register |  login
› LONGMONT
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
Blog
Blog Entry 3 of 8 WebViking's Corner
I'm a libertarian/conservative who believes the first precept of good government should be "Do no harm!" That said I recognize that, as distasteful as it is, sometimes government is necessary and can do good. I'll be talking mainly about national politics, with the occasional odd foray into local issue.

Blog Url: http://denver.yourhub.com/~WebViking

The Fairness Doctrine
Contributed by: John Newman   on 6/23/2007

The Center for American Progress recently released a study of Talk Radio entitlled, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf). They claim that Political Talk Radio is overwhelmingly biased towards conservative hosts and viewpoints, that it's not market driven and basically that it's a very bad thing indeed. T

heir remedies include reviving the Fairness Doctrine and changing the rules of radio ownership so more stations are owned by local, minority and women owners. Along the same lines Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has claimed to overhear Senators Hilary Clinton and Barbara Boxer talking about a "legislative fix" for talk radio, that would probably include something along the lines of what the Center for American Progress is pushing.

So first of all, what is the Fairness Doctrine and where did it go? The so-called Fairness Doctrine was put in place by the FCC in 1949 to require broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." Sounds good, doesn't it? But how did it work in practice? Basically they had to allow both sides of an opinion equal time. So when a broadcaster aired a controversial opinion from someone, they were obligated to provide time for an opponent of that opinion to respond.

There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, not every issue has just two sides, often there's a whole diversity of ideas on how to solve particular issue. Secondly, rather than have to endlessly air opposing opinions wouldn't it just be easier to avoid saying anything controversial in the first place?

That's exactly how it ended up, the Fairness Doctrine actually stifled the dissemination of controversial viewpoints, making free speech less free. In 1987, when the FCC, under the threat of numerous lawsuits and court challenges, repealed the Fairness Doctrine, they also noted that, it "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance."

Finally, when the government has a tool like the Fairness Doctrine in it's arsenal, how easy is it for it to be abused? The Nixon Administration was notorious for using the Fairness Doctrine to threaten broadcasters that it decided were unfriendly to the Administration. There is evidence that the Kennedy Administration also used the Fairness Doctrine in the same way. Do we really want or need our government to have such a tool to go after the press with?

Ok, so why is the Center For American Progress's report such a big deal? Partly because every newspaper, TV Station and Left Wing US Senator has seemingly picked up on the report as a way to attack the one media industry that is overwhelmingly conservative. Hardly fair when newspapers and TV new departments overwhelmingly Liberal.

For proof of that I direct you to this article by Bill Dedman with MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/). Dedman did a study from publicly available lists of political contributions to find out just how many reporters, editors, and anchors at large newspapers and TV networks gave political contributions and whether those contributions were to the left or the right. First of all the fact that he found so many (161) who gave contributions to candidates, campaigns and political action committee is completely surprising, because most of the organizations these people work for have strict rules against getting involved, and most include rules against contributing. But of these 161 journalists, a whopping 144 of the donated to left wing candidates and causes, only 17 to conservative candidates or causes.

And who is the Center for American Progress anyway? Most descriptions you will read or hear on the news describe them as a "non-partisan, good-government, think tank" Unfortunately, that's not accurate. Lunatic left-wing nutjobs is less flattering but much more accurate. A quick perusal of their site shows they like embryonic stem cell research, love free government funded abortions, think illegal immigrants are the best thing since sliced bread, support legalizing union strong arm tactics to unionize entire industries, and favor gender and sexual orientation diversity within the clergy of the worlds organized religions.

I'm not saying that they have to be described as lunatic, left-wing nutjobs, but non-partisan is an absolutely laughable description of these guys. And the fact that the mainstream news media routinely describes them this way, is proof in itself of the liberal bias of the mainstream outlets. To a liberal non-partisan means "agrees with me."

So what about their "statistical analysis" of talk radio that shows a "structural imbalance" so severe that it just has to be addressed with government intervention? Now keep in mind that these are things that they themselves said in their study; I'm not making it up.

First News/Talk Radio is the number two rated format in the country as determined by Arbitron. The number one rated format in the country is Country Music. Country Music listeners are the people that were burning Dixie Chicks albums a couple of years ago over statements they made about George Bush. Would you say the majority of Country music listeners are conservative or liberal? Would you say a greater percentage of Country music listeners are conservative, than say, Hip Hop listeners? Probably, so the fact that Country music is number one alone implies that there are more conservative radio listeners overall than liberal radio listeners.

And the Center For American Progress report goes on to prove that. They themselves state that listeners to News/Talk formatted stations are 43% conservative, 30% moderate and 23% liberal, which compares with the population at large that considers itself 36% conservative, 35% moderate, and 21% liberal. What more do you need to say. The biggest chunk of the audience is conservative, radio stations are catering to them. That doesn't mean liberal stations are getting shoved off the air.

In fact the Center's report notes that liberal radio stations, liberal radio shows and liberal radio hosts have all increased the liberal share of the talk radio market over the last five years. So if there is a "structural balance" it's correcting itself. Why do we need massive government intervention in order to make things more "fair" in talk radio?

