Careful With That Rasmussen Fairness Doctrine Poll

I can understand the Gulp! reaction to news that a Rasmussen poll claims the American public is split on the Fairness Doctrine 41% - 41%. That's true. But the prism through which you view that number makes a big difference. And there are two big mine fields awaiting politicians on the Right or Left who think it will grant cover for an effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

I believe the tell hidden inside the poll is this below combined with the screen cap at right from Rasmussen's home page showing the story and the one linked to it.:

An interesting dynamic of the public debate is that liberals are more supportive of the “Fairness Doctrine: than conservatives. Liberals support the measure by a 51% to 33% margin while conservatives are opposed by a 48% to 40% margin.

And here's the lede from the companion article:

By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals.

In the Right blogosphere we tend to think only in terms of Talk Radio when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine. That conservatives oppose it by only a 48 - 40 point spread indicates that isn't the context of the poll. They are answering in terms of all media, radio, TV and the Internet. And that creates some real issues for politicians really interested in only one side in any political fight.

Do you really believe that it would be 41 - 41 if it came down to balancing talk radio but not network news? I don't. And do you really believe that the major networks, or MSM as we call them, won't savage any political effort to regulate them? They would.

It would be what's becoming a classic political screw up for DC insiders to be fooled into thinking that poll suggests either side can achieve what they might like by passing any form of a Fairness Doctrine. Republicans would insist some attention be given to the liberal MSM bias perceived by a 39 - 20 percent majority of Americans and they'd be attacked from the Left, as well as the MSM. If Dems try to limit it to Talk Radio that 48% - 40% conservative opposition would be closer to 90 - 10, or worse, throwing that broader 41 - 41 percentage completely out the window.

From a recent post on public attitudes towards the censoring of vulgarity. Americans resent government interference in most things, including media. By the time different partisans stake out their respective pieces of ground, the Fairness Doctrine becomes a booby trap for both sides of the aisle. Unless we see an overwhelming Dem majority in Congress and a Dem President in 2008, this effort doesn't have a chance. And if the above did happen, the Dems would seal their fate in two years by being heavy handed and only moving to "balance" the Right, leaving the MSM free to lean as far Left as it might like.

Despite these feelings, few adults feel that the government should ban the use of such language on television or radio. Most feel that either the broadcasters should set their own standards or the individuals should exercise greater self-monitoring about what is appropriate.

For now, as Byron York just posted, Bush will veto any bill in this regard.

Comments

[ajacksonian]

Considering that the Liberals and Conservatives account for only part of the public at large and together come out to a middling between 40 and 51% approval say split the difference at 45%. That means the *rest* of the public, that lovely 'center' that no one seems to address, is even *more* against it than the Conservatives are, somewhere in the high 30% range...

Very interesting that the 'center' wants less minding of the public airwaves than either of the partisan sides. Extremely interesting, that this is also accounted to be the 'swing voter'. That neither side wants to address. Apparently they believe much more deeply in no government interference in it than either Liberals or Conservatives.

Good to know, that. The L's and C's might want to think about that for awhile.

[Bill Adkins]

Maybe Bush will veto that bill - but Hillary won't.

[seekeronos]

Hitlary wouldn't veto it because she would then have almost Goebbels-like control over the MSM, and no other voice to compete with her harpy ravings.