Fairness Doctrine may silence conservative hosts, critics say

[raccoonradio]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070117a.html

>>Many conservatives have long argued that the bulk of major newspapers, news magazines and network news programs tilt left and regard talk radio as an antidote. "Liberals used to dominate the media, and they are irritated there are competing voices, so now they want to reign in the conservative media using the federal government," (Cliff) Kincaid (Accuracy in Media) continued. "There is no prohibition against liberal talk radio. Liberals tried talk radio and it was not successful in the market place."

Interesting point:
>>When the rule was in place, radio and TV stations could face hefty fines if their stations aired controversial statements on public affairs without providing equal time to opposing viewpoints. Critics said the result was self-censorship by timid broadcasters who avoided politics to escape any potential government retaliation.

here comes all-gardening radio all the time

Critics also are saying there's a lot more media out there than there was before--satellite radio,
the Net, etc., so there is no shortage of alternative viewpoints.

 

[AKLes]

Nobody will believe more in a new Fairness Doctrine than will I when it begins with tight controls on the editorial content of America's Daily Newspapers -- percentagewise even more monopolized than radio in the very worst single-city case.

I would counsel against holding one's breath in anticipation.

 

[Varulven]

95% of the radio is Conservative talk, though the cracks are starting to show because it only works permanently in a fascist society. Now you see the Conservative talkers adding "liberal" talk instead of suppressing it - to a small degree.

While Ed Schultz and others are racking up numbers around the country the Corporations that control the message are getting into some kind of lockdown mode to figure out how to keep the Dan Rathers of the world off the air.

When we hear the propaganda, that the "mainstream media" is Progressive, it is just that. The sheep will
kiss the backside of the Conservatives out of foolishness - their lives are more stressful because corporations squeeze every last dollar they can out of the poor (see Halliburton and Iraq for just one huge example).

Bill Maher's show got pulled off of "mainstream media" and was replaced with an awful comedy show.

SO, Raccoon, please post some facts instead of the usual rhetoric

 

[AKLes]

95% of the radio is Conservative talk, though the cracks are starting to show because it only works permanently in a fascist society. Now you see the Conservative talkers adding "liberal" talk instead of suppressing it - to a small degree.

95% of chain-owned daily newspapers present "news" with an extremely Liberal bias. Cracks are showing, though, because circulation is trending down, down, down. Perhaps we need federally imposed limits on the number of daily newspapers a single corporation is allowed to own. Or maybe, in one-newspaper towns, we need something like a print edition of NPR or PBS to compensate? But one run by a National Ministry of Truth and Fairness. Aw damn, another oxymoron. I gotta break that habit!

The newspapers are tentatively adding "conservative" content to try to blunt the criticism. They're doing this through placing the occasional "tame" conservative columnist at the bottom of editorial pages. One particularly choice example is McClatchy's "Anchorage Daily News" which, on the page opposite it's pet Liberal columnists and anonymous left-leaning editorials, daily publishes a third of a page titled: "The Voice of the Times". It is paid; not a donation. The columists and editorial cartoons are produced by former staffers of the now-defunct "Anchorage Daily News". Sad, I think, that the folks who write for that paid section fail to recognize themselves as "tokens".

We need a new fairness doctrine! It should begin with newspapers and run for about forty years controlling their content in redress of the forty or so years broadcast was under the massa's thumb while print romped free! There IS precedent in American History for this kind of action....remember the yellow busses stalking Boston?

 

[Varulven]

don't agree with you, Les. There's lots of Republican yellow journalism out there. The fact that we find more progressive bloggers than conservative bloggers shows how there are more progressives than conservatives.

Many conservative blogs just prove how loony they really are.

 

[AKLes]

don't agree with you, Les. There's lots of Republican yellow journalism out there. The fact that we find more progressive bloggers than conservative bloggers shows how there are more progressives than conservatives.

Many conservative blogs just prove how loony they really are.

I'd agree that many conservative blogs are, indeed loony (gee, I got censored for using that word not long ago....wonder if it'll happen again?).

But we disagree that blog = journalism. They are pigs of different odors.

My complaint is with the monopolization of "legitimate", old-fashioned daily newspapers. It would be just as wrong were they all right-wing and just as much in need of constraint by a new fairness doctrine. And whatever happened to those cries of a couple of years back for United Nations licensing and regulation of "journalists"?

