20
Jun
Is the Tyranny of Right-Wing Radio Coming to an End?
Conservative fears of an impending Democratic attack on talk radio - dubbed the “Hush Rush” effort in an homage to top-rated radio talker Rush Limbaugh — continue to escalate, despite ample evidence that such an assault is unlikely to occur when (as is likely) Democrats sweep back into power in the forthcoming elections in November.
As noted recently on the “Focus on the Family action” website citizenlink.com, conservative fears of a supposed return to the Federal Communications Commission’s long-defunct Fairness Doctrine remain unabated. In a post entitled “Take Action: Ask Congress to Protect Talk Radio,” Managing Editor Jennifer Mesko recently wrote, “Democrats have threatened to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which would force conservative stations to broadcast liberal viewpoints.”
In response, says Mesko, “Radio broadcasters and some members of Congress are calling on Democrats to celebrate July Fourth — dubbed “Radio Independence Day” — by pledging to protect the airwaves from censorship.”
As previously reported, “Leading hard-right conservatives, led by their talk radio ’shock jock’ shock troops, have been worrying aloud about the supposed return of the long-defunct Fairness Doctrine ever since their stunning success last year in defeating bi-partisan immigration reform.”
Although most informed observers believe the right’s existential angst is unfounded, it is nonetheless real — and has spurred former broadcaster and current congressman Mike Pence, R-Ind., to introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905), which would prohibit the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. “Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control of political views on the commercial and religious airwaves of America, and it must be opposed,” Pence told Family News in Focus, while calling on Congress to support the Broadcaster Freedom Act before July Fourth. Shock jock Laura Ingraham joined Pence, saying, “This is nothing more than an attempt to have government regulate one of the most effective forms of political discussion today.”
Of course, only a year ago more than three hundred members of Congress — including 113 Democrats — supported a moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine!
Meanwhile, other conservatives, such as Jim Boulet Jr., executive director of English First and organizer of the website KeepRushontheAir.com are claiming that the cunning (if Republican-controlled) FCC — employing a little known tactic Boulet terms “legislation by stealth” — may instead “reinstate the Fairness Doctrine via something called ‘localism.’”
In a National Review Online post headlined “FCC Tries to Hush Rush,” Boulet assails the “tyranny of ‘cultural diversity’ while citing “a little-noticed item in the Federal Register” he claims will soon hand the FCC “the power to drive Rush Limbaugh off the air.”
Liberals are obsessed with “balancing” Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin, and the rest of conservative talk radio, says Boulet, “even though plenty of other outlets — the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and National Public Radio — constantly flog the liberal agenda.” And since the “Hush Rush crowd’s dream” to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine … using the democratic process,” has failed, Boulet says, “regulations proposed on January 28 by the Federal Communications Commission would effectively reinstate the Fairness Doctrine via something called ‘localism.’”
This “legislation by stealth” means that “most of the Fairness Doctrine’s opponents might not know about it until it’s too late,” says Boulet. “Which isn’t to say it was impossible to see this coming. The Left has long sought new ways of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and their latest gambit features a sizable dose of political correctness.”
Right-wingers like Boulet charge that a 2007 Center for American Progress/Free Press report called The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio “cleverly recasts the Fairness Doctrine as ‘localism’ by stating that ‘any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism.’”
Boulet apparently believes the FCC “has swallowed the Center’s diversity rationale whole” and that “cultural diversity” requirements will soon be imposed that will have the effect of knocking Rush Limbaugh and his ilk off the air. “This cultural diversity is to be enforced by professional ethnic activists and other perpetual malcontents,” claims Boulet.
As a result, he opines, “Should the FCC prevail, radio stations will return to the sort of programming that predominated during the days of the Fairness Doctrine, only filtered by 2008-style political correctness. Instead of full debate on controversial issues such as amnesty for illegal aliens, AM radio will become a herd of independent minds, a vast “Air America” from sea to shining sea in which never a conservative word is heard.”
Although this putative threat to the First Amendment simply isn’t real, the notion that the days of right-wing dominance of the airwaves may well be numbered is rapidly becoming a reality — not because of any government-imposed regulation, but simply because the political tide appears to be turning at last, and our long national nightmare may in fact be drawing to a close.
Happy “Radio Independence Day,” everyone!
Click here to get a copy of Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio..
Just what is it the right wing finds objectionable about “fairness”– about “both sides of an issue”?
