CT
The main concern of most Americans right now is the economic crisis and how it will effect their futures. Why wouldn’t it be? We are facing possible financial ruin amid a Keynesian scramble to spend our way out of it. People are frightened and rightfully so. For the Progressive led Congress and White House, this attitude and environment could be the catalyst they need to push through legislation like the Fairness Doctrine.
Earlier this month CoS designate, Rahm Emanuel, was quoted in an interview as saying, “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” “They are opportunities to do big things.” This is a very ambiguous statement which might make some leery about the upcoming administration's motivation.
What does all this have to do with the Fairness Doctrine? A lot. As noted on The Foundry; conservative talk show hosts actually shifted the political dynamic of the electorate concerning comprehensive immigration reform. It gave them a look into the heart of the legislation and made the more politically active among them swamp Congressional representatives with calls. The result was that the package was summarily defeated.
Howard Kurtz, of Washington Post fame, had an article back in February of 2008 that itemized some of Rush Limbaugh’s contributions to shaping policy inside the Beltway. These examples show that Conservative Talk Radio has had a profound effect on many issues; from electing certain candidates to stopping legislation. It has been a powerful tool for the Right in regards to information dissemination.
Due to Conservative Talk's popularity, obvious influence, and the failure of Air-America, the Left has been demonstrating their willingness to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine. Support for the renewal of this legislation ranges from; Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Louise Slaughter (Slaughter, re-introduced its failed legislation in 2004-05), Barbara Boxer, and Chuck Schumer.
More than likely an introduction of the Fairness Doctrine, in its present form, would alienate a large portion of the voting bloc. This could serve as a rally cry for the GOP in 10' and possibly even 12'. So, this brings up the Fairness Doctrine rev 3.0.
Due to this potentially divisive nature and the Progressive juggernaut's political prescience, I highly doubt we will see direct legislation. They are much smarter than that. The expectation should be that any sort of laws limiting talk radio (Free Speech) will be attached as bill riders or under the guise of "localism." (President-elect Obama claims he opposes the Fairness Doctrine, but supports localism.) If attached as riders, they should be showing up in economic bills related to solving the credit crunch. This puts GOP Reps and Senators in a precarious position. Who in their right mind would oppose an economic package designed to "help" the people based on how it will limit talk radio? It's a political "Catch 22."
The political environment is ripe for the Progressives to make their legislative moves. If they are ever going to do it, now is the time. They would have to wait another 30-40 years for an opportunity like this to arise. And remember, "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” “They are opportunities to do big things."
Fairness Doctrine rev 3.0
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Could someone please explain to me how the fairness doctrine would impact talk radio? The fair doctrine merely states that a program must present opposing views. Is Rush Limbaugh so afraid of democrats that he can't face them on an equal footing?
Interesting the venue for opposing points of view already exisits, it is called Air-America and MSNBC. The simple fact is if you don't like Rush Limhaugh or Glenn Beck, don't listen. Support the media outlets that you do like. The government should in no way be forcing its will into private markets. This has nothing to do with fear it has to do with choice.
O' the child-like minds...
And that's great, CT, but I find myself reading right wing bloggers who seem to think that the FAIRness Doctrine would somehow shut them down. This sort of view is either a blantant lie, propaganda, or just plain ignorance.
That is fine but other right wing blogs have nothing to do with this right wing blog. No one here has even brought up that possibility. Even if it was a reality it would take years to get there, so that point is moot right now.
Then I don't understand the problem.
And no, it wouldn't take years to get there if the support is there for it.
How is diverting your argument to the blog world have anything to do with the way the Fairness Doctrine, bill riders, or localism as applied to talk radio? Or is this a juvenile attempt to shift away from the topic and high-jack a thread?
Sorry, don't know why the "Fairness Doctrine" is such a big problem when
a) Obama doesn't support it,
b) It would not stop conservative talk radio?
It seems like some people on the right are using the issue as a form of disinformation straight from their imaginations. As for localism, I thought you folk were all for state rights?
Did you even read the post? Sometimes it seems you read the first paragraph and think you have an issue. I have noticed you come across as woefully misinformed on most posts you comment on. It was noted that Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine.
Lol, is your inane attempt to make this a state's rights issue an attempt at comedy? If this were a public radio broadcast, the fairness doctrine or localism would have application. This is a free market based privately funded institution. It should only adhere to ruels regarding obscenity and hate speech, that is it.
And before you try and say talk radio is obscene or hateful, please spare me your childish sarcasm, it falls on deaf ears.
"Did you even read the post? Sometimes it seems you read the first paragraph and think you have an issue. I have noticed you come across as woefully misinformed on most posts you comment on. It was noted that Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine."
Yeah, I don't like reading. I just attack random propositions that conservatives like to continually ramble on about.
"Lol, is your inane attempt to make this a state's rights issue an attempt at comedy? If this were a public radio broadcast, the fairness doctrine or localism would have application. This is a free market based privately funded institution. It should only adhere to ruels regarding obscenity and hate speech, that is it."
Should? Also, what is "this" in "this is a free market". You see, you guys think that going local is somehow going to solve your problems, but liberals can go local too.
"And before you try and say talk radio is obscene or hateful, please spare me your childish sarcasm, it falls on deaf ears."
It can be as obscene or as hateful as it wants. I don't really care. What I'm interested in knowing is why the "fairness doctrine" would, be it implemented federally or locally, hamper conservative free speech? If 87% percent of jouranlists are democrats, that's their choice. You harp continually about this fact as if you want fair representation in media, as if you want affirmative action in the media.
It is very simple. Any mandating or requirement that radio stations must carry/support liberal hosts is a violation of free market.
If so people wanted to hear liberal voices, then there would be liberal voices. Air America is doing poorly becaue there is no market for liberal talk radio.
Now, the fairness doctrine WOULD FORCE to balance and this will drive down interest. That will drive down listeners and ultimately will drive away advertisement. Less money, less talk radio. Job complete.
How is this hard to understand?
"It is very simple. Any mandating or requirement that radio stations must carry/support liberal hosts is a violation of free market."
There is no "free market". Read the constitution. If you meant that it was a violation of "free speech", you are correct.
"If so people wanted to hear liberal voices, then there would be liberal voices. Air America is doing poorly becaue there is no market for liberal talk radio."
Yeah, people are attracted to 1) the values they know best 2) dramas and 3) easy argumentation. Hard arguments take time and effort to understand. If liberal and conservative voices were heard together, it would cause people to understand both arguments in context of those arguments, instead of getting a dramatic, drama queen version (Limbaugh).
"Now, the fairness doctrine WOULD FORCE to balance and this will drive down interest. That will drive down listeners and ultimately will drive away advertisement. Less money, less talk radio. Job complete."
Yes, it would force a balance of understanding, drive down interest, and thus drive away listeners, because listeners don't want to earnestly think about the politics they are consuming. They want Drama Queen Limbaugh. If they were forced to think, they probably couldn't hold onto a majority of the beliefs they think they have.
Either way, it does not matter. Economic turmoil will wash away conservative rhetoric when it gets servere enough. It was called the red tide for a reason. ;)