Surely The U.N. would be more even-handed than this example which U.S. political parties seem to hold up as a shining example:

http://www.cpj.org/attacks03/africa03/ethiopia.html

Note, I said "parties" because power corrupts without regard to race, religion or party afilliation.

The word I was looking for in my earlier stand on first regulating newspapers was "reparations". I kept choking on it but now, after three cups of coffee it has resasserted itself. Pity those who live in a society where "regular" coffee includes both cholesterol-laden heavy cream AND three scoops of refined sugar!


.

 

[cabradio]

The fact that we find more progressive bloggers than conservative bloggers shows how there are more progressives than conservatives.

That's a pretty subjective comment for you Joe. If you mean that since you find more progressive bloggers than conservative bloggers it shows there are more progressive bloggers than conservative bloggers, then you are possibly correct; redundant, but possibly correct. (I don't know how many bloggers there are, nor which side of the isle they sit...do you have factual numbers to show this statistic?) But if you are saying there are more progressive Americans than conservative Americans because there are more progressive bloggers, well that's like saying there are more conservatives out there because conservative talk does so well.

If conservatives determine it is in their best interest to be blogging, more will blog. Blogging is still new. There are many Americans that are just now getting email. Give it time. Just like once liberals/progressives determined it was in their "best interest" to have their own radio network. You can't say there are more of one than the other because most Americans are in the middle, you can't argue that fact.

 

[AKLes]

....... If you mean that since you find more progressive bloggers than conservative bloggers it shows there are more progressive bloggers than conservative bloggers, then you are possibly correct; redundant, but possibly correct. (I don't know how many bloggers there are, nor which side of the isle they sit...do you have factual numbers to show this statistic?) But if you are saying there are more progressive Americans than conservative Americans because there are more progressive bloggers, well that's like saying there are more conservatives out there because conservative talk does so well.

I think there's a flaw in that. One can listen to radio while accomplishing other things, like holding a paying job.

OTOH, serious blogging--- excuse me a moment, I gotta go turn off the oxymoron detector before I go deaf --requires rapt attention that precludes doing anything ("anything else", if you prefer) productive. It follows, therefore, that there are more progressives with not enough to do, hence more progressive blogs. It could mean that the progressive bloggers are independently wealthly, like the Kennedys and Kerrys, or it could mean they are just unemployed and living off....... I dunno what. Welfare? Their parents?

 

[Varulven]

Charlie is correct because I did not clarify my position, which I will do now:

The media is owned by the corporations and what THEIR propaganda tells us is that there is a "mainstream media", read: Liberal media, that controls everything. It is hogwash and a DIVERSION.

Bush's Administration frightened the media from asking tough questions for the better part of six years. The Fourth Estate was bankrupt during that time period. Call that Conservative Monopoly of the Media. Bush then wanted to silence PBS, which was atrocious. It isn't "us vs. them", it is about having balance and logic on the airwaves. For every "Rush", which is pure propaganda, it is good to have a little counterpoint, don't you think?

Let's look at an alternative media that I am quite familiar with:
Public Access.

The only group that I have seen to take control of public access is the Televangelists. Other religious denominations are chipping away at Access as well. Politicians use this medium come election time and for city / town meetings, but it is a sleeping giant with more reach than radio is willing to admit.


The Blogs, generally, are for the common man - those who can't get through to give an opposing point of view to Rush Limbaugh on the phone. "Open line Friday?" Yeah, open to the well-scripted mega dittos. His personal life is a good reminder of what a hypocrite he is.

Indeed, progressives are far more open to hearing debate - Arianna vs. John McCain, for example

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/davos-notes-john-mccain-_b_39788.html

Arianna's notes from Davos where she says McCain bites her head off.

It's an open forum. Conservatives try to control the message while liberals often invite debate.

Look at the "Lockbox" talk radio is in: all conservative

Look at the sheer fright and the "lockdown" the quote unquote mainstream media was in from the
Bush Administration.

