I am flying from Denver to Tampa today, a four hour flight with a low-budget in-flight movie and no food that doesn’t cost limbs. I brought a new book with me, The Conservative’s Handbook, to pass the time, but as I made my way through the foreword, I had to stop and promptly put it back in my carry-on. It wasn’t because the book was terrible; quite the contrary. So far, the book is incredible, and I look forward to making my way through the next 500 or so pages of it, as I anticipate it to be extremely insightful and enlightening. But I felt myself getting more and more sad as the foreword went on, because it was authored by Sean Hannity, one of my favorite TV and radio personalities of the political media realm and one of Obama’s biggest campaign enemies, and the idea that such a brilliant voice might soon be silenced had me too devastated to keep reading without first writing on the infuriating issue of the Fairness Doctrine.
First, let me say that I am all for fairness. That’s why I’m a Republican. But this proposed doctrine, despite its title, has nothing to do with fairness. This is a law that would undermine our essential liberties of free speech and free inquiry, as well as institute undue censorship, which is something I thought the liberals agreed was objectionable.
If you haven’t heard, the Fairness Doctrine is a piece of legislation first introduced in 1949 that has come in cycles of hot contestation since. The “FAIR” stands for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. It requires the address of controversial issues of public concern from contrasting, but not necessarily opposing, viewpoints. If reinstituted today, its main purpose would be to require talk radio to be divided evenly between liberal and conservative hosts, working in tandem with media-ownership caps and, if Obama gets his way, a greater portion reserved for minority ownership.
Right now, conservatives dominate AM radio, with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Dennis Miller, and numerous others all hosting highly-rated, nationally-syndicated shows. Liberals have tried in the past to start up their own shows, but no one listened to them because, frankly, they were boring. So now the liberals are whining and throwing fits about “not getting their voices heard,” and they want to pass the “Fairness” Doctrine to forbid the success of articulate Republicans and halt the flow of conservative ideas.
It is when the opposition to any idea is silenced that balance goes down the drain and a one-sided, totalitarian-style government has the opportunity to rule. We in the minority call that a regime.
But wait, Kelly, aren’t you contradicting yourself? You’re saying we have to have a balance of ideas, and the Fairness Doctrine would ensure a 50/50 split of radio time between both sides. Sounds like balance to me!
Wrong, hypothetical arguer. Maybe this would be the case if we were going to apply the rule to ALL forms of media (you know, TV, movies, books, newspapers, magazines, advertisements, music, and everything else controlled 99:1 by liberals), but instead, the plan is to only apply the law to radio, which is currently the one and only medium we conservatives have to ourselves. By talking our lasts means of intra-party communication away from us, the Democrat-dominated government is trying to duct tape the mouths of those who disagree and solidify their eternal power. After all, if the conservatives can’t speak via any form of mass media, how would we ever organize en masse and revolt against our oppressors? We couldn’t. We’d be stuck.
Furthermore, the “Fairness” Doctrine completely undermines capitalism. I don’t think the government should ever really get into bed with the media, just like I don’t think it should be in cahoots with business. This is a similar function. Liberals have tried and failed to hold talk radio slots, which is no one’s fault but their own. If a mom-and-pop coffee shop closes after a Starbucks moves in across the street, that sucks, but should the government have the right to come in and divide the successful coffee shop in half, leaving one side for the failed business? And would they have to split tips at the end of the night, even though the Starbucks jar was five times as full? No. It’s ludicrous.
I’m sorry, Liberals, that the radio audience has shunned you. Maybe you should’ve tried being less monotone or something. But, even though it’s the way your party tries to do everything, you can’t have Daddy Government come out and make the mean ol’ neighbor kids let you play with them.
Grow up. And let us keep talking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Then why don't Conservatives fight for more air time instead of whine about a Liberal ruled media and a threat to their territory? I think the whining goes both ways here.
There's no doubt that the media is outrageously biased, but the only reason Liberals haven't succeeded in radio is because the only ones tuning into the AM stations are stuffy, old, white men (with the occasional young, intelligent Conservative like yourself). Perhaps this rejuvenated Republican party should fight harder for the air time it deserves and not resort to whining like those silly, pansy Liberals.
I would agree with you somewhat, but I don't think that the Republicans are whining much about it, though. We've got Fox News and AM Radio, and it isn't until the liberals threaten those that we really pipe up and cause a rucus.
Major and muscle straining eye rolls to Avid Reader for continuing and for buying the hackneyed stereotype about AM listeners and Republicans in general as "stuffy, old, white men." But if you need to pigeonhole those with whom you disagree to discount their argument and force, then you really do not wish to enter into an honest debate.
But as you yourself admit, the media is "outrageously biased", but that is not because Conservatives have neglected to fight for the airtime we "deserve." I suppose we should accept our fate, for as Kelly has stated, it is a matter of capitalism. TV, movies, news shows, and newspapers are run by private citizens as businesses. If we don't want government telling radio what to and what not to air, then perhaps we should stop whining about the liberal control of all other media.
What I object to, however, especially with the major news shows and newspapers, is that they purport to be journalists, and with that proclamation--nay with that profession--comes an assumption of neutrality, which in the last few years has become nearly non-existent. Is it not interesting that the News show that continues to get the highest marks for neutrality (Fox) is the one the rest of the so-called mainstream media accuses of being biased.
The real issue in my mind is one of honesty. The Conservative talk show hosts that the Liberals in Congress want to silence make no pretentions of being neutral. They are upfront about their views and their "agenda." Would that the liberal media would drop their facade of neutrality and just admit that they too have an agenda. By contending that they are neutral when they are not makes everything they do smack of at least hypocrisy and insincerity and at the most peddlers of propaganda and double speak. Anyone need to read or re-read "1984"?
Kelly,
I discovered your site quite by accident through my own blogsite tracking tool after you had paid a visit. I was quite taken aback at the prospect of an 18 year old college girl from Oregon having such a view of society. Young, college and Northwest usually do not equate to such views. I applaud you.
Add to this formula your penchant for writing well, and I am quite impressed. God speed, young lady, and do not allow yourself to be deterred in any fashion. I believe the appropriate phrase for your genereation would be "rage on". Just promise to do so peacefully.
Well done.
Post a Comment