From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
Senator considering efforts to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" in the media
Published on June 24, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Democrat
In case the liberal crowd has forgotten that it isn't only the right wing of the GOP that occasionally endorses policy that controls what we say, hear and such, Senator Diane Feinstein has reminded us.

Today, on Fox Feinstein said that it might be time to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio.

“I am looking at it,” she said.

“In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided, tends to dwell in hyperbole. It is explosive, pushes people to extreme views without a lot of information,’’ Feinstein said. “There ought to be an opportunity to present the other side.”

This of course brings up the obvious questions that don't ever have satisfactory answers. That is part of the reason we lost that doctrine in the 1st place.

Just who decides who is what, and which views are the exclusive property of which political faction or ideology?

If a regularly conservative talk show host is say, for the immigration package or has nothing against gay marriage, are they then re-classified as centrists or liberals? If a liberal talk show host is pro-life or more hawkish on Iraq, do they then get labeled as a conservative? Beyond that, does anyone need to be reminded that there are more than 2 parties in this country? And furthermore, those "3rd party people" and unaffiliated independents outnumber both parties. Where is the fairness for them, both collectively and as individuals? Does anyone think the Greens are gonna be represented by the Libertarians very well? So do we now have to have dozens of ideologies all get "equal time" on any station that gives any politics any time?

And don't think this won't need to spread to TV as well. And not only strictly political news, but anyone who deals with Politics in general. After all, the Fairness Doctrine was gotten rid of in 1987, and the world of News was much different then.

Will the Daily Show and Colbert Report and any similar show be required to make fun of everyone equally? Will we be tracking their guests, who come from both the political and apolitical world on a standardized scale of ideology? Will Rosie O'Donell have to get a chance to rap with John Stewart every time Bruce Willis has to promote a new movie and by chance mentions his support for the Iraq War? What will be the determining factor on what is comedy and what is political commentary sometimes done with some wit? Will "Lil Bush" have to be followed by "Lil Clinton?"

And of course, who gets to sit on this illustrious board of "deciders" of who is being fair to everyone and who is not and needs to be punished?

In short, Feinstein's idea to bring back the thought police is ridiculous. She should be ashamed. And after she's done being ashamed, she should get back to doing what her constituents and the vast majority of Americans want her to do, namely, her job. And right now the issues on the table involve the war in Iraq, immigration and a host of actual important issues.

Maybe it's time some of these democrats and liberals stop whining about conservative dominance and Fox News's ratings. If one wants to comment about the content they send out, that is one thing. But stop complaining about their ratings and trying to legislate yourselves out of something you simply got out-competed on. Maybe they should be more like the people running Air America and Current TV and the few other liberal media outlets and actually compete. Maybe they need to realize that Fox was hemmoraging money for their 1st 10 years of existence, as was CNN before Gulf War I introduced many an American to Bernard Shaw, Wolf Blitzer & Company.

And maybe they need to stop whining over Rush Limbaugh, who took over a format the "conventional wisdom" was writing off as obsolete and "in it's last throws." Rush showed that AM radio was extremely viable if you had the right things to say to the right flock. Maybe they can learn from that. Maybe they need to.

And maybe if they keep pushing, the way Air America has, by charting it's way to a successful conclusion in their bankruptcy ordeal, they too might come out ahead. People forget that many a successful organization has used the bankruptcy protection system to ensure a long corporate life. Air America doesn't have Rupert Murdoch bucks to throw away. Looking back, it was a savvy move to do things the way they have. They stayed on the air, and in the end, will probably be ok. And if more liberals got together and took over some airwaves of their town, whether they be on radio, the internet or wherever, maybe the next liberal Rush Limbaugh will be found. One thing is for sure, they won't be found in the pages of a bill and with the force of the U.S. Government.

But complaining, whining and trying to legislate alleged "fairness" in an open market such as ours is just plain dumb. The time, money and recources would be better spent just getting more of their message out, in whatever fashion they can, like the conservatives started doing some 25 or so years ago. That is why they have done so well in the media. Not by trying to get the government to force their message out, but by actually just getting that message out themselves. Starting small, and responsibly and prudently building as they went along.