Look at the utter CONTROL over the media that Cheney held:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...se_witness_details_art_of_media_manipulation/

Libby case witness details art of media manipulation Former Cheney aide explains how leaks are used
=======================================================

So my broad-brush explanation of "Blogs" being an open forum, and that as we see more people complaining about Iraq than pro-Iraq (reflective of the polls, I might add), it is clear to me that the "few" are pushing the "many" around. Bush's take-over of the presidency when Gore clearly won the entire state; Kerry's winning of Ohio yet the questionable things that went on, from Diebold to coin collecting; and we had two Katherine Harris types in both Florida and Ohio.

That all being said, throwing 9/11 into the mix and the manipulation of the facts, a logical mind sees something is not rotten in Denmark, it is rotten in Washington. Look at the tens of thousands of anti-war protestors to the - what - 400 people PRO war yesterday in Washington?

Those are daunting numbers to rest my case on.

Until George W. Bush puts his twin daughters on the front lines of Iraq he has no right stealing the media and sending people into that "meat grinder" that he created, the war in Iraq. Because his position is so wrong he has to control the message. The Blogs are evidence that the majority don't want to go to Iraq, that the majority don't buy the Hannity/Limbaugh/Blitzer position. You can call that subjective, Charlie, to a certain degree it is, but I call it an indicator. I don't see the conservative blogs getting as much play, and even
Drudgereport.com has to admit the facts time and again (though it's not a blog, per se, it falls into the category of web-based information, which is what i'm talking about.)

 

[AKLes]

One might assume that Liberals ought not to have children lest they be forced into fighting unjust wars. Conservatives ought to have lots of children so there are enough foot soldiers to fight wars.

Of course that ultimately will come home to bite one side or the other when the offspring get to the ballot box armed with the "programming" their very political parents have the indoctrinated.

Just as if every Democrat were dedicatedly pro-choice there would ultimately be fewer Liberal voters than stemming from conservatives which reproduce like rabbits. Or would if they were really pro-life.

Somehow it don't seem to work quite that way.....

 

[cabradio]

My brother and I go round and round about Rush. I keep trying to explain to him, yet he has difficulty understanding, that the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show has a primary objective to entertain. It's like watching SNL's News Update...it's meant to entertain. It's not a news show, and the op ed that Rush dishes is MEANT to either make people happy or make people angry, one way or the other to keep them listening. You may think it is an irresponsible use of the airwaves, but it is what it is: entertainment. That's why people listen. And if you think THAT is irresponsible use of the airwaves, then music formats must also fall in that category because they don't do much to educate or really keep people informed of what is going on in their community or the world outside of the local news which is a minor part of the broadcast day/program schedule.

I'll add this: there are two reasons I don't listen to Rush. 1. I don't find him to be ENTERTAINING...2. I have my own ENTERTAINING show from 1p-3p Mon-Fri.

 

[Varulven]

Les, are you trying to tell me Cindy Sheehan and the tens of thousands of parents like her are ...Conservative?

Charlie, some of us understand Rush is simply entertainment; unfortunately the "ditto heads" believe him and take it for news. Thus, it is defacto news or news by the dissemination of misinformation. No one mistakes SNL (no one in their right mind) mistakes SNL as "news", yet Rush Limbaugh is pushed on people as if he is an "authority".
Unfortunately, millions of people don't take him for entertainment. Think of him as GALAXY QUEST and his ditto heads as the alien creatures who believe Star Trek was "historical documents" rather than Science Fiction.

Scary thought, isn't it, that his "entertainment" has become "news" for those in the Red States who want to believe in a drug addict's seemingly coherent and totally biased rants.

 

[cabradio]

Think of him as GALAXY QUEST and his ditto heads as the alien creatures who believe Star Trek was "historical documents" rather than Science Fiction.

Joe, what are you trying to tell me? Of course Star Trek is an authentic historical document. Do you not understand people from the future have come back and recreated history for us so we can see and understand what is to come for the human race? Really Joe, I thought you were better informed.


For those of you that do not know me...that is my sense of humor.

