July 22, 2007
To Build A
Better Mousetrap.
Vol. 2 Issue11
Is
all fair in love, war and talk radio?
"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." Unless it interferes with
the free speech of conservative talk show
hosts. If it were up to some in Congress,
that statement would be added to the first
amendment.
It is known as the "Fairness Doctrine" which
died twenty-years ago. Some Liberal
legislators now want it exhumed. It was
eliminated then because it did not work and
was found unnecessary because of the
tremendous increase in outlets for
expressing opinion. Then came the Internet,
which expanded that opportunity for
expression even further in the name of
blogs.
Let us be honest with each other, there is
nothing wrong with fairness. Who could be
against being fair? We expect it in the
officials that officiate our professional
sports teams, the teachers that grade our
children in school or anyone else that we
charge with overseeing the rules and
regulations that guide our daily lives and
activities.
However, what may seem fair to one person
may not seem fair to another. I am talking
about another kind of fairness. The
dominance of talk-radio that some believe is
one-sided. Is it that Conservative talk
radio is acting in an anti-trust like manner
by dominating the air waves or is it just
being fair, balanced and competitive? There
is no doubt in my mind that the reason is
the latter. When you examine the history of
talk radio over the past years you will
simply find that Conservative talk radio has
survived because they have become the voice
of the American people. They give the people
a fair and balanced voice. People, who
ordinarily would not be heard, can now pick
up their telephones and have their voices
and ideas heard from coast to coast. Sounds
like "Government of the people by the
people." They do it as entertainment and
with humor.
Liberal Talk radio hosts present their shows
with vile verbal attacks against the
administration or anyone who takes their
side. It is not entertainment. Rather, it is
a violent declamation of rancor without
substance or facts.
There are two parts to the Fairness
Doctrine. The first and paramount rule
requires each broadcast licensee to
broadcast coverage of controversial issues
of public importance. This ensures that
every broadcaster meets its duty to inform
Americans about public issues. The second
rule of the Fairness Doctrine states that
there must be balance in covering these
issues.
Two consequences of the doctrine, the
"Personal Attack" rule and the "Political
Editorial" rule, remained in practice until
2000. The "Personal Attack" rule was
pertinent whenever a group or person was
subject to a character assassination during
a broadcast. Media stations had to inform
such persons or groups within one-week of
the attack. They were also required to send
them a transcript of what transpired and
offer them the opportunity to respond on the
air. The "Political Editorial" rule applied
when a station would broadcast an editorial
endorsing or opposing candidates for public
office. The candidate not endorsed must be
notified and given an opportunity to
respond.
The Supreme Court has said in upholding the
constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine
in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969,
"A license permits broadcasting, but the
licensee has no constitutional right to be
the one who holds the license or to
monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion
of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in
the First Amendment, which prevents the
Government from requiring a licensee to
share his frequency with others.... It is
the right of the viewers and listeners, not
the right of the broadcasters, which is
paramount." The Court also said, "If the
doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then
its constitutionality should be
reconsidered." Without ruling the doctrine
unconstitutional, the Court also concluded
in a subsequent case (Miami Herald
Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241)
that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the
vigor and limits the variety of public
debate".
In an article by Val E. Limburg, he stated,
"The fairness doctrine remains just beneath
the surface of concerns over broadcasting
and cable casting, and some members of
congress continue to threaten to pass it
into legislation. Currently, however, there
is no required balance of controversial
issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine.
The public relies instead on the judgment of
broadcast journalists and its own reasoning
ability to sort out one-sided or distorted
coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience
over the past several years since the demise
of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can
and do provide substantial coverage of
controversial issues of public importance in
their communities, including contrasting
viewpoints, through news, public affairs,
public service, interactive and special
programming."
Liberal talk radio has the same opportunity
as Conservative talk radio. However, radio
stations are businesses and when there are
no listeners, there are low ratings, which
equates to no sponsors. No sponsors, no
income, no income, no Liberal talk radio.
Why would you want to stay in business if
you keep losing money day after day? Al
Franken, host on Air America is the perfect
example. Whose fault is that? Rush Limbaugh?
Some Liberals in Congress are trying to get
you to believe it.
If you do not believe me, my suggestion is
to conduct the following experiment. Every
time I try to call in to a conservative talk
show such as, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,
Dennis Prager, Jerry Doyle, Mike Gallagher
and others, I just keep getting a busy
signal. If I do get through, I can be on
hold for one-half-hour before I get to
express my opinion or speak my mind. When I
call a Liberal show such as Randi Rose, Alan Colmes, Al Franken, etc., I get right
through. This leads me to believe that no
one is listening or no one cares. Maybe that
is one of the reasons that Air America has
filed for bankruptcy protection.
In addition, the call screeners working in
conservative radio will allow callers with
diverse opinions to express their views.
This is not what I have found with Liberal
talk radio shows. I have had call screeners
tell me the host was not interested in an
argumentative point of view at this time. So
who is being fair and balanced?
Why does Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator's
John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy and
others want to silence Americans? Sounds
like fear to me. Fear of allowing the silent
majority to be heard? They have blamed
conservative talk radio for the defeat of
the "Immigration Bill." It was not talk
radio that caused it. Their listeners had
and have the opportunity to express their
views on a variety of subjects-- the
"Immigration Bill" was just one of them. Of
course, you could always write a letter to
the editor of any newspaper. However, do you
really believe the Liberal Left print media
would publish them? Don't bet on that one.
Therefore, when Conservative Talk Radio
plays by the rules, with or without the
"Fairness Doctrine" and builds a better
mousetrap whose fault is that. Liberal talk
radio has been around a lot longer than
Conservative Talk radio, which is really a
new phenomenon.
Remember, it is the second mouse that gets
the cheese.
And, that is my opinion.
Michael Solomon
If you want to
help restore sanity to America, join the
Flag Day campaign.
|
