While I consider myself a 'damned, dirty' liberal, I am, obviously, a bit more of a moderate leftist in my views. I don't always see 'eye to eye' with the Democratic Party and, frequently, I find myself at odds with their agenda.
Now is, sadly, one of those times.
After we've just been through one hell of an election, pushing our first non-Caucasian into office with a landslide victory, the Democrats have to start causing a ruckus. Certainly, we have good control in two of the three branches, which does make it a good time to push through beneficial legislation that may have otherwise been thwarted.
The keyword there is 'beneficial'.
Instead, Pelosi and her Frat Pack are looking to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
Why, you might ask. The answer is relatively simple... conservative talk radio hosts outnumber their liberal counterparts by about ten to one. And we can't have all that 'crazy' talk all over the airwaves when the Dems are in power.
Truth be told, I believe we could do with fewer conservative talk shows, but that's just personal opinion. However, my solution to the problem would be to find a few charismatic liberally-minded individuals to work up an audience and tackle their counterparts 'head on'. If we want fewer conservatives on the radio, we need to develop smart, informative talk shows and push them to a level of popularity that will put them in the position to take the places of less popular conservatives.
However, the Democrats, obviously, don't play that way. Instead, we'd rather just force the networks to provide balanced coverage of both perspectives. With the current ratio, this would effectively mean many radio networks would have to drop popular (and profitable through advertisements) shows. There would also have to be a rather extensive overhaul of the remaining shows to make certain they can no longer focus on one side of the issue.
Anyone remember the Free Speech Clause? Obviously not. We, as a party, only seem to bring it to light when it suits our agenda of the moment. In this case, it is, in the immortal words of our outgoing President, "A piece of paper." (I will give Bush, Jr. credit... he didn't toy around with the Bill of Rights, he very stubbornly tried to ignore it. That, in my opinion, is more honorable than what my party is doing).
If this legislation is passed, the Democrats are pretty bluntly engaging in an action, the likes of which they claimed against Bush numerous times. They would be restricting the freedom of their opponents to openly express their opinions on the airwaves of privately owned businesses. In all respects, I would hope our President-Elect will veto the bill when it reaches his desk; however, the individuals he has picked to choose the next FCC Chairman are supportive of the legislation. So, while he has openly stated he is against the renewal of the Fairness Doctrine (back in June), his actions dictate a different opinion.
The idea of simply planning for this legislation causes me some concern. Should it actually be reinstated, I will be embarrassed to call myself a Democrat. If it comes to that, I may find myself tossing my vote away on third party candidates who better represent my views, though they will never be in power.
Hello world!
5 years ago
5 comments:
Hmmm, I'm a bit skeptical about the whole "Fairness Doctrine" thing - I heard several conservative pols rail against the issue during the campaign, but I haven't heard anyone speak out in support of it from the left OR right.
Is this a real issue, or just something the conservatives created out of thin air to scare voters? If there is a movement to make it law, who are the specific people behind it?
If there really is an organized effort to put the bill before Congress, I agree with you 100% - it needs to squashed, yesterday.
They definitely should keep their hands outta radio. Doesn't congress have more pressing worries? It's absurd to even think they can determine who should or should not be on the air. I guess they don't have any problems with newspapers. Let the market determine what folks want to hear, or read. Maybe Congress is loving these bail-outs so much they now want to extend it to radio. Hey, Sirius/XM is about to go under and could use a bail out and they've already got a couple of liberal radio stations. It's not like there are no liberal radio stations anyway. Let's not forget how popular Air America is, or is it, was?
Congress' desire to "even the playing field" on radio is a joke and I hope our new president is smart enough to laugh at them.
Ron,
Here's the story at msnbc that initially caught my attention.
RnR,
I, too, hope Obama will stand by his earlier statement and veto the bill should it make it that far.
If it does make it through, it isn't too far of a stretch to push similar legislation into television and print media.
One radio industry regulation I would be in favor of would be a move to bust up these big corporations that own hundreds of stations, like Clear Channel. The public would be far better served if we instituted new rules that favored local ownership.
Regulation of content is a step too far. As long as the stations are meeting their public service requirements, AND citizens have a chance to speak up during FCC license-renewal sessions, then the market should be the only thing regulating content.
Post a Comment