Stalinism Revised
The US Left are currently working on a plan to destroy talk radio because of its perceived imbalance towards Conservatism. The plan is to revise a little known regulation that is known as The Fairness Doctrine which basically tells radio stations that if they are going to air "controversial" material, they have to provide both sides of the issue equal time. This seems innocent and, well, reasonable right? The problem that it poses is that program directors at radio stations will simply stop airing "controversial" issues. Long story short, instead of programming that has garnered enormous ratings and raked in tremendous revenue for radio stations on the AM side of the dial, the listeners will get the best recipe for patato salad.
Now, why should this shock those of you out there who do not listen to, let alone care about, AM talk radio? The answer is quite simple, if not a little to simple to believe. Your politcal voice will be threatened. Now I am not saying that all of you reading this are Conservatives who listen to talk radio. What I am saying is that if a political party sees fit to attack one forum because of criticism, what is going to stop it from attacking all forums that level criticism? The Left in this country want power, and they won it in 2006 and they stand poised to win even more in 2008. After being out of power in Congress for twelve years and the White House for eight, there is no naivety about them playing by the rules when it comes to opposition. They are not going to let go of this newly found power willingly. They celebrate the silencing of the opposition's views.
When Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez closed down an opposition TV station, many Leftists here in the US silently cheered. In fact LA Times columnist Bart Jones explained the tyranical actions of Chavez as being a reaction to the station's support of the 2002 attempt to oust him out of power. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-jones30may30,0,1061242.story?coll=la-opinion-center) Mr. Jones's account of the closing of the station is replete with reasons why this station had to go, chief among them being a privately owned station that made it its goal to oust a "democratically" elected president. But take a look around the landscape inwhich Liberals find their heros: The Soviet Union, Cuba, to some extent Iran, and now, Venezuela. All of these governments either did (in the case of the USSR) or do oppress their sources of journalism. Any outburst against the regime will lead to the outlet being shut down and possibly worse for the individual journalist.
Nowadays, a Liberal front group posing as non-partisan, The Center for American Progess, which is ran by Mr. John Podesta, President Clinton's former chief of staff, is putting forth "research" detailing the bias of talk radio and how to deal with it. There are numerous flaws in this study however, beginning with the opening paragraph of their summary. They begin by stating that radio is the number one forum for entertainment for people ages 12 and older. This may well be true, but they can't seriously be listening to talk radio. The number one talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, gets a weekly total of 20 million people and the number two host, Sean Hannity, gets most of his audience from Limbaugh. The total of the 12 and older crowd listening to radio are not listening to talk radio. They are listening to FM radio which plays music and by the way airs many Leftist views. There is a reason why Limbaugh jokingly calls Liberals "dope smoking, maggot infested, FM types." Next up they mention that talk radio reaches 50 million people through the course of a week. Well, we know that 20 million of those are more than likely listening to Rush Limbaugh. The other 30 million people could be listening to any other host on the air. NPR gets a little bit of that 30 million, sports radio gets some and hispanic talk radio, I'm sure, rounds out the rest of the crowd. (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html)
The reason for the efforts by Liberals to silence talk radio can be summed up in two words: Rush Limbaugh. He has been the thorn in the side of Liberals since he came on the air in 1988-89. At first, he was looked at as a novelty, something that will eventually go away. But he didn't. Then the Left decided to compete with Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo and Air America. All of these competitors were retired to the ash heap of history. The only sure fire way the Left has in beating Limbaugh is through government and using laws and regulations to shut him down. Conservatives have to ask themselves if they are going sit idly by and let this happen. Liberals, who would actually cheer the demise of Rush Limbaugh, have to ask themselves when will it be their turn. True, the Democrat Party is the house of Liberalism, but stepping out of line within that house can get you thrown out. If you think that your Liberalism will save you from the wrath of the Democrat Party, go ask Ralph Nader how he is treated in the cocktail-party circuit. Since 2000, his daring attempt to be president and as such the demise of Al Gore, he hasn't been looked at in a glowing light by the Democrat Pary apparatus. By the way, if you are wondering how Rush got on the air, think about this: The Fairness Doctrin was repealed by President Reagan in 1987. If you don't like Conservative talk radio, then turn the dial. It's just that simple.
Now, why should this shock those of you out there who do not listen to, let alone care about, AM talk radio? The answer is quite simple, if not a little to simple to believe. Your politcal voice will be threatened. Now I am not saying that all of you reading this are Conservatives who listen to talk radio. What I am saying is that if a political party sees fit to attack one forum because of criticism, what is going to stop it from attacking all forums that level criticism? The Left in this country want power, and they won it in 2006 and they stand poised to win even more in 2008. After being out of power in Congress for twelve years and the White House for eight, there is no naivety about them playing by the rules when it comes to opposition. They are not going to let go of this newly found power willingly. They celebrate the silencing of the opposition's views.
When Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez closed down an opposition TV station, many Leftists here in the US silently cheered. In fact LA Times columnist Bart Jones explained the tyranical actions of Chavez as being a reaction to the station's support of the 2002 attempt to oust him out of power. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-jones30may30,0,1061242.story?coll=la-opinion-center) Mr. Jones's account of the closing of the station is replete with reasons why this station had to go, chief among them being a privately owned station that made it its goal to oust a "democratically" elected president. But take a look around the landscape inwhich Liberals find their heros: The Soviet Union, Cuba, to some extent Iran, and now, Venezuela. All of these governments either did (in the case of the USSR) or do oppress their sources of journalism. Any outburst against the regime will lead to the outlet being shut down and possibly worse for the individual journalist.
