How the Republicans paved the way for the

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

Copied liberally from http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/06/...monks.0630.html

 

------

 

Commentary / Edward Monks: The end of fairness: Right-wing commentators have a virtual monopoly when it comes to talk radio programming

By EDWARD MONKS

For The Register-Guard

 

 

Recommend this story to others.

 

 

ONCE UPON A TIME, in a country that now seems far away, radio and television broadcasters had an obligation to operate in the public interest. That generally accepted principle was reflected in a rule known as the Fairness Doctrine.

 

The rule, formally adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, required all broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial matters of public interest. It further required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view regarding those matters. The Fairness Doctrine arose from the idea imbedded in the First Amendment that the wide dissemination of information from diverse and even antagonistic sources is essential to the public welfare and to a healthy democracy.

 

The FCC is mandated by federal law to grant broadcasting licenses in such a way that the airwaves are used in the "public convenience, interest or necessity." The U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, expressing the view that the airwaves were a "public trust" and that "fairness" required that the public trust accurately reflect opposing views.

 

However, by 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was gone - repealed by the FCC, to which President Reagan had appointed the majority of commissioners.

 

That same year, Congress codified the doctrine in a bill that required the FCC to enforce it. President Reagan vetoed that bill, saying the Fairness Doctrine was "inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." Thus, the Fairness Doctrine came to an end both as a concept and a rule.

 

Talk radio shows how profoundly the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has affected political discourse. In recent years almost all nationally syndicated political talk radio hosts on commercial stations have openly identified themselves as conservative, Republican, or both: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Michael Reagen, Bob Grant, Ken Hamblin, Pat Buchanan, Oliver North, Robert Dornan, Gordon Liddy, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al. The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing - there is virtually nothing else.

 

On local stations, an occasional nonsyndicated moderate or liberal may sneak through the cracks, but there are relatively few such exceptions. This domination of the airwaves by a single political perspective clearly would not have been permissible under the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Eugene is fairly representative. There are two local commercial political talk and news radio stations: KUGN, owned by Cumulus Broadcasting, the country's second largest radio broadcasting company, and KPNW, owned by Clear Channel Communications, the largest such company.

 

KUGN's line-up has three highly partisan conservative Republicans - Lars Larson (who is regionally syndicated), Michael Savage and Michael Medved (both of whom are nationally syndicated), covering a nine-hour block each weekday from 1 p.m. until 10 p.m. Each host is unambiguous in his commitment to advancing the interests and policies of the Republican party, and unrelenting in his highly personalized denunciation of Democrats and virtually all Democratic Party policy initiatives. That's 45 hours a week.

 

For two hours each weekday morning, KUGN has just added nationally syndicated host Bill O'Reilly. Although he occasionally criticizes a Republican for something other than being insufficiently conservative, O'Reilly is clear in his basic conservative viewpoint. His columns are listed on the Townhall.com web site, created by the strongly conservative Heritage Foundation. That's 55 hours of political talk on KUGN each week by conservatives and Republicans. No KUGN air time is programmed for a Democratic or liberal political talk show host.

 

KPNW carries popular conservative Rush Limbaugh for three hours each weekday, and Michael Reagan, the conservative son of the former president, for two hours, for a total of 25 hours per week.

 

Thus, between the two stations, there are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative hosts of political talk radio, with not so much as a second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.

 

For anyone old enough to remember 15 years earlier when the Fairness Doctrine applied, it is a breathtakingly remarkable change - made even more remarkable by the fact that the hosts whose views are given this virtual monopoly of political expression spend a great deal of time talking about "the liberal media."

 

Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society, where government commissars or party propaganda ministers enforce the acceptable view with threats of violence. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it. Yet the almost complete right wing Republican domination of political talk radio in this country has been accomplished without guns or gulags. Let's see how it happened.

 

As late as 1974, the FCC was still reporting that "we regard strict adherence to the Fairness Doctrine as the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest - the sine qua non for grant for renewal of license." That view had been ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court, which wrote In glowing terms in 1969 of the people's right to a free exchange of opposing views on the public airwaves:

 

"But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount," the court said. "Congress need not stand idly by and permit those with licenses to ignore the problems which beset the people or to exclude from the airwaves anything but their own views of fundamental questions."

