Why would Kucinich want to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine and kill off the AM band and talk radio? Because his allies have proven less successful than conservatives at building a market for their broadcasts. Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and a slew of conservative thinkers carved out an industry out of the AM wilderness, and the Al Frankens and Wendy Wildes can't keep up without government intervention...."Kucinich to Bring Back 'Fairness' Doctrine'," Ed Morrissey, Frontpage Magazine, 1/17/2007
Imagine if the automobile industry worked the way politics does. Honda doesn't sell Civics, so it bans the sale of Chevrolets. Oops, doesn't work that way, does it? But it does in politics.
The "Fairness" Doctrine was always a con, a deliberate segregating of broadcast media from paper media. Free speech, a fundamental right in a democracy, was disregarded in the name of "fairness." It's a familiar argument. In affirmative action, talented people are set aside in the name of "fairness" also, i.e., it's fairer to admit someone with a dramatically higher chance of flunking out of college than someone who will succeed. Classic socialist thinking! By forcing radio and TV stations to carry opposing points of view, under threat of sanctions including fines and loss of license, the Feds, then dominated by FDR Democrats, so intimidated broadcasters that most simply refused to air political commentary. Ronald Reagan, as part of his liberating a large chunk of the world from Marxist domination, overturned the Fairness Doctrine. Now, in the face of a market that clearly prefers talk radio with a slant toward freedom, free markets, and autonomous citizenry, Democrats are trying to use their victory in Congressional elections to suppress free speech, that is, any point of view not approved by people like Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton.
We warned you that this was coming on the 'Net. Morrissey suggests that it may be unavoidable on radio.
However, in an age when the world is full of electronic holes, how will they succeed? The only hope to suppress alternative points of view is to take total control of all media, including the Internet. Will they take that kind of Stalinist step? Answer: they did it before. It's their nature.
Luther
2 comments:
Actually, this goes beyond simple government intimidation. Back in the bad ol' days of the Fairness Doctrine, part of ther reason broadcasters avoided conservative talk radio was economic. The failure of liberal talk radio proves this theory.
Conservative talk radio shows bring in revenue. Liberal ones lose revenue. In a fair market, broadcasters can ignore the loser programs in favor of the gainer programs. However, if government forces broadcasters to pick up loser programs, it effectively reduces the income from gainer programs.
That has to be factored into the cost-benefit analysis of running a program. Broadcasters choose other programming that brings in a larger net income than running a loser along with a gainer with the result that political opinion shows disappear from the airwaves.
By stating the obvious you're concealing the intent. If markets in speech are deliberately constrained, the effect is censorship that managers can excuse with economic rationales. The Democrats are very well aware of this. They can't sell their program on the air, so they want to make sure the other fellow can't either.
Luther
Post a Comment