« Bush Weighs 'Reaching Out' to Muslim Brotherhood | Main | Battle Of Baqubah Heating Up - The 'Real Surge' Has Begun »
June 22, 2007
The Fairness Doctrine Plays Phoenix As Inhofe Says Clinton And Boxer Want 'Legislative Fix' To Silence Conservative Radio Talk Shows
(Cross posted from Hyscience),/font>
Like the mythical bird that dies in flames and is reborn from the ashes, we are again hearing rumblings from the left over The Fairness Doctrine, courtesy of Rep. Dennis "the nutcase menace" Kuccinich and other liberal-progressive socialists of the left. The real problem for the left lies in the fact that there are very few markets for leftwing talk show outside of the far left Seattle market, and leftwing talk show just doesn't "fly" in a free market. The audiences just don't "buy it" - they think it sucks!
Appearing on John Ziegler's evening show on KFI 640 AM in LA, U.S. Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio. Click here to hear what Imhofe has to say about it .... (hat tip - PreciseNews).
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer are not the only liberal-'Progressives' that want to silence free speech, the market system, and especially conservative talk radio (The issue has much to do with "The Fairness Doctrine").
Charging that "right-wing talk reigns supreme on America's airwaves," two liberal groups on Thursday called for increased government regulation and greater diversity of commercial radio station owners to "close the gap" between the amount of conservative and "progressive" talk:
Speaking during a telephone news conference, Halpin said his organization and the media reform group Free Press carried out two statistical analyses - one examining the news/talk stations run by the largest owners of commercial stations and another looking at all 65 news/talk outlets in the country's top five markets.However, and very appropriately, Tim Graham, director of media analysis with the conservative Media Research Center - the parent organization of Cybercast News Service - criticized both the report and recommendations, calling the organizations' report and recommendations an example of "amazing liberal hypocrisy":
"In each case, we found overwhelming evidence of complete conservative dominance of the political talk programming at both the station-by-station and market-by-market level," he said.
... "There's very little free speech and free choice in a market system that pushes one-sided information 90 percent of the time," said John Halpin, a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress (CAP) and one of the authors of a new report, entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."
Speaking during a telephone news conference, Halpin said his organization and the media reform group Free Press carried out two statistical analyses - one examining the news/talk stations run by the largest owners of commercial stations and another looking at all 65 news/talk outlets in the country's top five markets.
"In each case, we found overwhelming evidence of complete conservative dominance of the political talk programming at both the station-by-station and market-by-market level," he said.
"This study has huge holes in it," Graham said - the biggest of which "is excluding public radio talk shows. It's simply inaccurate to argue there's little or no progressive talk in major markets with National Public Radio affiliates airing Diane Rehm's show, or 'Fresh Air with Terry Gross,' or the other national and local left-leaning talk programs."
Also, Graham said, "for CAP and Free Press to argue that commercial broadcasters should pay fees to public broadcasting for a lack of balance - and then raising no question whatsoever about the tilt or the need for balance within public broadcasting - shows amazing liberal hypocrisy.
"In fact, Free Press has vociferously opposed any congressional attempt to question the balance of public broadcasting as 'partisan meddling,'" he added. "So what do they call their lobbying?"
As I said earlier in this post, the issue has much to do with The Fairness Doctrine, and since liberals are frustrated by the dominance of conservative talk radio, they are trying to re-enact an old law that expired in 1986 requiring broadcasters to provide "balance."
In 2004, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., tried to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Now, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, is talking about reviving it. The idea is to force stations to air leftists like Al Franken if they want to continue airing conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.You can find some other ways that liberals are trying to stifle free - here... speech. IMHO, I'd add one more to the list at the above link: The imposition of politically correct speech on society.
It's been 43 years since student protester Mario Savi ignited the "free speech movement" at Berkeley (University of California) with his famous address urging students "to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus - and you've got to make it stop!"
Today, liberals are still trying to stop "the machine," but they're not aiming at the government or university officials. The "machine" they are trying to stop is public opinion that disagrees with theirs. The American left has adopted a totalitarian mindset; they're actively working to stamp out dissent.
Did you know that the same liberal group that helped to get Don Imus fired for his offensive "ho" remark tried to get Rush Limbaugh censored from the Armed Forces Network? Or that this group, Media Matters, which reportedly is backed by anti-American financier George Soros, has declared war on conservative talk radio? Imus, who is not a conservative, was merely the test case.
By the way, and while we're on the topic of being fair and balanced, if you don't believe that Democrats aren't the only ones that feel the sting of conservative talk radio - ask Trent Lott.
Related: You definitely do not want to miss this audio: Mark Levin thrashes Trent Lott's long and undistinguished record.
Levin begins by noting that he defended Lott during the Strom Thrumond brouhaha, but moves quickly into Lott's record supporting the Fairness Doctrine all the way back to 1987. From there, it's off to Lott's goat fence analogy and Lott's attitude toward voters who are trying to "intimidate" him on immigration. Levin concludes that Lott's time as a Republican leader in the Senate should come to an end. He's right.Sidebar: Here's a somewhat humorous take on the matter of The Fairness Doctrine"
Suggested reading: The Return of the Fairness Doctrine
Posted by Richard at June 22, 2007 10:01 AM