If we need to make things more "fair" in talk radio, don't we have to do the same thing in network and cable news? After all, there is only one "conservative" TV network, FOX, compared to a slew of liberal ones, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC. In the biggest travesty of all the most liberal of these is PBS and it's funded by taxpayer dollars.

The same situation holds true in newspaper land where 90% of the dailies are liberal soap boxes for biased reporters to foist their liberal opinions on a much more conservative audience. So instead of looking at the "structural imbalance" of talk radio, why don't you look at the structural imbalance of the major TV networks and newspapers?

But I am a conservative, and I don't advocate intervening in the media industries to make them more fair. The market will reward those that cater to the market. It's already happening in cable, where FOX regularly doubles up CNN and MSNBC combined in the ratings. Newspapers are a different story, but they are quickly phasing out to irrelevance.

In the end intelligent people gather their news from different sources and digest them all to form their opinions. I like the fact that I can go to the Center for American Progress and read their best attempt to implore me to go along with their point of view, and I can then go to any number of places to read a counter opinion. I listen to both Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken on the radio, and I don't agree with everything either one has to say.

Both are controversial though, and in the old days, under the Fairness Doctrine, you'd hear neither of their voices on radio. Isn't it better today?


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above blog



Current Rating
Based on 2 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the blog

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

Showing 1-10 of 10 comments
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/26/2007 @ 3:55:50 PM
Rated Blog Entry
Hey John I pointed out several of your opinions are based on bad information. Are you going to correct yourself? Are you going to rethink your skewed opinions? Or are you going to continue to get worked up based on someone else's opinion?
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/26/2007 @ 2:32:47 PM
Rated Blog Entry
You do know the Inhofe story was BS right? Probably not.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/26/2007 @ 10:25:45 AM
Rated Blog Entry
And i don't share the conservative's ignorance that the government is the enemy. The government in our republican democracy is "We the people." Treat it with disdain and you treat the citizenry with the same. The free press is essential to informing the public. When it does not live up to it's constitutional responsibilities it must be remedied. There is more to freedom than making a buck.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: John Newman
posted on 6/25/2007 @ 8:00:04 PM
(Not Rated)
Ultimately, the Fairness Doctrine gives government a tool to to force an element of the free press to do something against it's will. Both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations used to Fairness Doctrine to go after stations they didn't like. I don't share the liberal's love and faith for government to always make the right decision, so I am not comfortable with government having that kind of tool.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/24/2007 @ 1:51:22 PM
Rated Blog Entry
And Chris, What you abhor, "let's change the rules...." is exactly what conservatives did by killing the Fairness Doctrine. Allowing them to lie unimpeded and without rebuttal. And they still do.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/24/2007 @ 11:24:36 AM
Rated Blog Entry
http://thinkprogress.org/page/2/ here's the link from thinkprogress dissing the conservative mouth pieces for lying to you about the fairness doctrine. If these are the guys you trust for your information, perhaps you should look for more balance. Just a suggestion.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/24/2007 @ 11:10:25 AM
Rated Blog Entry
Can I give a negative rating? I see you are a believer in the liberal media bias myth. I'm a liberal chief, I digest media from all kinds of sources and it aint liberally biased. I wish it was. Don't go by voting records, look at the content of their stories. Free markets allowing media companies to merge has skewed reporting to the right. And for pete's sake the Fairness Doctrine dealt with the public airwaves, not cable, not the internet.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/24/2007 @ 11:07:12 AM
Rated Blog Entry
Wow, right from the get go you are wrong. Think Progress hasn't suggested re-introducing the Fairness Doctrine, in fact they have argued it wouldn't do much good. And please spare me the rhetoric about market forces. 1. Market forces rarely if ever deliver the best product to consumers. 2. Ownership has tried to impede the spread of liberal talk radio from Wisosin to Salt Lake. Look at the rating in avalable markets and progressive talkers do very well. Al Franken hasn't been on the radio in about 6 months and check the ratings Fox is losing viewers, MSNBC is gaining. Of course you don't want fairness, you're a conservative, it's the only way your news sources can grossly mislead people and spin for the GOP.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: delete this
posted on 6/23/2007 @ 10:41:28 PM
(Not Rated)
amazing, the whining is never ending and endless from Conservatives about how biased the media / talk radio is / are. Maybe this will get them to clam up?
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 6/23/2007 @ 6:00:12 PM
Rated Blog Entry
Looks like you've done your homework, good report. I love this "if we can't win with the current rules, let's change the rules" mentality. Good little Stalinists. It's the grownup version of what's hapenning in kids sports - don't keep score, everyone wins, can't hurt their ego, please. That "Center" needs "Retarding" or "Regressive" or "Reversing" following "Center" to give a more apt description and acronym.
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-10 of 10 comments
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

John Newman

Northglenn , CO

John Newman has posted 8 blog entries and 33 comments since joining on 9/27/2005. John Newman 's average blog rating is 3.64.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS BLOG ENTRY
BLOG ENTRY RSS FEEDS
BLOG LIST
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is  register,  then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyonewhat events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos