« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Fairness Doctrine: a blessing in disguise?

The Law of Unintended Consequences may again triumph

By: Bill S (Diary)  |  October 20th, 2008 at 10:06 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Tonight, Drudge links to a story on the NY Post web site about the prospects that the Reid/Pelosi/Macho Bambi triumvirate will re-institute the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” I personally believe that will be one of the first acts of the Democrat Regime. But is this all bad?

The Post article mentions “a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial.” That could happen. Several things are possible here:

  • Guys/gals like Limbaugh, Ingraham, Beck, Hannity, etc. may be driven off the FCC-controlled airwaves. Is that bad? In the short term, maybe. But look at the way information is being delivered now – streaming audio over the Internet is no longer a rarity. Podcasts are used widely. And the most interesting aspect would be the impact on Sirius/XM…the “Stern Effect” could well become “The Limbaugh Effect”, if Rush were to decide to re-host his talk show on satellite radio. What a business and investment opportunity that could be! If the “Fairness Doctrine” is re-instituted, I will go and purchase mass amounts of Sirius/XM stock the next day. It could well be a huge victory for capitalism!

  • What about the newspapers? Will fishwraps like the NY Times, LA Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, etc. be forced to carry more conservative commentary? Will they be forced to hire more conservative editors and copy writers to their staffs to offset the liberal bias? Will they no longer be able to endorse political candidates? It’s hard to tell what kind of impact this might have. The cynic would opine that the liberal rags will have some sort of Obamunist-imposed immunity because of their leanings.

  • What kind of weird partnerships will be forged between various factions with vested interest in these things? Would liberal and conservative groups band together to fight this because of the impacts on their respective existences? Again, the knee-jerk reaction is to say “Bill, you’re nuts – the left LOVES this!” But, I wonder – the Law of Unintended Consequences could come into play here.

  • And what of the Interweb? What impact could this have on blogs, web sites, and other net-based resources? That one is much tougher to gage. By its nature, the Interweb is “fair” – there’s nothing out there to stop any fringe group from having its say – it’s one big world-wide soapbox with equal access. Now there could be some ramifications in “client access”, such as internet access in public institutions like libraries, etc.

I think there’s one thing that is certain – whatever happens, the results will not be what either side anticipates.

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • 1SGinTN

    You pose some interesting scenarios, there, bs. Good to see someone is war-gaming the unthinkable. It would be one heck of a fight for the Dems to get the Fairness Doctrine re-instated, we would draw plenty of blood out of them in the process.

  • zsmvf6

    nt

  • rjd27

    Who fills the airwaves if Limbaugh and other Conservative radio hosts are pushed to satellite radio?

    If a Democrat-controlled FCC is backing this, where will the accountability come from to direct the NY Times, et al., to balance its coverage? It is my understanding of the Doctrine that it doesn’t work exactly this way. It’s not about the NY Times providing a one-to-one ratio, it’s about the industry providing that balance. There are already Conservative publications available to those who want to read them.

    There is also the question of who gets to define what is “right of center” or Conservative? The NY Times and others could hire a number of moderate Republicans and call it balance (kind of already happens).

    What this Doctrine will do, is force radio stations to provide a counter to hosts like Limbaugh. But, as Air America already proved, there isn’t a market for Liberal radio. If radio stations are forced to hire Liberal radio hosts to balance the Conservative ones, and the ratings tank for the Liberals, then the stations will have to cut the Conservative programs to comply with the law. It is my belief this is the intent and ultimate goal of Democrat leaders.

  • PSDA

    But I HOPE the Democrats try it.

    I honestly don’t think there’s any appetite on the part of anyone but very liberal Democrats for this kind of blatant attempt to clamp down on free speech.

    I can envision radio stations committing civil disobedience which would then give us images on the news of law enforcement officials phsysically entering studios, pulling the plug, and marching people into court. It would be an absolute public-relations disaster for the Dems, and like I honeslty believe that Independents and even a lot of moderate Democrats would be disgusted by the sight of it.

  • bs

    You have captured the spirit of my diary. Good job! :-)

  • David_Hinz

    WE HAD a fairness doctrine once before. It ENTIRELY deals with network television and radio.

    It will not impact NETWORK TV one bit because they believe that they are fair and balanced right now.

    THEY believe it, and that is all that matters.

    The only medium that will be impacted is radio. Talk radio will DIE because radio stations and networks are entirely about ratings — if people don’t listen they don’t make money.

    People are not interested in listening to liberals on the radio.

    You are right, satellite radio and the internet (until they decide to regulate that)
    will be the future for the conservative voice.

    And they WILL pass it with a Democrat Congress and an Obama Presidency. The legislation is already drawn, but President Bush told them he would veto it, and so it has not come up for debate.

  • Menlo

    I wasn’t around when this thing was in place last, but I don’t think talk radio was anything like it is now.