 

Through 1980, the FCC, the majority in Congress and the U. S. Supreme Court all supported the Fairness Doctrine. It was the efforts of an interesting collection of conservative Republicans (with some assistance from liberals such Sen. William Proxmire, a Wisconsin Democrat, and well-respected journalists such as Fred Friendly) that came together to quickly kill it.

 

The position of the FCC dramatically changed when President Reagan appointed Mark Fowler as chairman in 1981. Fowler was a lawyer who had worked on Reagan's campaign, and who specialized in representing broadcasters. Before his nomination, which was well received by the broadcast industry, Fowler had been a critic of the Fairness Doctrine. As FCC chairman, Fowler made clear his opinion that "the perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants." He quickly put in motion of series of events leading to two court cases that eased the way for repeal of the Fairness Doctrine six years later.

 

At almost the same time, Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., who became chairman of the Commerce Committee when Republicans took control of the Senate in 1981, began holding hearings designed to produce "evidence" that the Fairness Doctrine did not function as intended.

 

Packwood also established the Freedom of Expression Foundation, described by its president, Craig Smith, long associated with Republican causes, as a "foundation which would coordinate the repeal effort using non-public funds, and which could provide lobbyists, editorialists and other opinion leaders with needed arguments and evidence."

 

Major contributors to the foundation included the major broadcast networks, as well as Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, AT&T and TimesMirror.

 

Packwood and the foundation argued that the Fairness Doctrine chilled or limited speech because broadcasters became reluctant to carry opinion-oriented broadcasts out of fear that many organizations or individuals would demand the opportunity to respond. The argument, which appealed to some liberals such as Proxmire, thus held that the doctrine, in practice, decreased the diversity of opinion expressed on public airwaves.

 

In 1985, the FCC formally adopted the views advanced by Packwood and the foundation, issuing what was termed a "Fairness Report," which contained a "finding" that the Fairness Doctrine in actuality "inhibited" broadcasters and that it "disserves the interest of the public in obtaining access to diverse viewpoints." Congress, and much of the rest of the country, remained unconvinced.

 

Shortly thereafter, in a 2-1 decision in 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a new FCC rule refusing to apply the Fairness Doctrine to teletext (the language appearing at the bottom of a television screen). The two-judge majority decided that Congress had not made the Fairness Doctrine a binding statutory obligation despite statutory language supporting that inference. The two judges were well-known conservatives Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork, each thereafter nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Reagan. Their ruling became the beginning of the end for the Fairness Doctrine.

 

The next year, 1987, in the case Meredith Corp. vs. FCC, the FCC set itself up to lose in such a way as to make repeal of the Fairness Doctrine as easy as possible. The opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals took note of the commission's intention to undercut the Fairness Doctrine:

 

"Here, however, the Commission itself has already largely undermined the legitimacy of its own rule. The FCC has issued a formal report that eviscerates the rationale for its regulations. The agency has deliberately cast grave legal doubt on the fairness doctrine. ..."

 

The court was essentially compelled to send the case back to the FCC for further proceedings, and the commission used that opportunity to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. Although there have been several congressional attempts to revive the doctrine, Reagan's veto and the stated opposition of his successor, George Bush, were successful in preventing that.

 

It is difficult to underestimate the consequences of repeal of the Fairness Doctrine on the American political system. In 1994, when Republicans gained majorities in both chambers of Congress, Newt Gingrich, soon to become speaker of the House, described the voting as "the first talk radio election."

 

Although it is not susceptible to direct proof, it seems clear to me that if in communities throughout the United States Al Gore had been the beneficiary of thousands of hours of supportive talk show commentary and George W. Bush the victim of thousands of hours of relentless personal and policy attack, the vote would have been such that not even the U.S. Supreme Court could have made Bush president.

