What Are Conservative Talkers Afraid Of?
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.
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.
Calling the Fairness Doctrine “censorship” is as much a misnomer as calling Pro-choice groups “Pro-abortion.” It’s simply an attempt to demonize the opposition without the need for accuracy. The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t tell a talker what he can say nor even mandates the need to tell the truth. As with most of this self-serving branding it uses an Orwellian contortion to portray the issue as the opposite of the truth. If there is any voice that is being excluded, it is that of the Left. In some major cities, no major talk station uses a so-called liberal talk show host in their weekday lineup.
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?
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.
So…let’s get rid of the Fairness Doctrine. It just doesn’t say enough.
From now on, let’s call it The Fair and Balanced Doctrine. That’s something the right shouldn’t be scared of.
It’s only fair.
Award-winning TV wriuter Steve Yoiung blogs at the appropriately-named SteveYoungonPolitics.com
Comments
5 Responses to “What Are Conservative Talkers Afraid Of?”
Leave a Reply
-
Special Message For You...
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and now.
Thoughtful liberals tend to be handicapped by an affection for truth and rationality. This helps them when they are able to go one on one with neo-cons, because rationality wins over ideology every time. But part of what’s going on is that neo-cons avoid that confrontation so that their lies and distortions are uttered without immediate challenge.
The best thing to do is ignore them, pretend they don’t exist, and marginalize them. Like any vestigial organ they will eventually wither and die. Besides, they hate to be ignored.
Fair & Balanced Doctrine.
That’s unfair; it would send them into a unbalanced tizzy.
Fairness can be perceived at multiple levels. You can argue that air waves are private property and the government has no right to impose anything on the owners of private property. If you don’t subscribe to that theory, then you probably believe that the airwaves are “public”. Why are those particular resources “public”?
If the airwaves are public why isn’t all land public? Why also aren’t the television waves public and the NPR waves. Also, the sides of buses and the Internet. What is the reasoning behind declaring AM commercial radio public and only AM commercial radio, and therefore requiring some kind of equal treatment of, mmmm, what issues? If AM commercial radio is required to be “Fair”, does that mean that intelligent design should receive equal consideration? What about Jesus Christ versus Mohammed, or the pro’s and con’s of the Iraq war or both sides of any moral issue (homosexuality, abortion, legalized drugs, bigamy, prostition, etc). Equal treatment of both sides means also, that the communist party and the nazi party should be on stage during presidential debates and given equal time.
We are deciding which things in the world are to be taken over by the our government. When a government takes over something, it become politicized and the results and benefits of the resource will depend on the November elections. Is that what everyone wants or expects?
Are we really ready for “Fairness” or do we just want “fairness” in one tiny corner of society?
Ed Bradford
Ed Bradfprds last blog post..Emily Bracken: The NY/LA Dictionary
Look at what 20 plus years of Rush, etc. has done to the “image” of liberal—hateful propaganda as well as outright lies have made many as unwilling to admit to liberalism as some were to being feminists…although polls show majority support for the actual “values” of liberalism. Since the public “owns” the airways, should “we” not be reflected in the airways? We won…our media should be at least a 50% reflection of our world-view. We are apparently way down on the list of countries who support “free speech”…wakeup call?