    While I know Democrats would like to do this, I’m wondering exactly how it will be implemented and enforced.

    Will someone be sitting in a little room with a radio and keep big Venn Diagrams of which sides are represented? Most big issues today don’t have just two or three opposing sides; how many different views will have to be represented?

    I’d be curious to see who they pick for their “fairness monitors” and how they would be trained. It would seem to me any person they get is inevitably going to have a different set of standards for “fairness.”

    But even then, what if no one wants to express a countering view? All the conservative hosts I listen to welcome liberals to call in. Yet they very often choose not to. Does that exempt the host from the requirement?

    If legislation exists, I’d like to read it because I just don’t see any way to make such a thing work in practice short of listing the names of hosts the members of Congress want off the radio waves.

  • 29Victor

    You write as if the “fairness doctrine” isn’t a direct and intentional assault on conservative speech.

    Would NPR be driven off of the air? The people who push the “fairness doctrine” think that NPR is neutral. Is “Air America” liberal? I don’t know, ask Pelosi.

    Would T.V. stations that run sitcoms, documentaries, dramas and news programs with liberal agendas be forced to provide “balanced programming?” Did “Will & Grace” push a liberal agenda? Is Catie Couric a left-wing hack? The Dem’s don’t think so.

    And who says that Congress wouldn’t attempt to regulate blogs? Canada is already persecuting bloggers for “hate speech.” Do you realize how many “hate speech” “code words” a liberal fascist could find in one day at redstate? How about AoS or HotAir? Heck, the name “Allahpundit” probably violates a couple of laws already.

    But would Congress go after the liberal blogs? The liberal blogs that channel millions and millions of dollars into the Democrat party?

    If you think that Liberals stand up and fight when Conservatives rights are trampled on you have another thing coming. Have you seen the ACLU defend the pro-life movement when they’re told that they can’t stand on a public sidewalk? What about the rights of Catholic charities to not provide birth-control to their employees? Obama has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act that would make it illegal for hospitals and clinics to refuse to perform abortions. Have you seen the Left rushing to the defense of the pro-lifers whose careers would be ended by this bill or the hospitals that would be forced to shut down?

    The Left doesn’t believe that the things that Rush, Hannity, Moe, Coulter and you and I say are covered by the First Amendment. In their book we are just spewing hate speech. And, according to them, “hate speech isn’t free speech.”

    And the Democratic Congress would never dream of regulating newspapers because newspapers don’t transmit over licensed, publicly-owned airwaves and the Dems have no interest in censoring their buddies in the print press.

    Do you remember life before Rush? When the MSM got to write the political script that the entire country read every night? That was life with the “fairness doctrine” firmly in place.

    The “fairness doctrine” wouldn’t be the beginning of something beautiful. It would just be the beginning.

    Limiting free speech in America is never good for anyone…ever.

  • Tim_Schieferecke

    No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napolean that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

    These Orwillian PIGS have no right to tell a radio station what content they can and can’t carry. Decency is not an issue here, content of speech is. They will pay dearly if they try to institute their Newsspeak version 2008 on us. Rush, Sean, Glenn et. al., including ANY liberal radio programming MUST be protected to perform their shows any way they see fit. We have tyranny if such restrictions are reinstituted. We’ve thrown off tyranny before, and they are playing with fire.

  • Martin_A_Knight

    Republicans/Conservatives need to be ready to mount sit-ins in front of radio stations and Conservative radio hosts need to be prepared to make a stand.

    Republicans should also be ready to file complaints by the thousands every single day against the Big Three and NPR.

    If the Fairness Doctrine is going to be imposed, then the networks must provide solid proof that the Republican/Democrat/Independent split in their staff exactly matches that of the US population at the least.

    There are lots of other things that can be done to make this blowback on a Democratic Congress, Obama Administration and their MSM buddies.

    But the whole of the party needs to be onboard. Luckily, if this turns out to be a blowout in the Dems’ favor, it would be the “moderates” and “Bipartisans” that would bear the brunt of it so they’ll not be in Congress to give bipartisan cover to their friends.

  • Achance

    Have it in my boat, my cars, and my house. Still listen to Rush on broadcast AM but other than that, the radio is always on Sirius.

    I would kinda miss local news, but something would come along, probably on the internet. Even today, I only actually listen to local news when I’m on the boat and don’t have internet. When I’m home, I just go to the local station’s website and read the news. Broadcast radio, especially AM, was dying before talk radio, a “fairness doctrine” will just finish it off. There’s no reason to listen to it for music or sporting events, that’s all on cable, satellite TV, or satellite radio.

    Likewise, the local paper. I only read it out of force of habit, and I’m getting tired of going out to the street in the morning to get it. One might lament the loss of the local perspective, but since they’re all chains these days, they’re not very local anyway.