Who’s afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine? (another moonbat against free speech)

Boston Globe-Democrat ^ | 11/09/09 | Steve Almond

[raccoonradio]

OF ALL the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our biracial president hates white people, that global warming is a hoax, that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals socialism - the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech.

Nonsense.

The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check.

If you don’t believe me, consult the historical evidence. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Because the airwaves were both public and limited, the FCC wanted to ensure that licensees devoted “a reasonable amount of broadcast time to the discussion of controversial issues,’’ and that they did so “fairly, in order to afford reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints.’’ That’s the whole shebang.

Pretty terrifying stuff, huh?

Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio’s business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues.

Would talk radio’s bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there’s nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.

[raccoonradio]

Reproduction of some of the comments are below.

[raccoonradio]

some of the comments

Enraged: >>Fox broadcasted its NFL pre-game show from Afghansistan today. For the unhinged and delusional liberal extremists who tell big lies about Fox and who may have missed the broadcast, it was a two-hour infomercial for Obama’s new counter-insurgency/local development strategy.
In the spirit of Fairness, I just thought everyone might like to know.

DL13: >>Will the Fairness Doctrine also apply to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC AND PBS, or is it just another Left Wing tool to suppress the Freedom of Speech of the opposition?

willyAndBuster: >>Mr. Almond dislikes conservative talk radio. That is certainly clear.

Mr. Almond wants the government to use the Fairness Doctrine to balance or silence conservative talk radio.

But Mr. Almond says that the Fairness Doctrine does not supress Free Speech.

That must mean that Mr. Almond doesn’t feel that conservative talk radio is really Free Speech.

But if its not, what is it? How is conservative talk radio not Free Speech? What puts it in some other class of speech that can and should be censored or balanced by the Government, according to Mr. Almond’s argument? What other class is that?

I don’t understand. Someone please explain.

zackly right: >>Mr. Almond quit his position as a professor at Boston College because Boston College invited Bush’s African-American Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, to speak at Boston College.

Doesn’t this tell us everything we need to know about Mr. Almond?

[raccoonradio]

RJG33: >>It’s not the fault of Rush, et al, that liberal talk radio has failed to garner ratings. A poor message comibned w/ dull messengers is the reason. If lib talk radio were a ratings bonanza, it would compete.
Mr. Almond and his ilk would punish conservative talk radio for it’s success in the marketplace of ideas. The question to ask is: why do Mr. Almond and his ilk fear free speech, the exchange of ideas?

Moe2: >>It is all about ratings baby, free enterprise ever hear of that? If liberal talk radio worked Al Fraken would not be in the senate. Mr. Almond must be sad today, the anniversary of the Wall coming down and the fall of communism.

Douglas4517:
>>Mr. Almond, why not set an example? You could have an opposing viewpoint written by a conservative writer follow your own column each time. That is, your column would be fair and balanced then. Nothing stopping you from doing this now, you certainly don’t need a law to force you.

And, if it is such a good idea for the airwaves, why not for schools and colleges? How about each class have two teachers? One from the left and one from the right.

You’d be all for that too, wouldn’t you?

---

by the way, the writer of this article must be unaware that Boston does have an Air America/libtalk station plus TWO NPR stations plus talk hosts on various mostly-right stations that are more moderate or liberal. One of these is a 50,000 watt station that gladly puts on the Dem governor of the state once a month (to hit softball questions). _All he has to do is change the channel_

[dead]

Because talk radio’s business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints.

He read that somewhere. He wrote it down and then he read it.

What effing nonsense. Only one entity can "silence all opposing viewpoints" and that entity is a fascist government, like the one this typist is calling for.

Rupert Murdoch or Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck have absolutely no ability, desire or "business model" that can silence the opposition. Only the armed agents of the fascist state can possess those things.

And this serf begs to lick the boot because he thinks it will be his chosen flavor.

[wac3rd]

Like most Statists, he ignores that outside of Fox and talk radio, every outlet, including government-sponsored ones, are far-Left.

Global warming is a hoax
Obama is a fraud
Islamic terror is real
Illegal immigrants are a problem
Healthcare is a government take-over of our lives

These are true, but the Communist craves to be under the state’s power.

[raccoonradio]

just posted my own comment:

>>Just remember, liberal talk hosts never lie, or do ad hominem attacks, and are always full of grace and decorum (Randy Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Ed Schultz)...Yes, that’s sarcasm.

Apparently he’s unaware that liberal views ARE heard all over the radio dial in Boston. There is WWZN 1510 which recently expanded its progressive talk. Some hosts on the powerful WBZ and WTKK lean to the left (the latter, whose studios are right next to the Globe, gladly welcomes the governor in for a monthly chat...the atty general, too).

