I try hard not to use labels when describing people. Rush Limbaugh is what he is and so is Chris Matthews. But it's hard not to use labels to describe liberals and conservatives when they pound away at each other.
Part of this is the fault of Republicans who have Ann Coulter making outrageous statements about John Edwards' wife. But then along come Democrats demanding equal time to balance what they perceive as conservative bias in talk radio.
Only they don't want equal time based on the merits of their message because few people are interested in such blather. That's why it's called the Fairness Doctrine. Logic is balanced with illogic.
Why didn't the left demand equal time for conservatives when Al Franken was the left wing equivalent of Coulter? I didn't hear conservatives demanding equal time.
Conservatives change stations when they hear something they don't like. Liberals are different; they want the station put out of business.
That's why the left's attempt to force radio stations to give liberals equal time is a joke. If people don't like what radio stations broadcast, they won't listen. If people don't listen, there won't be advertisers. End of problem.
That's not good enough for liberals. Their goal is a forum for views that don't depend on advertisers for financial support. But somebody would have to pay for it.
You got it - it would be tax-supported or free. If it were free, the media would be forced to charge conservative programs twice as much to pay for a liberal response. The result? Fewer advertisers and fewer conservative programs.
It was media that opened the door for Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Coulter. It was liberal bias at ABC, NBC and CBS that gave us Fox News and Bill O'Reilley. Conservatives saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. It's the American way.
Then there's the New York and Los Angeles Times newspapers, whose editorial writers are consistently on the left side of American politics. These folks will love the Fairness Doctrine as long as it means more revenue for them.
Liberal programming doesn't stand a chance in the competitive world of advertising. That's why liberals are upset. They want to silence talk radio. Hence, the Fairness Doctrine, to force radio stations to give equal time to liberals.
The market should prevail in all things, including what goes out over the air. If a majority of people want to listen to liberal shows, the Al Frankens of the world will survive. If people prefer the Limbaughs, O'Reilleys and Hannitys, that's what will dominate the airwaves.
And that's the way it should be. From this corner of Pikes Peak Country, I'm Jere Joiner and this has been my 2 cents worth. Now it's your turn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jere, welcome to the blog club. I blog from Denver at Can't See the Center. I've got a few other conservative Colorado blogs linked on my site. Hope you'll take a look.
The argument by liberals in favor of the so-called Fairness Doctrine is predicated on the fact that, unlike television and print media, the airwaves are publicly owned, at least that's the argument.
From there, the liberals correctly deduce that conservatives own the talk radio circuit and therefore it's only "fair" that they should be afforded their "fair" share of the airwaves, regardless of the fact that they've failed to garner the support of listeners.
Not unlike the entire spectrum of public policy issues, from guns to welfare to taxes to national security, the left suffers from a paucity of cogent ideas and yet argues it deserves a special sanctuary, held in trust by the government.
It recalls the kind government propagated press created by the Soviet Union which provided its people with the choice of one outlet for its information---that way they ensured absolute fidelity to their wishes.
That is the left's ideal message, which presupposes that guns are inherently evil, that people should be judged based on the color of their skin--except when it comes to profiling for terrorists---that the radical Islamists are merely freedom fighters, and, of course, that Global Warming is a greater threat than terrorism.
If those ideas can prevail in our war of the airwaves, so be it. But, to date, they have not been persuasive.
Phil Mella
ClearCommentary.com
Post a Comment