This is a question of framing. Those who want finally to hear both sides of an issue on talk radio fail have to make it clear to members of congress that what we have without the “fairness doctrine” is the ability of wealthy radio station owners to shove right wing points of view down the throats of the listening public.
They know that it is not government regulations which would sink Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, and O’Reilly, but the presence of a variety of points of view.
We need to emphasize “Both sides of the issues.”
June 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pmThe doctrine is correctly called The Fairness Doctrine. Did anyone ever associate conservative politicians including the shock jocks with fairness?
Despite this, I am not enthusiastic about providing the opportunity for every public statement to be “balanced” with an opposing statement. That is the problem with otherwise fine shows like The Lehrer Report. Too often the flat-earthers of our world get equal time to respond to rational commentaries.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pmFree speech is free speech. Not something licenced by the PC crowd.This is not a left right move it is a control move as the PC crowd moves onto making rules as if the Constutition is a part of the spoils system.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pmSecond: Radio is not a fair or democratic medium. Radio favors stimulation and humor.Rush and his band of bad farts take the entertaiment componate of radio and squeeze every drop out making being a bigot fun. Which leads to trith number three.
Radio lives and dies on stats. Americans love blow hard bigots left and right. The Pellagra Belt is real and they all love Rush. So what? Worthless sick men have staggered on and off air. Other junkies and boozers rise and fall and Rush’s time is short as is the shelf life other demented old men of the right.
The left has not been able to gain audience for Frankin, or the raft of entertaining Bay Area hosts? Ok the masses love Rush. I like Clay Jenkinson. Art Bell started as a Rush clone and grew into the monster after dark with very little ax grinding. I would like to fine arts and steam radio like Utah Phillips,John Peal did with Loafer’s Glory and other shows but there is no FM market for creative and collaborative radio.
Censoring the right is as stupid as the right buying the air. Worse because it denies the right to be offensive to someone. Stop wasting time playing with the tide.
It would be nice if the people who listened to Rush Limbaugh would also take the time to listen to someone who supports the other side and vice versa. The point is, we’ve become a nation, or maybe we’ve always been this way, that only listens to people who validate what we feel is right. First amendment rights aside, when anyone tells out and out lies on the open airwaves, then some type of censure in the form of a vaoice of reason at the end of the broadcast should state was is fact and what is fiction. Maybe the hate quotient might begin to decline although I believe that most people who spend their time listening to lies prefer hearing them and aren’t interested in changing their viewpoints.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:26 pmGood point, Allene, although I feel that the point that Cord: ey Coit is missing is that the radio and TV airwaves belong to the people and not to the corporations. That’s supposed to mean the radio and TV stations serve the public interest. That’s the way it should work, theorhetically, but it doesn’t. If it did work that way, there would be no need of a fairness doctrine, no requirement for equal time for dissenting points of view. I don’t mind the mindless Rush (how can he lose what he never had?), the arrogant bully Bill O’Reilly, the smug self-important, big headed ego that is Sean Hannity and all the other bile shovelers of right wing radio. They’re practicing their right to free speech but they’re afraid of others having and enjoying that same right. I don’t think any of them actually fear they’ll be taken off the radio but what I think they truly fear is that moment when they no longer have an exclusive lock of a captive audience. More than that, their true fear is when people start hearing from the other side and realize those on the right are a poisonous bunch, interested not in the public’s welfare but their own.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:25 pmWhat you call tyranny; intelligent people call the free-market. Go sell your crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:18 pmA free market implies open to all but should political thoughts be subject to free market rules? Is it a free market when it works only for one side but not the other? One criteria of tyranny is oppression; another is the suppression of political thought. The free market works great for those on the right, but it doesn’t do so good of a job for those on the left or in the middle. Radio stations with a talk radio format get away with not having to provide equal time to persons with opposing points of view because Rush and his buddies market their shows as entertainment and not as shows devoted solely to politics. Restoring the fairness doctrine to radio (and TV) wouldn’t be necessary if the stations abided by their duty to the public by providing equal time to those opposed to such “entertaining” talk shows. I don’t really like the idea of the fairness doctrine, but I don’t like the idea of only one political side being heard from either. Especially when that one political side espouses a “my way or the highway” point of view.