And after all, that's not a very "foreign concept" at all. It's pretty much the story of America. Some might even call it the "American Dream." And maybe the Democrats and liberals who want to have the governement thought police get their message out for them should try following that "plan for success in America" instead.


Comments (Page 1)
on Jun 24, 2007
And maybe the Democrats and liberals who want to have the governement thought police get their message out for them should try following that "plan for success in America" instead.


but that isn't fare people may not want to hear their message.

on Jun 25, 2007

“...tends to be one-sided, tends to dwell in hyperbole. It is explosive, pushes people to extreme views without a lot of information,’’

Sounds like Feinstein describes herself very well here. ;~D

 

I wonder, would the "fairness doctrine" require a member of the "moral majority" to be on Howard Stern?  I mean, as long as we're mandating balance here. ;~D

 

 

on Jun 25, 2007
Once again Sean, I find myself in agreement with you.
on Jun 25, 2007
Does this mean PBS and NPR will have to provide conservative counter-programming?
on Jun 25, 2007
Does this mean PBS and NPR will have to provide conservative counter-programming?


of course not they don't want to control the liberals just the conservitives
on Jun 25, 2007
Once again Sean, I find myself in agreement with you.


thanks miler...go steelers:)
on Jun 25, 2007
I wonder, would the "fairness doctrine" require a member of the "moral majority" to be on Howard Stern? I mean, as long as we're mandating balance here


good example...that's why i brought up the daily show. the world of "news" is much fuzzier than it was in 87 when CNN was the only cable news network and most people got their news from only a few places that were all large and corporate.

imus considered what he was doing to be "comedy." others judged it as political news. which was it?

what if i put my politics to music? if i put a backbeat behind a political diatribe, must a station then give equal time to every single opposing view? must they too be musical?
on Jun 25, 2007
Does this mean PBS and NPR will have to provide conservative counter-programming?


Silly rabbit. Those stations are not liberal. They are mainstream! (spake the jabberwocky).
on Jun 25, 2007
the fairnmess doctrine is actually one of the really decent examples of government knowing when to "take their mitts off" when they did so in 87. the doctrine did serve in the early days of broadcasting in ensuring that 1 powerful, rich group didn't monopoloize the airwaves.

but by 87, we were looking at the internet in the future and cable was beginning to explode and diversify. it was time for the doctrine to go. and the government did the right thing.

as thomas paine once said "there was a time when it was proper . and now is a proper time for it to go." (slightly paraphrased)

on Jun 25, 2007
Dianne Feinstein rules! GO DIANNE!
on Jun 25, 2007
I love my NPR. They may be more liberal, but at least they aren't raving madmen like some of the conservative hosts.

I mean, come on. Dianne Rehm could kill Sean or Rush any day.
on Jun 25, 2007
You are dead on here, Sean. Cheers to you.  
on Jun 26, 2007

Dianne Rehm could kill Sean or Rush any day.

True - with an Uzi.  But she would lose in a debate.

on Jun 26, 2007
But she would lose in a debate.


Have we been listening to the same people? Not on your life, Guy.

the only, I repeat, ONLY way Sean or Rush would "win" a debate was by using their usual tactics - yelling, shouting, and not letting their opponent get a word in edgewise.

They're irrational; Diane Rehm is extremely intelligent, measured, and rational.

She'd not only kill them in a debate, she'd cut them up and feed their innards to the buzzards.
on Jun 26, 2007
She'd not only kill them in a debate, she'd cut them up and feed their innards to the buzzards.


i'm not sure she'd kill em...hannity esp. is a pretty skilled debater. (a master, if you will, lol) . rush possibly, as he tends to lack fact and stick his footin his mouth on a reg. basis.

rehm is a very skilled debater as well, it would be interesting. the one person i'm sure would lose the debate is colmes.
Meta
Views
» 617
Comments
» 18
Category
Sponsored Links