The Fairness Doctrine and the Democrat
Nothing could be sillier than reinstituting the badly named "Fairness Doctrine." We have an information glut. If I want liberal bias, I can pick up the WSJ or the NYT. If I want loud, ear-splitting boomer bumper music with conservative opinion, I can listen to Glenn Beck on radio or watch him on cable. If I want to know what to watch for on the left, I just read Moveon dot org on the internet. Every McCain and Obama and Clinton support group has a web site. I'm still getting mailings from Mike Huckabee! If I want fundy greenies, I can tune into PBS, or if I want liberal greenies, well, I can just open one of my husband's professional magazines. Christian information sites bloom like mold on cathedral walls. (Can you tell I've been to Europe?) But "they" are trying it again. Not just to silence talk radio, and any conservative or libertarian view points, but to stifle Christians on Sunday morning from preaching some of the tough stuff on sex, marriage, greed, politics, parenting, etc. even from the pulpit. How could any single program, paper, editor, reporter ever squeeze every opinion into one story? The law suits would abound; silence, fear and dullness would reign. Here's a little background by WDUN AM 550 in Gainesville, Ga. talker Martha Zoller:- "Until recently, America had a large and robust variety of newspapers and other printed media, but a smaller amount of broadcast availability due to limited frequencies. The Fairness Doctrine came about during the age of Communism and argued that since the airwaves were limited, there should be balance or “fairness” in the points of view that were presented. It applied only to radio and while in place, radio stations avoided controversial topics altogether in order to avoid any problems with the FCC.
In 1984, due to new technologies, the Supreme Court decided the scarcity argument no longer applied and lifted the Fairness Doctrine. And that was before the Internet allowed for limitless voices. There wasn’t much resistance at the time, because radio was thought to be old media.
The end of the Doctrine allowed the explosion of talk radio, saved AM radio and created thousands of new jobs in the broadcast industry. It was one man, Rush Limbaugh, who at the time showed ailing Top 40 AM radio stations they could flourish and be profitable as news/talk stations. Since then, the left has hated the power of talk radio and has made noises recently that they want a return of the Fairness Doctrine. If that happens, talk radio as we know it will cease to exist. Continue here.
HT Newsbusters
Posts
4 comments:
The first talk radio station (KABC in Los Angeles) went on the air in 1960 — 25-plus years before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.
There was already plenty of talk radio by the time it was repealed in 1987, and more stations were converting to it everyday. Satellites and FM competition stimulated talk radio, not the repeal of FD.
Nobody ever went belly up because of the Fairness Doctrine, except for the one station owner who refused to let someone answer a personal attack and whose case went to the Supreme Court.
In the hypothetical “example” you cite, why couldn’t you have had both sides in the room at the same time and let them square off? That’s how fairness was usually dealt with in those days.
Talk radio arrived LONG before FD repeal. KABC went on in 1960, Larry King went into national syndication in 1978, and the first nationally syndicated conservative host, Ray Briem, went national in
1 9 8 2!!!
Rush did not save the “AM Spectrum.” He saved ONE station in each market. The rest either went to sports or became the no-tell motel, selling shows by the hour. AM listening plateaued for a couple of years in the mid-90’s, then RESUMED its downward trend. Perhaps the uniformity and limited appeal of talk radio is a reason.
And Obama has already come out against FD, so it’s all a red herring. A red herring resigned to rile the conservative base, and to help corporate radio, which is leading a lobbying campaign to keep from having any local programming requirements or staff requirements. Most AM talk stations are computers in closets running off satellite feeds, and the big owners want to keep it that way. Little or no local news, little or no local talk. It helps their bottom line to have conservative bloggers dressing up the FCC’ s localism proposals as a plot to silence conservatives.
So you're saying we don't need the Fairness Doctrine, and probably never did? And never will? Why is Ms Pelosi so eager to reinstate? We have a very different, litigious climate now. If you disagree with Ms Zoller's history of radio talk, perhaps she can argue the finer points of who did what when.
Thank you for your comments.
Talk before Rush? You mean like The Breakfast Club, Drive time chit chat, the guys who report on aliens from outer space and sports interviews? Maybe not belly up, but Larry King could peel wall paper. FM? Satellite? Where? When?
What newspaper do you think is biased and fair?
Post a Comment