| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| That's Not A Bug... |
| 2008-12-18 |
| Well, it's now out in the open: Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA -- is that any surprise?) is officially calling for a return of the "fairness doctrine." And not just the old one, that covered radio and television: she wants it to apply to cable and satellite programming, as well. This could be a bit problematic. According to the original Fairness Doctrine, radio and TV broadcasters' use of public airwaves made them guardians of a public trust. As such, they were obligated to the government to promote what was deemed the common good. Cable and satellite companies are, by definition, not broadcasters, and therefore don't fall under the same presumed obligations. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to grant equal time to opposing points of view. For example, if a host spent an hour railing against kicking dogs, the station would be obligated to offer an hour to someone extolling the virtues of puppy-punting. 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. So, under a revived Fairness Doctrine, a station that aired Rush Limbaugh's entire three-hour show would be obligated to air three hours of counterpoint. Fair is fair, right? Wrong. 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. Who will buy ads on the anti-Rush show? A lot fewer people. In fact, it's entirely possible that not enough sponsors will be found to cover the expenses of the anti-Rush show. So the station will have to decide whether or not they wish to continue to subsidize the anti-Rush show. But should they cut back (or cut out) the anti-Rush, then they have to cut back (or cut out) Limbaugh as well. No, it's not the stated goal, but this will cripple talk radio. Given the potential headaches, most stations will simply get rid of political talk entirely. As the saying goes, that's not a bug, it's a feature. If this seems a bit familiar, it should: it's another example of the principle of "equality" not being applied to opportunity, but to results. As seductive and idealistic as that may sound, it never works, because it ends up punishing success and rewarding failure. If the same result arises no matter how hard you try (or don't try at all), why try hard? Liberal talk radio has just as much of a chance to succeed as conservative talk radio. That it has failed is not the fault of conservative talk radio, and conservative broadcasters should not be punished for simply being more popular. The call for "fairness" will severely cripple -- if not destroy -- the conservative talk radio market. And that is one of the more profitable markets in radio today, especially on the otherwise-dying AM band. In the name of "fairness," one of the strongest forces for conservatism will be crippled, and broadcasters across the country will be devastated. Just keep telling yourself: that's not a bug, it's a feature. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #16 "Don't have the % for PBS but it was cut a fair amount in 2005." Not enough, obviously.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-12-18 22:44 |
| #15 NPR gets about 2% of its money from the federal government; some more from states. They were bequeathed $225 million by Joan Kroc a while ago, bumped up salaries a lot at the time IIRC. Don't have the % for PBS but it was cut a fair amount in 2005. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-12-18 22:27 |
| #14 I can think of two things that would get me actively fired up: 1. no more talk radio, and 2. impeachment procedings against W. |
| Posted by: bman 2008-12-18 12:39 |
| #13 Unmasking the Myths Behind the Fairness Doctrine |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-12-18 11:38 |
| #12 I'm sure NPR and PBS would be exempt... them being government supported and such.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-12-18 11:34 |
| #11 |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-12-18 11:32 |
| #10 Who will buy ads on the anti-Rush show? Boys and Girls Clubs everywhere shudder at that thought... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-12-18 11:28 |
| #9 I think Rush would enjoy being on half hour of every hour on NPR and PBS to ensure Fair play all around. When the Liberals learn they are destroying their own bastions of liberal thought they will start to rethink this silly plan. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-12-18 11:25 |
| #8 Who will buy ads on the anti-Rush show? A lot fewer people. O contraire, mon frere. There are lots of people paying for the anti-Rush show already. Including you. It's called NPR. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-12-18 11:22 |
| #7 Rush has a lot of very dedicated people listening to his program. They will be pissed if he is taken off the air, and there will be repurcussions. |
| Posted by: bman 2008-12-18 11:03 |
| #6 I have a question that should actually be semi-intelligent and on-point for once. Don't broadcasters have a lobby? A very powerful and well funded lobby? Should we really be worried about this at all? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-12-18 10:48 |
| #5 I didn't realize Dennis Miller was a conservative talk show host. Has anyone informed him of this? Cause I think he and most of his listeners think they are middle of the road. I guess if you're not a flaming liberal jagoff you must be a conservative nazi. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-12-18 10:44 |
| #4 When do I wake up from this nightmare? About four years from now if we are lucky. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-12-18 03:33 |
| #3 When do I wake up from this nightmare? When they come knocking at your door at 3 am? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-12-18 03:33 |
| #2 That it is even politically feasible to support such outrageous censorship (finally, an accurate use of the term, even minus "Congress passing any law" explicitly limiting freedom of the press) is - in a year when the word has lost its meaning - "unbelievable". This sort of thing takes tinfoil-hat paranoia and validates it. But we're supposed to be upset by the Patriot Act, or warrantless NSA surveillance - wherein there wasn't the slightest erosion of Constitutional protections or processes. When do I wake up from this nightmare? |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-12-18 01:20 |
| #1 Who will buy ads on the anti-Rush show? A lot fewer people. In fact, it's entirely possible that not enough sponsors will be found to cover the expenses of the anti-Rush show. So the station will have to decide whether or not they wish to continue to subsidize the anti-Rush show. But should they cut back (or cut out) the anti-Rush, then they have to cut back (or cut out) Limbaugh as well. This government policy is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment against government takings without due process. The "fairness doctrine" permits Congress to abdicate its role as a protector of free speech and to make itself into a role it is much more comfortable with: a thief of private wealth. |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-12-18 00:25 |