Un-Fairness Doctrine
Another bad idea that infringes upon our rights.
Feinstein says she is “looking at” reviving the Fairness Doctrine to counteract the decidedly conservative bent of talk radio. Former President Reagan and a Democratic Congress repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
She wants to bring it back because she thinks “one-sided programming” pushes the American people into “extreme views” — such as their current opposition to the Bush/Kennedy/McCain immigration bill. She wants “an opportunity to present the other side” by forcing radio stations to offer more liberal fare.
The end result of something like this is the end of talk radio. Prior to the termination of the Fairness Doctrine in the late 1980's there was very little talk radio and AM radio was dying. With the end of it, radio stations were allowed to put on people who brought in ratings. In this case it happened (and still is) to be conservative style programming.
If this doctrine was brought into force it would make radio stations have (for instance) one liberal program to offset one conservative program.
For whatever reason there really are not many popular liberal talk radio hosts. As such the end result would be less conservative talk radio which of course is the reason the liberals want to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine.
Some of the excuses given for the dominance of the right on the AM radio is that the corporations who control the radio stations want it that way.
I disagree. Remember these are the greedy capitalists the left complain about...
I am pretty damn sure that if radio listeners wanted and would listen to left leaning talk radio they would put that on in a heartbeat. Remember it is all about the greenbacks baby.
It is not as if there have not been attempts to get liberal leaning programs on the air. The most resent failure is Air America. So it is not like there haven't been attempts.
It is not as if there are already plenty of media outlets are dominated by left leaning types already. I look at this attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine as an attempt to eliminate or severely reduce right leaning or conservative influence.
In the early 30's or 40's one could make the case that there should be fairness in what is broadcast due to the limited sources where one could get their information.
Today on the other hand that is not a problem.
- We have network news
- We have countless cable news outlets
- We have print version newspapers and countless online newspapers
- You have the internet where you can read and get news from around the country and the world.
As such, outside of political motivations there really is no reason to try to have government get involved in decided the makeup of what is on AM radio.
If we allow this doctrine to get re-instated we are allowing the government to increase its control over us, and to reduce our free speech.
Besides who the hell gives these people the right to regulate what type of opinions are broadcast?
If the roles were reversed...I might not like the fact that AM radio was dominated by the left...but I could NEVER IMAGINE myself trying to get the government to regulate that.
It goes against my very nature.
Let the market decide baby!
Remember this (this is to you guys on the left)...you may think the Fairness Doctrine is a great idea. However if you allow government to control one aspect of what is said (political free speech) it is not inconceivable that at some time in the future the government will want to regulate some aspect of political free speech that is dear to you.
It is much better to keep politicians of either stripe from deciding on what constitutes mine (or yours) free speech.
If this doctrine was brought into force it would make radio stations have (for instance) one liberal program to offset one conservative program.
For whatever reason there really are not many popular liberal talk radio hosts. As such the end result would be less conservative talk radio which of course is the reason the liberals want to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine.
Some of the excuses given for the dominance of the right on the AM radio is that the corporations who control the radio stations want it that way.
I disagree. Remember these are the greedy capitalists the left complain about...
I am pretty damn sure that if radio listeners wanted and would listen to left leaning talk radio they would put that on in a heartbeat. Remember it is all about the greenbacks baby.
It is not as if there have not been attempts to get liberal leaning programs on the air. The most resent failure is Air America. So it is not like there haven't been attempts.
It is not as if there are already plenty of media outlets are dominated by left leaning types already. I look at this attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine as an attempt to eliminate or severely reduce right leaning or conservative influence.
In the early 30's or 40's one could make the case that there should be fairness in what is broadcast due to the limited sources where one could get their information.
Today on the other hand that is not a problem.
- We have network news
- We have countless cable news outlets
- We have print version newspapers and countless online newspapers
- You have the internet where you can read and get news from around the country and the world.
As such, outside of political motivations there really is no reason to try to have government get involved in decided the makeup of what is on AM radio.
If we allow this doctrine to get re-instated we are allowing the government to increase its control over us, and to reduce our free speech.
Besides who the hell gives these people the right to regulate what type of opinions are broadcast?
If the roles were reversed...I might not like the fact that AM radio was dominated by the left...but I could NEVER IMAGINE myself trying to get the government to regulate that.
It goes against my very nature.
Let the market decide baby!
Remember this (this is to you guys on the left)...you may think the Fairness Doctrine is a great idea. However if you allow government to control one aspect of what is said (political free speech) it is not inconceivable that at some time in the future the government will want to regulate some aspect of political free speech that is dear to you.
It is much better to keep politicians of either stripe from deciding on what constitutes mine (or yours) free speech.
posted by Predator Intelligence at 08:14
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home