The Plight of the Left-Wing Talkers

The Weekly Standard ^ | 02/23/2009 | Philip Terzian

[Delacon]

Being a radio flop is no excuse for bringing back the 'Fairness Doctrine.'

Bill Press's professional life, such as it is, has been very complicated in recent years.

A longtime Democratic functionary in California and midlevel official in the Jerry Brown administration, he became a TV editorial commentator in Los Angeles when Ronald Reagan was president. That is the same sort of sinecure, now largely extinct in broadcasting, that catapulted the late Jesse Helms to the U.S. Senate from North Carolina; but Bill Press has been less fortunate. He ran in the Democratic primary for California insurance commissioner (and lost), chaired the California Democratic party (during the Pete Wilson era), and then settled on his current incarnation as an author of political potboilers (Spin This!, How the Republicans Stole Christmas, Bush Must Go) and designated liberal on cable shoutfests (Crossfire, The Spin Room, Buchanan and Press).

Until the other day, he was host of the morning drive-time "Bill Press Show" on OBAMA 1260 AM radio in Washington, D.C. That is, until the owner of OBAMA 1260 decided to end all political programming on his network and replace it with financial advice. Now, once again, Bill Press is looking for work. And he seems to have found it: He is writing a book about talk radio, and has embarked on a crusade to restore the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting.

The reason, as he explained the other day in the Washington Post, is that talk radio is largely dominated by conservatives, while liberals are not only outnumbered, but scarcely heard on the air. This is not because left-wing radio hosts and their programs--Al Franken, for example, or Jim Hightower--have failed to find national audiences, but because (in Press's words) "the only reason there's not more competition on American airwaves is that the handful of companies that own most radio stations do everything they can to block it. In many markets .  .  . they join in providing no outlet for progressive talk."

It is not often that a mere two sentences perfectly capture both the progressive rationale for reviving the late, unlamented Fairness Doctrine and the reason liberals flop on talk radio; but Bill Press, to his credit, has written them.

First, two propositions: Many progressives don't believe in market forces; and most progressives--like most politicians--have decidedly mixed feelings about the First Amendment. From Bill Press's perspective, the fact that left-wing talk radio has been largely unsuccessful is the fault not of left-wing talk radio but of Corporate America--or, as he describes them, "the handful of companies that own most radio stations." Because Bill Press cannot imagine that listeners find him consistently resistible (as they seem to do) it must be the fault of the right-wing capitalists who own the radio stations and conspire to keep liberals like Bill Press off the air.

This is not only delusional, so far as the evidence is concerned, but represents a near-total misunder-standing of the corporate/capitalist mind. The truth, of course, is that if Barbara Boxer or Barney Frank or any other progressive, famous or obscure, had a radio talk show that garnered high ratings and earned millions in advertising revenue, "the handful of companies that own most radio stations" would be climbing over each other to sign them up. The idea that station owners would refrain from making money for ideological reasons is not only laughable, but insulting to the basic instincts of most people in business. Somebody who calls his radio station OBAMA 1260 is not going to collude with other owners to keep the airwaves liberal-free.

Which brings us to the Fairness Doctrine. Since the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2007 there has been increasing discussion of reviving the Fairness Doctrine--actually an FCC regulation, not an act of Congress--which was repealed in 1987. The ostensible reason for the Fairness Doctrine, instituted in 1934, was to ensure "balance" in the coverage of public issues; its practical effect was to banish nearly all discussion of public issues on radio and television for the next half-century. That is the reason why the doctrine was revoked 22 years ago, and why conservative talk radio has flourished ever since.

Now, the fact that conservatives have succeeded, and liberals failed, in this realm has driven Democrats to a notably anti-democratic position on the question. Here, for example, are declarations from two of the most egregiously partisan Democrats in the Senate, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Tom Harkin of Iowa. "I have this old-fashioned attitude," says Durbin, "that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision." And Harkin, in his cruder, more direct fashion, recently told none other than Bill Press: "We gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again."

Of course, the reason Senators Durbin and Harkin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Dianne Feinstein of California yearn to revive the Fairness Doctrine is that it would precipitate the end of conservative talk radio. And they have the power to do this. The FCC is theoretically empowered to demand "balance" (and punish transgressors) because the airwaves are public property, and Congress reserves the right to regulate what it claims.

That is why neither Dick Durbin nor Tom Harkin--nor even Bill Press--has expressed the slightest concern about "balance" or "both sides of the story" in, say, the nation's daily newspapers or news magazines or in Hollywood or the book publishing trade. In the one place where conservatives have gained a foothold, and might even be said to dominate, congressional Democrats are determined to shut them down--and not by way of market forces, or competition, but through enabling legislation. So much for the First Amendment.