 

[doc9464]

Interesting thread,

let me chime in on Varuleven's point. I don't have a problem with conservatives on the radio. Most liberals like myself are not arguing that both can exist on the airwaves. A simple google search on the internet (or other search engine) will pull up thousands of comments spanning from hateful to just plain stupid about the slow rise of liberal/progressive/left-leaning radio. Many on the right don't even want the inkling of a dissenting view on the air, despite the obvious advantage. My argument against Rush is that he is NOT entertainment. He probably was thinking entertainment many years ago but due to his impact and the weight the White House gives to hosts like Rush, Hannity, and others (remember when conservative hosts were invited to meet at the WH last year), they have become an organ of the GOP. Conservatives claim the left-leaning radio hosts are DNC linked, but that cannot be true currently as the DNC and other left-leaners are really still dipping their foot into what talk radio does. I hope they will use the waves better in the future if they wish to blunt the looming advantage the RW has currently.

My biggest argument with the RW hosts is the severe distortion. If conservative views can stand up on their own or possess any "nobility" as many people here and elsewhere claim, why does Rush and Hannity and the knock-offs have to add so much vitriol and distortion to what is happening in the news. They continue to also propup BS stereotypes about the left that have been disproven, debunked, or are so old and tired, its just sad to hear them parroted. If these people would argue their points and not spend so much time on the attack, maybe I wouldn't feel that I have to help ramp up and effort to put this crap aside or give people an option to listen to so much.

Example: The trashing of Barack Obama - Rush started this the minute he won his senate election. Obama is hardly attacking the right so there is no provocation but he is seen as a threat due to his obvious appeal and popularity to Americans If they could argue their points against his beliefs, that would make more credibility for them as entertaining. Instead what we get from conservative radio is a nasty talking point that gets replicated by mostly everyone, except Savage, who is just vile and possibly insane. Look at the false issue with the Obama is a radical muslim who attended a medrossa (sp?)...despite its proven false in a heartbeat, you still hear Hannity, Ingraham, and Rush making sure it gets into the tiny minds that listen to them as if these people are real reporters or actual news sources instead of propaganda engines.

Thats why we need a fairness doctrine. Times have changed since when Reagan attacked the idea of a "balanced media" by removing the original fairness doctrine. Conservatives see any treat to their monopoly as a treat, so you see the vitriol about why others want to see a better media. There should be better media regulation as we are where we are due to the CC's, Entercoms, and other companies. Most of these operations can hardly be called "balanced". Despite Les' false arguments (based on the old chestnut that the media is liberal - easy debunk, check out ABC's recent actions), the media is hardly balanced these days. Their cowardice in the face of the current administration demonstrates this well. Les and other right leaners need to stop the BS about "liberal media". To most conservatives, "liberal media" is media that doesn't fall completely in agreement with them. If they want propaganda, they have Faux Opinion and GOP Talking points Television. Newspapers certainly are somewhat left-leaning or righ-leaning.......only the Washington Post and NY Times seem to try to split the baby and blur the lines at various times. Neither paper seems to be faithful to either side as of late.....which is fine, but conservatives should be honest and quit distorting. Ill be less hard on them when they quit claiming that Fox is "balanced", which is just another distortion.

If you watch Raccoons posts (for example), you see a clear example of the negative effects of talk radio. Very little that he posts of "facts" probably come from any real intelligent research, most of the posts come from Howie Carr (who has done nothing for anyone and is certainly not a real journalist despite his overtones), or the bleatings of some other Conservatives. Most of his posts demonstrate where the majority of the vitriol on this issue comes from.

Dissent is powerful. It is not communism (if you listen to conservative hosts). A healthy media leads to healthy discourse. If the medial was truly "liberal", we would have seen less cheerleading and more investigation during the war.

Despite my best wishes, it takes the one thing the law or a fairness doctrine can't do......and thats get people to do their own research and read and LEARN. Conservatives tend to be more lemming like in their falling into line on various issues. A pity, but on my side of the spectrum, there are assumptions that continue to hold in place that good research could clear up easily.
Until people realize that finding out good answers is just going to take more effort these days, liars and distorers will continue to rule the media because they have laziness working for them. If you want the answer, its just going to have to take more than sitting in your underwear while Rush spews or Hannity distorts. That said, the table needs to be better balanced.