Yes, the likes of HC (Howie Carr) on WRKO (the guy who writes for that other paper—Eye’ll think of the name!) get very high ratings. Because they offer an alternative. And they will allow callers with opposing views on. So you do get to hear everything. What’s the stifling of dissent? Of course be prepared to debate.

I remember once tuning in to conservative Laura Ingraham and she had someone from Lawyers Against the War on. Laura asked him nicely if it was a good thing that Saddam was out of power. He refused to answer, kept refusing, then hung up. Laura’s producer called him back to try to get him back on, and he swore at the producer. Great opportunity to express an opposing view...if you’re up to it.

[raccoonradio]

another good tidbit from the comments section:

---

bflat879 wrote:
It’s easy to see, when someone is misinformed, how they could write something like this. In this case, I’d say Mr. Almond is either blind or uninformed. If anyone can see what this White House is trying to do to Fox News and believe the FCC, which they fill with appointees, would not use it’s power to do more, is just plain ignorant.

Putting the power in the hands of the FCC and Rahm Emanuel would be like taking the Constitution and flushing it down the toilet.

There is only one problem with Talk Radio and Fox News, they haven’t fallen in line with the rest of the media. Obama is incapable of handling criticism and tough questions, both of which are provided by one news outlet and talk radio. I will never trust this administration until I see Barack Obama willing to do an hour with Greta, Brit, Bret, or Major; just to choose a few I’d love to see asking him questions. If I were Fox it would be no teleprompter and no advanced list of questions, just topics. Let’s see how he can handle that. My guess is that, one hour later, you’d see why he wants a fairness doctrine.

Last thing, for Mr. Almond, liberal Democrats will not be in charge of the government forever. Do you really want this power in the hands of Sarah Palin and her appointees, after 2012? If this answer is yes, then perhaps I’m wrong.

[Tzimisce]

If it was going to effect newspapers, this column would be saying something very different.

[a fool in paradise]

OF ALL the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our biracial president hates white people,

He was raised by muslims but we are told that this doesn't make him muslim.

that that global warming is a hoax,

It is a MYTH that man is MAKING the Earth warmer. Are we also making Mars warmer? And what of the claims 40 years ago that we were heading into a man-made ice age? Did we turn that around too much? Now they claim "global climate change" so they are covered coming or going.

that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals socialism

It is. Even Barry O' admits it. His response is to point out that Medicare/Medicade are socialist. They are. And they aren't fully funded. Those who have private insurance pay some money to the doctor to recover the costs that the gubmint refused to pay for the Medi-patients. And those who self-pay are gouged the most (because private insurance companies negotiate lower rates while the consumer is hit with full fare costs).

- the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech.

Four for four. Stupid socialist.

[a fool in paradise]

Will the Fairness Doctrine also apply to SNL, Comedy Central, CSI, MTV, The History Channel, PBS, Discovery, Oxygen, Nickelodeon, et al?

[raccoonradio]

>>It is a MYTH that man is MAKING the Earth warmer

Exactly. Anyone who’s even flown in a plane over vast bits of unoccupied land, or seen a picture of the entire Earth, knows that we are fleas—micro-organisms, really—in the grand scheme of things. How can such tiny humans really affect global temperatures? Global warming/climate change alarmists should realize that the various temperature swings that happen year to year over the centuries has another name: it’s called THE WEATHER. And it’s not our doing.

[a fool in paradise]

It is about CONTROL and redistribution of wealth from the productive West to Third World dictatorships with money skimmed off the top by Al Gore and his minions for carbon “credits”.

[1951Boomer]

“Are we also making Mars warmer?”

I know you meant this as sarcasm, but I recently read a high school student’s essay that said exactly that. He spouted some current scientific drivel that blamed our mishandling of planet earth for bad things going on with other planets! Wow, didn’t know we had such incredible power to affect the universe!

[a fool in paradise]

I’ll point out that it was President Barack who BOMBED THE MOON. If anyone is going to change the status of another celestial body, it’s him.

[Desron13]

So what exactly is keeping ranting libtard moonbats like Mr. Almond off the air? Oh yeah, no one in their right mind wants to listen to their mindless, insipid little brain drivelings for more than five minutes max! Ergo getting sponsers to advertise on their "shows" rapidly becomes impossible and thus cancellation ensues.

Of course getting the liberal mind to grasp this Capitalist concept is like getting a dog to grasp the meaning of a cieling fan. They know that something is there, but for the life of them they just can't understand what it could be.