 

Broadcasters' choice to present conservative views is not purely about attracting the largest number of listeners. Broadcasters and their national advertisers tend to be wealthy corporations and entities, operated and owned by wealthy individuals. Virtually all national talk show hosts advocate a reduction or elimination of taxes affecting the wealthy. They vigorously argue for a reduction in income taxes, abolition of the estate tax and reduction or elimination of the capital gains tax - positions directly consistent with the financial interests of broadcasters and advertisers.

 

Imagine a popular liberal host who argued for a more steeply graduated income tax, an increase in the tax rate for the largest estates and an increase in the capital gains tax rate.

 

Broadcasters and advertisers have no interest in such a host, no matter how large the audience, because of the host's ability to influence the political climate in a way that broadcasters and advertisers ultimately find to be economically unfavorable.

 

Hence we wind up with a distortion of a true market system in which only conservatives compete for audience share. Whether the theory is that listeners listen to hear views they agree with, or views they disagree with, in a purely market driven arena, broadcasters would currently be scrambling to find liberal or progressive talk show hosts. They are not.

 

The beneficiaries of the talk show monopoly are not content. Immediately after he became House speaker, Newt Gingrich led the Republican battle to eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which, free of some commercial considerations, had broadcast a wider spectrum of opinion. Although not fully successful, that campaign led to a decrease in federal funding for the CPB, a greater reliance on corporate "sponsors" and a drift toward programming acceptable to conservatives.

 

No reasonable person can claim that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has led to a wider diversity of views - to a "warming" of speech, as the FCC, the Freedom of Expression Foundation and others had predicted.

 

Perhaps it should not be a surprise that the acts of President Reagan, Reagan's FCC appointments, Sen. Packwood, Justice Scalia and failed Supreme Court nominee Bork and the first President Bush should combine to ultimately produce, in my town, a 4,000 hour to zero yearly advantage for Republican propaganda over the Democratic opposition.Nor should we overlook the Orwellian irony that the efforts of an organization calling itself the Freedom of Expression Foundation helped result in so limited a range of public expression of views.

 

Perhaps the current president, aware that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine had the opposite effect of what was publicly predicted by his predecessors and aware that a monopoly on public expression is inconsistent with a democratic tradition, will direct his administration to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. What about that cold day in hell?

 

-----------

 

of course, i'm sure the Liberal Media is to blame for this. *smirk*

[Guest NoCalMike]

Quite obvious that 90% of talk "news" radio is conservative. I happen to like the Michael Savage show. I pretty much disagree with everything he has to say on politics, but he presents his show in such an entertaining way, I can't help but listen. Here in Sacramento, I can pick up the San Fran station KGO 810.....good shit, Bernie Ward and Ray T. at night~!

[Guest EricMM]

I'd have to say it's just radio. And there are lots of talk radio stations that I hear anyways that are pretty liberal. I don't know if you were talking about FM, since they played music too...

 

But either way, I'm sure if people stopped listening to conservatives or demanded more moderate or liberal programming they'd get it.

 

But like I said, I don't drive, and I don't listen to AM.

 

I like O'Reilly tho, even if he is conservative he's very smart and not stupid. I agree with him more than I disagree, because he doesn't agree with republican ideas, he agrees with good ideas.

[Guest Some Guy]

Well the federally funded National Public Radio (NPR) is very far to the Left and the Conservatives manage to get on the air all by themselves with out tax payer money. I didn't notice a mention of that in the article.

Plus on TV you had/have Geraldo, Oprah, Phil Donohue, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, etc... (who make their points is a far more subliminal and subtle way, while Rush yells it from the mountain tops) who are all to the left of center and dominate the TV. I think the radio just balanced things out a little. And that is probably what Reagon wanted. Why do you think Bush wants to cut NPR's budget? Might it be because all the news and commentary is devoted to ripping him a new asshole and he has to pay for it? If Leftists want on the radio it's simple, find a station to get on and then draw ratings, that's what Ruch, Hannity, Liddy, Dr. Laura, O' Reily etc... all did.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Imagine a popular liberal host who argued for a more steeply graduated income tax, an increase in the tax rate for the largest estates and an increase in the capital gains tax rate."