Nowadays, a Liberal front group posing as non-partisan, The Center for American Progess, which is ran by Mr. John Podesta, President Clinton's former chief of staff, is putting forth "research" detailing the bias of talk radio and how to deal with it. There are numerous flaws in this study however, beginning with the opening paragraph of their summary. They begin by stating that radio is the number one forum for entertainment for people ages 12 and older. This may well be true, but they can't seriously be listening to talk radio. The number one talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, gets a weekly total of 20 million people and the number two host, Sean Hannity, gets most of his audience from Limbaugh. The total of the 12 and older crowd listening to radio are not listening to talk radio. They are listening to FM radio which plays music and by the way airs many Leftist views. There is a reason why Limbaugh jokingly calls Liberals "dope smoking, maggot infested, FM types." Next up they mention that talk radio reaches 50 million people through the course of a week. Well, we know that 20 million of those are more than likely listening to Rush Limbaugh. The other 30 million people could be listening to any other host on the air. NPR gets a little bit of that 30 million, sports radio gets some and hispanic talk radio, I'm sure, rounds out the rest of the crowd. (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html)
The reason for the efforts by Liberals to silence talk radio can be summed up in two words: Rush Limbaugh. He has been the thorn in the side of Liberals since he came on the air in 1988-89. At first, he was looked at as a novelty, something that will eventually go away. But he didn't. Then the Left decided to compete with Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo and Air America. All of these competitors were retired to the ash heap of history. The only sure fire way the Left has in beating Limbaugh is through government and using laws and regulations to shut him down. Conservatives have to ask themselves if they are going sit idly by and let this happen. Liberals, who would actually cheer the demise of Rush Limbaugh, have to ask themselves when will it be their turn. True, the Democrat Party is the house of Liberalism, but stepping out of line within that house can get you thrown out. If you think that your Liberalism will save you from the wrath of the Democrat Party, go ask Ralph Nader how he is treated in the cocktail-party circuit. Since 2000, his daring attempt to be president and as such the demise of Al Gore, he hasn't been looked at in a glowing light by the Democrat Pary apparatus. By the way, if you are wondering how Rush got on the air, think about this: The Fairness Doctrin was repealed by President Reagan in 1987. If you don't like Conservative talk radio, then turn the dial. It's just that simple.
posted by Robert A. McReynolds | 10:24 AM
2 Comments:
You have a valid issue here, Robert. The Democrats (the left or whoever) wanting to re-apply the fairness doctrine to talk radio is just absurd.
If memory serves, the fairness doctrine comes out of the days when there were only 3 TV networks in most of the country, a few more in major markets and perhaps only one station available to any specific rural population. At that time, the doctrine made a lot of sense as TV was something of a monopoly much like the local electric utilities. There were more radio stations, but even then, there were limited choices in most all markets. The explosion of cable (and satellite) and the availability of dozens of stations in all but the most remote areas resulted in a relaxation of the doctrine rules. Now, with the advent of satellite radio and the internet, anyone and everyone has a voice and can reach as many people as they are capable of attracting. Think Howard Stern, U-tube, this blog, etc. The fairness doctrine has gone from an important limitation of a granted monopoly power to irrelevance.
As a result of this, I view an effort to re-apply the fairness doctrine with more amusement than alarm. Rather than suppress Limbaugh, I would bet the effort is to get the stations to host shows more to the left – shows that they can’t sell otherwise. The AM radio stations would see this as an effort to push on to them content that would clash with their existing audience. If Rush was followed with a show more to the left, would you listen or switch stations? Similarly, if you were wanting to hear Rush, how often would you remember to tune in to a station that otherwise had content you didn’t want to listen to? I can just imagine your local Pacifica station (WPFW is the call sign in DC, don’t know the frequency) having to put a few hours of Rush in the middle of their mix… Rush would survive just fine on satellite and/or on the web. It’s the AM radio stations that would be in a pickle.
My amusement with this effort comes about by imagining the Democrats expending political capital to try and get people to listen to more of their mouthpieces. On the other hand, I suppose that’s more the norm than the exception…
I do have to question your comments on the license revocation in Venezuela, though. If the newspaper article that you offer is in fact right, then there is a question: It’s one thing to advocate for an alternate party, or cause, it is quite another to actively advocate and advance the overthrow of the (constitutional) government. If there are, in fact, other stations and newspapers that do not support the government and they are not shut down, then there is a case to be made that shutting this one down is reasonable. If the station was shut down via the refusal to renew a license rather than (say) a hit squad and a few gallons of gasoline, then we certainly have an indication of a government acting within its powers to not tolerate sedition. But it all hinges on the question of whether it was sedition and whether other stations exist with a milder version of the same message. Do you know?
I am not worried about whether or not Limbaugh will find a way to do what he does. It could be a webcast on his site or it could be sat-radio. The point is, the government has no business telling people how to run their own PRIVATE businesses. If a local AM owner wants to buy the programming of Clear Channel and run it 24/7, then it is none of Pelosi's business. Just the same for some one wanting to run nothing but Leftist/Commie drivel. I don't believe the airwaves are "public" and I don't believe the "people" need to be protected from political talk radio. All this is is an attempt to shut up the one venue where Conservative ideals dominate. The Left hasn't figured out how to succeed in radio because they haven't figured out that normal Americans are not going to tune into some one just to hear their country trashed.
As for RCTV and Chavez, I don't know about RCTV actively looking to overthrow the government system. But they did seek to overthrow--if that is the word you want to use--Chavez after an election that many believe to have been rigged in Chavez's favour. But again it should be the owners of RCTV to decide whether or not they want to live under Chavez rule or not.
There is an old saying on the Right about Leftists: "They are all for free speech until you say something they don't agree with."
Post a Comment
<< Home