Conservatives should learn to compromise for once. They aren't right all the time. No one is. Public Television/Radio is the best example. The American people like, want, and insist that we have quality Public television and radio. Despite this, these services are always on the "crush" list for Conservatives. Maybe its time to take the wax out of your stubborn ears, conservatives and learn that your agenda is not THE agenda. The elections were just one small example of what happens when you become so obstinate that the American people finally rise up and say "YOu are not serviing my needs". Until they learn to bend in the smallest degree, the left is going to have to sharpen up their knives and then the escalation continues.
This is a problem...but im sorry, conservatives are the primary reason for the problems we have in communication, compromise, and the sickening condition of the media. Clinton's Telecommunications act is the rest of the problem.

Les, are you trying to tell me Cindy Sheehan and the tens of thousands of parents like her are ...Conservative?

Charlie, some of us understand Rush is simply entertainment; unfortunately the "ditto heads" believe him and take it for news. Thus, it is defacto news or news by the dissemination of misinformation. No one mistakes SNL (no one in their right mind) mistakes SNL as "news", yet Rush Limbaugh is pushed on people as if he is an "authority".
Unfortunately, millions of people don't take him for entertainment. Think of him as GALAXY QUEST and his ditto heads as the alien creatures who believe Star Trek was "historical documents" rather than Science Fiction.

Scary thought, isn't it, that his "entertainment" has become "news" for those in the Red States who want to believe in a drug addict's seemingly coherent and totally biased rants.

 

[AKLes]

I started out trying to extract some quote material but that wasn't working out very well, so here goes....

1. Rush, of late, IS starting to sound more like Savage. In fact, Savage has become more entertaining than Rush. Rush is just trying too hard and failing.

2. You may be right that a certain number of people are taking Rush to be something serious and that would be a dangerous thing but I equate the danger of that with the danger that an awful lot of young people are taking Colbert seriously and believing that what they're hearing is news. Particularly dangerous, the appearance of various notables on the program, lending credence to the distorted belief.

3. Liberal bias in print media is NOT a false estimation. It shows in petty ways daily. An example is the use of headlines where Democrat Governors are always referred to as "Gov. XXXXXX" but Republican Governors are just called "XXXXX"
(where the XXXXX represents last names). No respect ever shown. Even when they're dead. I know, a small thing, but indicative.

4. I worked radio under "the fairness doctrine", also TV, though in an engineering capacity. Under the rules radio management absolutely discouraged any coverage of controversy of any sort. Talk programming was limited to the legendary home and garden stuff; politics was forbidden. Bland was in. On the TV side, even videotape operators were required to immediately report to management any attempt by news people to schedule anything controversial to be run in a newscast. For example, I once was disciplined for not having reported that a reporter had scheduled a tape segment that disparaged the treatment of an animal in a zoo in a nearby city because to run it would require equal time for people who felt the animal (a polar bear) was being treated OK. Please do not disgrace yourself by asserting that a new fairness doctrine would not stifle legitimate discussion. Been there- seen that.

5. I do not see Fox as "balanced". I see Fox as "balancing". I state that as an opinion; not as a fact.

6. I have no complaint with a "fairness doctrine" so long as it applies to all media.

Of course I'd like to see it applied to print media exclusively for several years as "reparation" for the years in which it was applied to broadcast and print got a free pass. Now where are we gonna find unbiased judges of what's fair and not fair? Probably from the place we're going to find fair authorities to license journalists AND bloggers!

Yes, I do believe that what used to be called "concentration of control" is at fault for lots of the ills of the communications industry. But since it was Clinton's Telecommunications Act that is being faulted here, how can that be?

 

[AKLes]

.....are you trying to tell me Cindy Sheehan and the tens of thousands of parents like her are ...Conservative?

No....perhaps just careless.

 

[cabradio]

Doc, I still contend the programming is aimed to be more entertaining than "newsworthy". This is like a modern day Orson Wells special. People tune in to hear the outrageous, they just may not realize that it is just that, outrageous.

Most people listen with a balanced thought process. You just don't hear from "normal" people, because the "normal" people are too busy being entertained....

Just my opinion...(and I'm always right! lol...)

 

[TheFonz]

..................... yet Rush Limbaugh is pushed on people as if he is an "authority".

We're told over and over again on the '50s/'60s Oldies board that it is the advertisers who control radio. That would mean that it's RADIO GREED that is doing the pushing. So if you work in radio, Rush could be paying your salary!