 

I imagined it. Then I imagined turning off NPR.

[Guest Some Guy]

Well i might as well state my problem with NPR. I don't care that they are to the left of Lenin, that's their business. What really bothers me is that I and everyone else has to fund it through our tax money. If you don't like Rush or O' Reily you can turn them off and not support them with your vieership. I don't like NPR and I can shut it off, but I *HAVE* to support then when I pay taxes. That is wrong.

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

Take the amount of money that goes to NPR.

 

divided by the # of people who pay taxes in the US

 

and you'll find that your contribution to NPR is about 2 cents or so.

 

You even know how much money goes to NPR per year?

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

taxpayers shouldn't pay regardless of how small the amount is.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

One thing I love about O'Reilly is that when someone pisses him off he goes at them via his TV (and probably radio, although I don't listen to that) show. When NPR wouldn't book him despite having two best-sellers and being the most popular cable news personality, he went on a tirade, bashing NPR on his show and inviting other guests that were turned down by this taxpayer-funded station. Funny stuff.

[Guest DrTom]

"You even know how much money goes to NPR per year?"

 

For FY2000, the most recent set of data available from NPR itself, they claimed revenues of $143,821,613. "Grants and Contributions" accounted for just over $43 million of that, while the "NPR Foundation Endowment" was just over $8.2 million. Of the $52.5 million claimed in the NPR Foundation for FY2000, 62.2% of it was from corporations, compared to 6% for most non-profits.

 

I don't really care if NPR gets a little tax money. I don't listen to them, nor do I care for their politics, but part of paying taxes to the government is the understanding that they're going to spend the money on a couple things you probably don't like.

 

As for the article itself... so what? A lot more people read newspapers and watch TV news than listen to talk radio. If the vast majority of talk radio hosts are conservative, it balances out the fact that the vast majority of print and TV reporters are liberal. Ideally, for every Sam Donaldson, there should be a Rush Limbaugh. Just because the playing field isn't level in one medium doesn't mean the system needs to be fixed.

 

Locally, the talk radio station here does news until 8am, then a local liberal hosts a show from 8 until noon, we get Limbaugh until 3, a local conservative until 6, then back to the liberals. Pretty balanced on the whole, really. I'm not a big talk radio fan, since I much prefer music for my drive, but I tune in when there's nothing worth listening to on the FM band and I don't care to listen to a CD.

 

"Although it is not susceptible to direct proof, it seems clear to me that if in communities throughout the United States Al Gore had been the beneficiary of thousands of hours of supportive talk show commentary and George W. Bush the victim of thousands of hours of relentless personal and policy attack, the vote would have been such that not even the U.S. Supreme Court could have made Bush president."

 

It's also not susceptible to a little bit of thought. People who listen to talk radio will listen to a conservative or liberal host based on their politics. It's rare for liberals to nail themselves to Limbaugh's cross, though there are a few game folks out there who do. THe reverse is true for conservatives. if talk radio were slanted to the left, the same liberals who voted Gore would have still voted Gore, and the same conservatives who voted Bush would have still voted Bush. Besides, it's been almost two years, and more speculation about what might have been in November of 2000 doesn't do anyone any good.

 

"Copied liberally..."

 

I never doubted that part...

[Guest EricMM]

LesnarLunatic I feel that your heart is in the right place, but I would appreciate it if you stopped posting these utter bias pieces. Taking pot shots at Bush is one thing, but trying to make the republican ANYTHING look worse than the democratic ANYTHING is ... wrong IMO. It's politics and nothing more.

 

Although it is not susceptible to direct proof, it seems clear to me that if in communities throughout the United States Al Gore had been the beneficiary of thousands of hours of supportive talk show commentary and George W. Bush the victim of thousands of hours of relentless personal and policy attack, the vote would have been such that not even the U.S. Supreme Court could have made Bush president.

Things like that give us liberals a bad name. I personally never felt that election was stolen. I think it was STUPID, I was pissed off at how it ended, but I'm pretty sure it was valid.

