Monday, March 30, 2009

Herniated Slogans

The Fairness Doctrine kind of reminds me of the Patriot Act. This, I'm saying, in that it sounds good (wonderful, even) but once in fact you start to peel away at the fringes of it, you're never quite so sure anymore. This is especially true when you start to ask questions pertaining to implementation...............................................................For example: Does the Fairness Doctrine only apply to AM radio? Or, does it apply to network news as well? What about to our public television, major newspapers, cable news? Does it apply to the Internet? And who is the arbiter of what is considered fair? Would it be a special government paper-shuffler/bureaucrat....appointed by a politician?.................................................................And then there's the nuts and bolts of it all. How would it even work, for Christ? Does Rush Limbaugh, say, have to share the microphone with some nondittohead? Or do they simply take turns; Rush for a half-hour to an hour, the liberal for half-hour to an hour? And what would happen if the listeners simply turned the dial when it WASN'T Rush....but the liberal voice who was teeing off? I mean, think about it here, folks, in that instance, you'd actually be having the federal government mandating that a radio station's ratings and profits DECREASE! That is kind of scary, I think.....................................................................Now I know that a lot of these stations are corporately owned, and that, maybe, because of this, it is harder for liberal radio to get a break these days. I hear you. But, come on, there has got to be a better answer. My suggestion is that George Soros and Ted Turner get together and maybe procure some of those stations, throw some hackneyed liberal voices (yes, as opposed to those hackneyed conservative voices) behind the mic, and, yes, have them all compete. And what about frigging satellite radio? There are all sorts of opportunities there, too. I mean, come on, we're talking about the government coming in and controlling free speech here. Any frigging thing but that as an answer, I'm thinking.

2 comments:

1138 said...

"I mean, come on, we're talking about the government coming in and controlling free speech here."

Except that you conveniently forget that the government, yes the government licensees, regulates and regulates access to the airwaves.
Fairness needs to be determined by some other aspect than the ability than the ability to purchase access from the government.
Government has restricted "fairness" with it's license.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

People listen to Rush (I'm not one of them, btw) for basically one reason. They like Rush. If the station had to put on a liberal counterpoint, those people would simply turn the station. Again, my preference would be to have a liberal mogul (and, yes, there are in fact many of them out there) or two put forth some alternatives and try to compete. And then there's that focusing on just one aspect of the media thing. That kind of bothers me, too.