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:32 pmWould love to have right to voice some oppinion on some of these talk shows. If you do not agree with what they are talking about then you can not get on the air. So I hope that some day there will be a day where people can voice their oppinion on the air and be heard. Some kind of fairness needs to be allowed.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:25 amIf the government reinstalls the fairness doctrine,your chances of being heard will be much greater. What the defenders of Rush and Hannity (and all the others) don’t get is that the conservative talk show hosts can keep their radio shows, but it will mean they can’t block dissenters by refusing to take their calls. The same rules will apply to the liberal side if their shows air over the AM dial. Radio shows being brought in via satellite won’t be affected by the fairness doctrine as the satellites are owned and leased by private companies and not over the air. That said, I don’t believe that Rush and Sean and Bill and all the others will open their lines to callers who disagree with them. That will force the radio stations to either provide the air time for the dissenters or bring pressure on the political talk shows to take calls from the dissenters and to stop referring to themselves as entertainers, which they’re not.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:43 pmreference Bill Bishop’s book “The Big Sort” for a good explanation of what is happening here. Increased sorting by preference into like-minded communities, churches, schools, etc. is leading to more polarized viewpoints and to less conversation which might challenge, rather than validate, one’s own thinking. Right or left, while convenient, are only facile illusions to categorize “us-them” divisions. Civil discourse is dying and cannot be legislated in or out. Is the “Truth Project” by Focus on the Family any less (or more) scary than something propagated by a smug self-important clan from the left? Well, yes, it probably is…but, one can hope for rational thought, tolerance and the willingness to learn from those with whom we disagree.
June 25th, 2008 at 7:27 amYou make some great points, Gordon. I’m a liberal but I’m okay with many conservative viewpoints. I don’t reject an idea or person just because we may disagree. More often than not, there is room for common ground. That said, I am very much worried about the polarization that has been going on for quite some time now. The “us vs. them” mentality isn’t good for our country or our citizens. For too long, the focus has been on the extremists of either side, extremists concerned only with their ideas to the exclusion of all others. That mentality is why I speak out against it so often. There is much anger in our country, anger that is encouraged by the extremists. Our solutions to the problems facing our country won’t be solved by those who close their doors to those on the other side. I believe in our country but I worry that our country could eventually become two or more countries, with laws that range from extremely stiff to perhaps fairly relaxed, depending on its citizens. I used to discuss with a late friend the chances of our country breaking up into smaller countries, the driving force behind the break being the bitter polarization that has gripped our nation. My projection was the break would occur by 2010 if the polarization wasn’t stopped or reversed. My late friend agreed with me on the polarization being an issue but disagreed as to the year a break would occur. His estimate was 2025-30. I hope not on either but the polarization is still there, even though the pendulum appears to be swinging the other way. But, it still takes all political sides of our great country to work. There should be no room for partisanship: our senators and congressmen should put our great country ahead of their political parties. In fact, the interests of the political parties should be totally excluded and our elected officials should reach across the political fence and work together. I hope it happens.
June 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pmCenturion,
June 26th, 2008 at 8:29 amYou remind of two of my lifetime best friends, one now gone and the other out of touch for decades. With Peter, we might disagree (even violently) and he could easily beat the snot out of me, neverthess, we remained as brothers to the end. With Jeff, it seemed that we were like two sculptors chipping away at a block of stone between us as we strove to create something we might both see with common eyes. I miss that sort of exchange and still hold out hope for one of the pendulums to swing back that way. The challenge is great with attenuating attention spans, fragmenting states of consciousness and cliff notes that pass for deep thought but, it is worth the effort. Keep speaking out.
Thanks, Gordon. I do believe in people speaking out, even when the view is not a popular one or expressed by a person that is resented (such as an actor) for speaking out. I think it’s the height of hypocrisy when I hear a Rush Limbaugh type berating an actor for speaking out, yet what makes the celebrity actor speaking out different from the celebrity radio talk show host speaking out? Both may have an elevated place in society but each has the right to express their point of views. They do not give up their citizenship because of having achieved fame and fortune. So, much as I detest Rush et al, I would never discourage them from speaking out either. What I would encourage them to do is be willing to take on the opposition verbally on their radio or TV shows. If they are in the right on the subject, they should be able to argue their point without it being necessary to screen their calls or berating any person who opposes them. Screening and berating suggests they may hold the weaker hand and such tactics may reinforce that idea even when they are right. (Puns unintended.)