 

How could you possibly argue a point while saying that in fact you can't prove it AND THEN state it as actually really proof. "Common sense" proof is ALWAYS stupid.

 

Argue current events not history. Your posts have talked about things from the 80's thats TWO DECADES AGO. NOBODY CARES. And I just think the whole radio thing was wrong.

 

Like I said I admire the direction I just think you need to think out your matierial a little more. Sorry if you don't like this post LL.

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

You do realize I didn't write this, right?

 

and you seem to talk about "us liberals" with the idea that you're a liberal.

 

You're just confused. You haven't shown yourself to be that liberal.

 

I'm bothered by scrapping the things that made a fair press on radio possible. Making one wrong to counter what you see as another wrong is still wrong.

 

the Media is a corporate being, whoring themselves out to the things that give them more ratings and money.

[Guest EricMM]

no of course you didn't write this.

 

I feel that that article is misleading and wrong, that there is plenty of liberal views on the radio. Plus there is enough on TV and I don't listen to the radio...

 

I'm not confused, I just don't care about mudslinging issues like those two you just raised.

 

Talk to me about the environment or the like. Something that matters. Not the freaking Radio or Bush's 1986 tax forms. Or whatever they were.

[Guest Some Guy]

LesnarLunatic I feel that your heart is in the right place, but I would appreciate it if you stopped posting these utter bias pieces. Taking pot shots at Bush is one thing, but trying to make the republican ANYTHING look worse than the democratic ANYTHING is ... wrong IMO. It's politics and nothing more.

Taking shots at people is fine by me, but posting blatent flaming baiting threads is not. It's getting old and you have proved nothing. I'm trying to figure out what the point is of posting all this shit.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Eric, I am not sure, but maybe LesnarLunatic posted this article in response to the outcry that the "media is so liberal biased" type statements. I think first of all people need to realize there is a difference between Democrats and Liberals. TV/media may represent the Democrats views, but that is not the same as say, the Green Party view on things. Now, Democrats may be considered liberal, IN COMPARISON to the Religious right, but that does not make them Liberals. I just get frusrtated because people call me a Liberal and then attack Gore, as if LIBERALS even support Gore, or if Democrats vote the same as Liberals, yes I may have more common issues to agree with a Democrat over a Republican, yet I still have way too many issues with the Democratic party to vote for them(for the most part)

 

 

I am sure that some Republicans, have issues with their extreme counterparts, the Religious Right, or with Pat Buchanan, even though many people don't know the difference between all those groups......

[Guest EricMM]

Yes, ok fine, then he should have put that in his post, as a counter point to the claims of a liberal media. But he has to say that instead of cutting and pasting other peoples words with a joke at the start and the end.

 

But like I said I knew he was thinking the right thoughts. It's the execution! And it could be construed as flame baiting as Some Guy said (unless he was talking about me).

 

But at least he's arguing an arguable point, not Genocide.

[Guest Some Guy]

I was talking about LenarLunatic, and agreeing for the most part with what you said, that's why I quoted you.

[Guest DrTom]

"I think first of all people need to realize there is a difference between Democrats and Liberals."

 

While that's true, it's also true that the Democratic party has been the home of the liberal philosophy in America for some time. There are other liberal parties (probably even more liberal), but since the Dems are the big ones, people will associate them with liberals and use the two terms interchangeably. Ditto for Republicans and conservatives. While it's not a precise equation, it's usually accurate enough for the level of banter most people engage in.

[Guest Some Guy]

I almost never use the term "liberal" I prefer "Leftist" because "Liber" is from Lain meaning "free" and I don't think many of the left's policies promote freedom, many infringe upon it.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<Commentary / Edward Monks: The end of fairness: Right-wing commentators have a virtual monopoly when it comes to talk radio programming>>>

 

 

Ignore that left-wing commentators can't draw ratings to save their lives. Cuomo was given a show and tanked. I believe Elders was as well.

 

 

<<<By EDWARD MONKS

For The Register-Guard

 

 

Recommend this story to others.

