Talk Ain't Cheap

Any new Fairness Doctine would most likely operate almost as a tax on stations carrying Conservative talk - forcing them to carry marginal liberal spew at a loss. George Will takes a look via Betsy's Page.

One can only imagine, Tune in and listen to Juan Cole discuss bad hair at 11.

Comments

[Zifnab]

Comedy Central would be run out of business when it is forced to air reruns of "Half Hour News Hour" and Jeff Foxworthy stand-up.

That said, the Fairness Doctrine is a load of crap, not because its an affront to Dan's sacred Talk Radio, but because it assumes there are only two sides to an issue. Every now and again I don't agree with either the Republicans OR the Democrats. Sometimes its nice to watch a show that isn't run like an episode of Crossfire, where four political hacks lie at each other until they all storm from the table in disgust.

Unless Kuccinich knows a magic secret he's not telling anyone else, the "Fairness" Doctrine will just making the lying on both sides of the aisle even out to the same pitch. When it comes to mass media, sometimes you just need to let the truth ring true. You can't rig the system to work.

Of course, if they... I don't know... maybe wanted to break up Clear Channel and Disney and those other network behemoths, they might get my interest. You're never going to get "fairness" when three networks own 90% of the broadcasting rights in the country. That's simple math. Three corps will never adequetely represent 300 million people.

[wardmd]

Let me see if I get this... Air American can't sustain itself because they can't get an audience (and, thus, advertisers) - so they have to be FORCED down the ears of people who don't want to hear their message?

Then, on the other hand, we're told that Americans are "confused" by too many choices - so THEIR solution, is to present MORE "sides" of the issue (again, by force)? How, exactly, is THAT supposed to reduce the confusion?

The bottom line, of course, is this is NOT a "fairness" doctrine, because it does NOT promote fairness. If FAIRNESS was, in fact, their goal, then they would apply the "fairness" to ALL media formats (at least ALL of those that are "using the public airwaves"), and ALL points of view would be given EQUAL time. As it was, the "fairness" was decided by Federal Authorities. THEY would decide how many viewpoints was "fair" and how much time for each viewpoint was "fair".

Personally, I think the CURRENT system is, by far, the MOST FAIR... I GET TO DECIDE what viewpoints I wish to listen to (or watch, or read). FAIRNESS would be for Rosie O'Donnell to shut up, and allow Elisabeth Hasselbeck to speak.

Have you ever noticed the "talking heads" shows' idea of "fairness"? Four (or more) Liberals and ONE conservative. Does ANYONE think that THAT would be altered by the imposition of the "fairness" doctrine? NO...

The REAL motivation behind the "fairness" doctrine is to shut down (or shut-up) Conservative Talk Radio (which has become HUGH since the elimination of the "fairness" doctrine).

Using the threat of yanking a broadcaster's license (if the federal authorities don't think you're being "fair" enough) will cause a self-censorship of expression (the same way they make very sure to not utter those "7 words"), NOT encourage a free expression of ideas.

If the FCC wants to regulate the number of Conservative and/or Liberal leaning stations in a specific geographic area (THEN let the economic chips fall where they may [like Air America]) – that’s FAIR… To FORCE EVERY STATION to carry viewpoints with which their listeners do not agree is NOT fairness – it’s propaganda.

The bottom line, of course, is that even if there’s no station carrying, say Rush Limbaugh, in my area, I can STILL listen to his program on the Internet. There are LITERALLY THOUSANDS of on-air personalities across the country (to say nothing of around the world) whose voices are now available to just about everyone.

To suggest, however, that “the poor” need to be provided the same array of options (over the public airwaves) that is available via the internet is also a bogus argument – have you ever driven through a “poor” neighborhood and counted the number of satellite TV dishes? Just how “poor” are you if you can afford satellite TV? If you can afford satellite TV, you can afford internet access.

[Phoenix]

As usual, the market will dictate the outcome of this insanity.

[Zifnab]

"Let me see if I get this... Air American can't sustain itself because they can't get an audience (and, thus, advertisers) - so they have to be FORCED down the ears of people who don't want to hear their message?"

No, Air America couldn't sustain itself because it tried to expand out to Clear Channel proportions inside a few years rather than a few decades and collapsed under its own weight.

At the time of its collapse, AA had some 2.2 million listeners. Not bad for a station that wasn't even a blip on the radar in 2000.

Ed Schultz out-ranks Limbaugh in the 18-35 demographic, and Al Franken is running for Senate - something I haven't seen alot of right-wing personalities manage - so popularity wasn't the big issue.

Their business model just sucked.