June 28th, 2008 at 9:47 pmC,
June 30th, 2008 at 7:49 amWhat you would propose, while it is laudable, is more than highly unlikely. In the current media environment, debate such as may have existed in the past is way too “slow”, “boring” and “tedious”, with too much of a tune-out factor for listenable airplay. The system as it exists now is all in the hands of the host creator. Their finger is on the drop button on radio or the alternate image on tv. Alternating monologues (or diatribes) from differing positions does not constitute “fair” or “balanced” discussion…any more than if I have one hand in boiling water and the other in ice water I may be “balanced” between the two. Don’t think it would feel too good. The current vitriol (right or left) will not lead to any resolution or softening of progressively more extreme positions. I certainly don’t mean we should give up trying, it’s just helpful to realize how the field is tilted. Thanks for your thoughts, I feel there may be much upon which we would not agree, but, does that really matter in the long term?
I agree with what you wrote, Gordon. It would be grand if the opposing sides lowered their shields and heard each other out. And then seek to find a path which allows both to have what they want. But, I read too many of the “my way or the highway” comments in the papers I read to know neither of the extreme sides are willing to give in just a little. They want everything their way and anyone who disagrees with that point of view is villified by the extreme right and the extreme left. The ghost of Joe McCarthy must be laughing loudly, wherever his spirit resides. I’d like to think we will one day get it right but that day still seems so very far away.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pmthis may be something of an answer to the title question of this column…..
http://gawker.com/tag/media/?i=5021408&t=new-york-times-magazines-sleepy-limbaugh-cover-story
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:34 amThanks for posting that. The subject of Limbaugh’s wealth is what I often try to point out to the street conservatives that they really have nothing in common with Limbaugh. He’s a wealthy man while many of them are struggling with the rest of us. We know the pain of $4 a gallon gas, high food prices, housing and mortgage problems and the other problems we face on a day to day basis. Limbaugh knows none of that. He’s done well for himself and while he may come up with something that seems sensible (which isn’t often, leap years come more often than an idea worth considering from Limbaugh), his position is more about keeping what’s his while begrudging and condemning the least of us who struggle with day to day life and are in need of assistance.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 amAllene E. Swienckowski Says:
It would be nice if the people who listened to Rush Limbaugh would also take the time to listen to someone who supports the other side and vice versa.
How do you know they don’t Allene? I think sometimes it would be nice if people on the left listened to people like Bill Bennet who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a “shock jock”. Part of the problem is that so many people on both sides think that throwing around terms like “moron” and “bigot” solve the issue once and for all. If you guys on the left are really so interested in “dialogue” stop the name calling.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:58 amProgressives must approach this matter effectively. Although the fairness doctrine formed a safeguard against extremism, the reality is that people follow Limbaugh and his ilk for some very plain and simple reasons.
It is not the reasoned study of the issues that produces “Ditto Heads” Nor is it the predisposition to right wing vitriol among Middle America. Reasoning “ordinary” well meaning citizens in Hitler’s Germany, Yugoslavia, Rwanda and others, became complicit participants in the massacres in each one of those countries.
They were convinced by “straight talking, authoritative voices”. These voices identified and defined the issues in a no no-nonsense manner, in black & white terms, no shades of gray. They defined the danger, the enemy, the strategy and finally the “final solution”.
Liberals tend to see the world in shades of gray. People do not like the uncertainty that this produces. The masses want straight up answers and simple solutions.
This is why Keith Obermann has become so popular, and why people like Donahue produce rejection even among progressives.
You must be either HOT or COLD, lukewarm is spitted out! If we had ten other voices that spoke with clarity and strength, the neo cons would be clamoring for the fairness doctrine. At which time we would of course agree.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pmI am very confused at the approach that is being taken by your organization and the fairness doctrine. 1.) The market has spoken and citizens of this great country enjoy the conservative talk shows. Removing said talk shows, is a suppression of the 1st ammendment. And on the similar scale to suppressing a vote. 2.) Liberal ideology is already dispensed on the air as well. You have the national television broadcasts, National Public Radio as well as the publications from all major cities in the US. It seems what is really being advocated here is an unfairness doctrine, since you want to dictate to the American citizens what they can and cannot listen to. It would be better if you just stated your real purpose and that is to eliminate any opposition to Liberalism. You would not get any more support, but at least you would get points for honesty.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:29 pm