 

 

ONCE UPON A TIME, in a country that now seems far away, radio and television broadcasters had an obligation to operate in the public interest. That generally accepted principle was reflected in a rule known as the Fairness Doctrine.

 

The rule, formally adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, required all broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial matters of public interest. It further required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view regarding those matters. The Fairness Doctrine arose from the idea imbedded in the First Amendment that the wide dissemination of information from diverse and even antagonistic sources is essential to the public welfare and to a healthy democracy.>>>

 

 

Of course, we should ignore the inconsistent application of that particular statute for decades.

 

 

<<<The FCC is mandated by federal law to grant broadcasting licenses in such a way that the airwaves are used in the "public convenience, interest or necessity." The U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, expressing the view that the airwaves were a "public trust" and that "fairness" required that the public trust accurately reflect opposing views.

 

However, by 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was gone - repealed by the FCC, to which President Reagan had appointed the majority of commissioners.

 

That same year, Congress codified the doctrine in a bill that required the FCC to enforce it. President Reagan vetoed that bill, saying the Fairness Doctrine was "inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." Thus, the Fairness Doctrine came to an end both as a concept and a rule.

 

Talk radio shows how profoundly the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has affected political discourse. In recent years almost all nationally syndicated political talk radio hosts on commercial stations have openly identified themselves as conservative, Republican, or both: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Michael Reagen, Bob Grant, Ken Hamblin, Pat Buchanan, Oliver North, Robert Dornan, Gordon Liddy, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al. The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing - there is virtually nothing else.>>>

 

 

Hmm, time for a query:

 

If the "mainstream press" is as open and impartial as the left wishes to claim---how can the market possibly SUPPORT all of these conservative voices?

 

And why do liberals fail so miserably when they try to do their own shows?

 

 

<<<On local stations, an occasional nonsyndicated moderate or liberal may sneak through the cracks, but there are relatively few such exceptions. This domination of the airwaves by a single political perspective clearly would not have been permissible under the Fairness Doctrine.>>>

 

 

Nor would the utter domination of the left in the mainstream press, but hey, that's just water under the bridge.

 

To give you a hint, I don't remember much bally-hoo about the lack of fairness around the Watergate affair? You didn't hear much of Nixon's side of the story in the press when compared to the people who were simply reporting what happened.

 

 

<<<Eugene is fairly representative. There are two local commercial political talk and news radio stations: KUGN, owned by Cumulus Broadcasting, the country's second largest radio broadcasting company, and KPNW, owned by Clear Channel Communications, the largest such company.

 

KUGN's line-up has three highly partisan conservative Republicans - Lars Larson (who is regionally syndicated), Michael Savage and Michael Medved (both of whom are nationally syndicated), covering a nine-hour block each weekday from 1 p.m. until 10 p.m. Each host is unambiguous in his commitment to advancing the interests and policies of the Republican party, and unrelenting in his highly personalized denunciation of Democrats and virtually all Democratic Party policy initiatives. That's 45 hours a week.

 

For two hours each weekday morning, KUGN has just added nationally syndicated host Bill O'Reilly. Although he occasionally criticizes a Republican for something other than being insufficiently conservative, O'Reilly is clear in his basic conservative viewpoint. His columns are listed on the Townhall.com web site, created by the strongly conservative Heritage Foundation. That's 55 hours of political talk on KUGN each week by conservatives and Republicans. No KUGN air time is programmed for a Democratic or liberal political talk show host>>>

 

 

Of course, if Democratic/liberal hosts could DRAW RATINGS AND LISTENERS---it wouldn't really be an issue.

 

 

<<<KPNW carries popular conservative Rush Limbaugh for three hours each weekday, and Michael Reagan, the conservative son of the former president, for two hours, for a total of 25 hours per week.

 

Thus, between the two stations, there are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative hosts of political talk radio, with not so much as a second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.>>>

 

 

Because those hosts draw enough ratings to draw enough ad revenue to keep their shows on the air.

 

Liberals have failed to do so repeatedly.