[Delacon]

 The truth, of course, is that if Barbara Boxer or Barney Frank or any other progressive, famous or obscure, had a radio talk show that garnered high ratings and earned millions in advertising revenue, "the handful of companies that own most radio stations" would be climbing over each other to sign them up. The idea that station owners would refrain from making money for ideological reasons is not only laughable, but insulting to the basic instincts of most people in business. Somebody who calls his radio station OBAMA 1260 is not going to collude with other owners to keep the airwaves liberal-free.

[Delacon]

 

PETITION TO BLOCK CONGRESSIONAL
ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

To: U.S. Congress, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States

Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances";

Whereas, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal of censoring talk radio by other means, and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs as the arbiters of "fairness" rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas;

Whereas, the U.S. experimented with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for 38 years - from 1949 through 1987 - during which time it was repeatedly used by presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism;

Whereas, the abandonment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech - starting with Rush Limbaugh - that revitalized the AM radio band and provided Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints;

Whereas, talk radio is one of the most crucial components of the free press in America, and is single-handedly responsible for informing tens of millions of Americans about what their government leaders are doing;

Whereas, it is a wholly un-American idea that government should be the watchdog of the press and a policeman of speech, as opposed to the uniquely American ideal of a free people and a free press being the vigilant watchdogs of government;

Whereas, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - either under that name, or using a new name and even more devious methods - represents a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and its re-imposition would constitute nothing more nor less than the crippling of America's robust, unfettered, free press:

 

                                SIGN THE PETITION at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=87882

 

Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.

[cookcounty]

If the “Fairness Doctrine gets reinstated, sattelite radio will take off fast.

-—The reason it’s introuble now is that its talk radio is pathetic and its “religious programming” is run by people who don’t know the business.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The political right should—right now—be putting together hundreds of lawsuits against TV and other media providers, that should be filed in federal courts nationwide, simultaneously, when the fairness doctrine is reanimated.

They have already compiled endless examples of left wing bias, often open bias, and assert that the fairness doctrine must be applied equally to TV, Hollywood, and any other broadcast media corporation, not just radio.

It should demand that conservatives be hired on a 1:1 ratio with liberals, and in support of this, an unofficial “guild” of conservative commentators be created, so they can’t just hire an Olbermann type and call him a conservative.

[cubsfanconswoman]

I still wouldn’t support the Nazi Fairness Doctrine but would think better of it if I thought it would apply to both sides.

And even if it was it is so hard to enforce and prove. The lefties would claim a reporter commenting that “Obama’s hat was on a little oddly” or something innocuous would claim that counts as a different perspective.

[Congressman Billybob]

Actually, the Fairness Doctrine barely survived in the Supreme Court in the Red Lion case, four decades ago. And the factual basis the Court used to uphold it then, that broadcast outlets were "scarce" compared to the print media outlets, has reversed.

As a First Amendment practitioner in the Supreme Court, I expect that a renewed Fairness Doctrine would not survive Court review today, unless Obama gets to appoint an operating majority on the Court of Justices who will ignore the Constitution.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "Offending the Islamofascists"

The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.

[Delacon]

I think that if we start attacking TV and print for not being fair in broadcasting conservative perspectives, we concede the point that there needs to be a government enforced “balance” in our right to free speech. I for one am not willing to concede that point. It may also come to bite us on the ass. The left will agree that there needs to be balance across all venues then proceed to only enforce it in radio.

[Delacon]

“Actually, the Fairness Doctrine barely survived in the Supreme Court in the Red Lion case, four decades ago. And the factual basis the Court used to uphold it then, that broadcast outlets were “scarce” compared to the print media outlets, has reversed.”

I disagree. If you go back and look at the ruling the court UPHELD the constitutionality of the “fairness doctrine”. The court said that the FCC had the RIGHT to enforce the doctrine but wasn’t OBLIGED to enforce it. Pretty weak ruling if you asked me. After the ruling, the conservative leaning FCC CHOSE not to enforce it. The courts could rule the exact same way today and with a left leaning FCC could choose to enforce it.

[CaptainAmiigaf]

Look at it this way, my friends. The problem does NOT reside in TALK radio. The Libs have a serious problem with LISTEN radio. The VAST majority of LISTENERS are tuned into conservative radio.
I don’t think this it an attempt to stifle the TALK over the radio.
Rather, it is an attempt to limit what we can LISTEN to.
Radios have not only an On and Off button, they also come equipped with a “station tuning” control, therein lies the problem for the LEFT. They don’t want US to have a listening option.
Some years ago, a local Classical Music station sold a radio, pretuned and capable of getting ONLY their station.
This may be next. Don’t doubt ANYTHING.

