of them!
The way the wingnuts are always railing against the “liberal” media, don’t you think that they’d WANT the Fairness doctrine in place so that conservatives could finally get equal representation in the “liberal”-dominated MSM?
Since they obviously don’t want the Fairness Doctrine restored, could it be that the Limbaughs of radio really DON’T believe that they are victims of the “liberal” media? Could it be that the media really isn’t run by liberals, after all? Could they, in fact, be LYING to their listeners?
we should call their bluff. Make the point that the Fairnes doctrine would finally give them EQUAL TIME in the “liberal” media. They can hardly oppose that, can they?
You areexactly right, DREW:
“The way the wingnuts are always railing against the ‘liberal’ media, don’t you think that they’d WANT the Fairness doctrine in place so that conservatives could finally get equal representation in the “liberal”-dominated MSM?”
===================================================
This strips naked the hypocrisy of rightwingers, who constantly call the Media “Liberal”—Then if it so liberal, why wouldn’t mandating BALANCED reporting be a good thing?
Ofcourse, we have a mostly conservative, Right-leaning, Corporate-owned Media that would benefit from the Firness Doctrine mandate.
The nutjobs just don’t want to lose their subsidized sugar-daddies in the Corporate Media and RW-saturated talk-radio, AND THAT IS IT.
Why can’t left wing radio be successful in the marketplace? We should force it down peoples’ throats via Fairness Doctrine and Publicly funded radio. This is true fairness. And we should send Rush and Hannity to the re-education camps in northern Michigan to help them think correctly.
This is America! We have the right to shut down speech we don’t agree with!