 

 

<<<For anyone old enough to remember 15 years earlier when the Fairness Doctrine applied, it is a breathtakingly remarkable change - made even more remarkable by the fact that the hosts whose views are given this virtual monopoly of political expression spend a great deal of time talking about "the liberal media.">>>

 

 

Ah yes, that whole canard. The media isn't liberal, eh?

 

Evidently, there are A LOT of people who would tend to disagree.

 

But, of course, anybody who disagrees is dismissed as uneducated---which only helps the conservative shows out.

 

 

<<<Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society>>>

 

 

Or on public radio.

 

 

<<<where government commissars or party propaganda ministers enforce the acceptable view with threats of violence.>>>

 

 

Man, just like public radio.

 

 

<<<There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.>>>

 

 

Which is why radio isn't a democracy.

 

It's a business.

 

 

<<<Yet the almost complete right wing Republican domination of political talk radio in this country has been accomplished without guns or gulags. Let's see how it happened.>>>

 

 

I can give it to you easily, but I'm sure the writer has some whining to get off of his chest:

 

They produced better shows that people wished to listen to.

 

That's why conservatives do better.

 

 

<<<As late as 1974, the FCC was still reporting that "we regard strict adherence to the Fairness Doctrine as the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest - the sine qua non for grant for renewal of license." That view had been ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court, which wrote In glowing terms in 1969 of the people's right to a free exchange of opposing views on the public airwaves:

 

"But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount," the court said. "Congress need not stand idly by and permit those with licenses to ignore the problems which beset the people or to exclude from the airwaves anything but their own views of fundamental questions.">>>

 

 

Supreme Court used to say that "seperate, but equal" was a good idea.

 

The Court has been wrong in the past.

 

 

<<<Through 1980, the FCC, the majority in Congress and the U. S. Supreme Court all supported the Fairness Doctrine. It was the efforts of an interesting collection of conservative Republicans (with some assistance from liberals such Sen. William Proxmire, a Wisconsin Democrat, and well-respected journalists such as Fred Friendly) that came together to quickly kill it.

 

The position of the FCC dramatically changed when President Reagan appointed Mark Fowler as chairman in 1981. Fowler was a lawyer who had worked on Reagan's campaign, and who specialized in representing broadcasters. Before his nomination, which was well received by the broadcast industry, Fowler had been a critic of the Fairness Doctrine. As FCC chairman, Fowler made clear his opinion that "the perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.">>>

 

 

Which, amazingly enough, IS WHAT THEY ARE.

 

Anyway, this author is just horribly bland and

blase, so let's hit some serious snippage, 'K?

 

 

<<<It is difficult to underestimate the consequences of repeal of the Fairness Doctrine on the American political system.>>>

 

 

Why, before the Doctrine was repealed, no President did illegal things to get himself re-elected. Congressmen NEVER took bribes. The world was a more honest place.

 

 

<<<In 1994, when Republicans gained majorities in both chambers of Congress, Newt Gingrich, soon to become speaker of the House, described the voting as "the first talk radio election.">>>

 

 

And he was right.

 

Shall we mention what Dan Rather called the 1994 election?

 

Does the phrase "a temper-tantrum" ring any bells?

 

 

<<<Although it is not susceptible to direct proof, it seems clear to me that if in communities throughout the United States Al Gore had been the beneficiary of thousands of hours of supportive talk show commentary and George W. Bush the victim of thousands of hours of relentless personal and policy attack, the vote would have been such that not even the U.S. Supreme Court could have made Bush president.>>>

 

 

Fortunately, the Supreme Court didn't make Bush President, either. The voters did.

 

 

<<<Broadcasters' choice to present conservative views is not purely about attracting the largest number of listeners.>>>

 

 

Hate to tell him, but yes it is. Businessmen HATE playing sides. They donate to both parties as much as possible because business is always on one side of the aisle---the winning side.

 

They hire conservatives to host shows because conservatives draw the numbers.

 

 

<<<Broadcasters and their national advertisers tend to be wealthy corporations and entities, operated and owned by wealthy individuals.>>>

 

 

I love this inane assumption that huge corporations only give to one party.