[Tallguy]

It would be interesting to take a look at the companies that advertise on Talk Radio from a market capitalization standpoint. Here's my hypothesis: Very large conglomerates (call them VLC's) by & large do not do such advertising.

VLC's spend their advertising dollars on Sunday News Shows such shows as "Face the Nation", and other such high profile MSM fare like "The Today Show". They also throw gobs of money lobbying Congress & the Administration as well as funding various campaign war chests. Why? Because keeping government on your side is more important than a marginal increase in sales. Political allies will insure that your company is insulated from having to compete.

Now look at the flip-side. You're a small or medium-size company and you are looking to grow rapidly in a competitive marketplace. As such you are not yet on any politician or major CEO's 'radar screen'. Where do you put your advertising dollar? Talk Radio is one place that gets you a lot of 'Bang for the Buck'.

Well that's my hypothesis. Maybe some enterprising MBA-candidate can come up with a way to test it.

[Anima Mundi]

A few more points
1. The “under represented” left appears to have won it all, so where is the proof of any harm or undue influence on public opinion?

2. The fairness doctrine is unfair to the poor who could not get cable radio.

3. The other side is readily available in many free media formats - just DON’T LOOK at your T.V. screen and ta-da! You then have a “RADIO”

4. It has been shown that lies are more readily detected on the telephone than in person. (This is counter intuitive, but was shown in an experiment a long time ago). My theory has always been that the right goes with information and facts and the left uses emotion and charm. That is why the pure medium of radio is so troublesome to the left. They can’t use visual distraction and when heard in pure audio form their ideas just don’t stand up.

[Anima Mundi]

FIRST they will have to get rid of NPR

[Zevonismymuse]

If we implement the Fairness Doctrine we should start with learning institutions, kindergarten through college. That is the place attitudes and beliefs are shaped.

[Seven plus One]

Rather, it is an attempt to limit what we can LISTEN to.

Lots of luck with that.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

neither Dick Durbin nor Tom Harkin--nor even Bill Press--has expressed the slightest concern about "balance" or "both sides of the story" in, say, the nation's daily newspapers or news magazines or in Hollywood or the book publishing trade. In the one place where conservatives have gained a foothold, and might even be said to dominate, congressional Democrats are determined to shut them down--and not by way of market forces, or competition, but through enabling legislation. So much for the First Amendment.

[Yardstick]

I think you’re right. Most of the advertising on talk radio seems to be for either local business or “off brand” national stuff like Carbonite, fad nutrition/diet products, DIY legal services, etc.

[AU72]

2 months ago a Boston AM station moved a sports talk morning show for The Jeff Santos Show" "The voice of progressive radio in Boston".

His main shtick was to have another Big Dig to link North and South Station by rail.

Last Monday he was replaced by ESPN radio.

[popdonnelly]

Of course, it’s not about fairness, it’s about control. Radio is one media the left doesn’t control. Therefore, something must be done.

If Press wants radio exposure, let him work for it like other people have done.

The reason liberal talk radio doesn’t succeed is because there are already too many liberal opinion outlets to name. When liberals control radio news and NPR, what room is left for liberal talk shows? Conservative talk radio exists because there’s a market for it.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Unfortunately, we are in a position of great weakness. The left has control of everything but the SCOTUS. However, to our advantage they are a cowardly and weak lot. This is why I proposed a massive lawfare counterattack.

This hits them triply. First, like turning on a kitchen light, it exposes their backdoor sneakiness to the public, and like cockroaches, they try to skitter away. Second, it throws the debate to the judiciary, where the clearly unconstitutional nature of the fairness doctrine (or whatever euphemism for its new incarnation they choose to use), can get eviscerated. And third, it is a direct attack against perhaps their most important ally, the MSM, who will panic at the prospect of losing their monopoly on political speech.

In short, it will strip the idea of support, tear it up in the courts, and panic the media into standing against it, even though they want to use it against conservatives.

So there is little chance that the idea will gain credibility. The left sees talk radio as worth far less than TV and Hollywood.

[The Great RJ]

What these left wing nut jobs fail to understand is that local stations would air their drivel in a heartbeat if it had an audience. Conservative talk radio is in demand because of its large listening audience and advertisers want to buy ad time when people are listening. The only reason uber liberal PBS radio stays on the air is government subsidy and their begathons that harangue their few listeners into buying subscriptions. If PBS actually had to compete for an audience they would have been out of business decades ago.