 

No wonder the left-wing press is so laughable.

 

 

<<<Virtually all national talk show hosts advocate a reduction or elimination of taxes affecting the wealthy.>>>

 

 

Actually, a reduction of taxes---PERIOD. It's hard, though, to reduce taxes without cutting the taxes of the wealthy---seeing as how they tend to pay a lot of taxes.

 

 

<<<They vigorously argue for a reduction in income taxes>>>

 

 

Yup.

 

 

<<<abolition of the estate tax>>>

 

 

Taxing dead people is immoral.

 

 

<<<and reduction or elimination of the capital gains tax - positions directly consistent with the financial interests of broadcasters and advertisers.>>>

 

 

No, positions directly consistent with sound business and economic policy---which conservatives tend to go along with.

 

 

<<<Imagine a popular liberal host who argued for a more steeply graduated income tax, an increase in the tax rate for the largest estates and an increase in the capital gains tax rate.>>>

 

 

He'd get no audience and his show would be canned quickly.

 

 

<<<Broadcasters and advertisers have no interest in such a host, no matter how large the audience, because of the host's ability to influence the political climate in a way that broadcasters and advertisers ultimately find to be economically unfavorable.>>>

 

 

Yeah, whatever.

 

 

<<<Hence we wind up with a distortion of a true market system in which only conservatives compete for audience share. Whether the theory is that listeners listen to hear views they agree with, or views they disagree with, in a purely market driven arena, broadcasters would currently be scrambling to find liberal or progressive talk show hosts. They are not.>>>

 

 

Because they've tried several very high-profile liberal hosts and those hosts BOMBED.

 

Horribly.

 

 

<<<The beneficiaries of the talk show monopoly are not content. Immediately after he became House speaker, Newt Gingrich led the Republican battle to eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which, free of some commercial considerations, had broadcast a wider spectrum of opinion.>>>

 

 

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

 

And you wonder why people didn't like the Fairness Doctrine.

 

 

<<<Although not fully successful, that campaign led to a decrease in federal funding for the CPB, a greater reliance on corporate "sponsors" and a drift toward programming acceptable to conservatives.>>>

 

 

So, instead of Communistic bilge, they broadcast Socialistic bilge?

 

 

<<<No reasonable person can claim that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has led to a wider diversity of views>>>

 

 

I can.

 

With ease.

 

 

<<< - to a "warming" of speech, as the FCC, the Freedom of Expression Foundation and others had predicted.>>>

 

 

It absolutely has.

 

It has given the conservatives a voice that they never had before.

 

 

<<<Perhaps it should not be a surprise that the acts of President Reagan, Reagan's FCC appointments, Sen. Packwood, Justice Scalia and failed Supreme Court nominee Bork and the first President Bush should combine to ultimately produce, in my town, a 4,000 hour to zero yearly advantage for Republican propaganda over the Democratic opposition.Nor should we overlook the Orwellian irony that the efforts of an organization calling itself the Freedom of Expression Foundation helped result in so limited a range of public expression of views.>>>

 

 

So, to make sure that you have "equal" views---you want the government to dictate who is and who is not given a show?

 

Interesting.

 

 

<<<Perhaps the current president, aware that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine had the opposite effect of what was publicly predicted by his predecessors and aware that a monopoly on public expression is inconsistent with a democratic tradition, will direct his administration to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. What about that cold day in hell?>>>

 

 

Why should he? The Fairness Doctrine was a joke when it was around.

 

 

<<<of course, i'm sure the Liberal Media is to blame for this. *smirk* >>>

 

 

No, just snotty liberals with too little knowledge of what the world is and was really like.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Take the amount of money that goes to NPR.

 

divided by the # of people who pay taxes in the US

 

and you'll find that your contribution to NPR is about 2 cents or so.

 

You even know how much money goes to NPR per year? >>>

 

 

Completely irrelevant.

 

Why should ANY of my money go to something that the Constitution does not express as being anything remotely resembling a function of government?

-=Mike