The Toledo Blade has published an editorial with a laughable split personality. First the Blade assures its readers that fears about the possible return of the Fairness Doctrine is just some silly conspiracy theory being perpetrated by conservatives...and then the Blade itself calls for the return of the Fairness Doctrine:
TALK of a liberal conspiracy to "hush Rush" by resurrecting broadcasting's "Fairness Doctrine" is silly, little more than a straw man bashed about regularly by politically conservative pitchmen eager to sustain their lucrative audiences in the waning days of AM radio.
Whew! Thank you for that assurance, Toledo Blade. Since there are now so many Democrats such as Senator Tom Harkin and Congressman Maurice Hinchey calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine, it is good to know the fear of its return is just a form of paranoia. Our minds are at ease. Or at least they will be until we read the very next paragraph of the Blade's editorial:
Still, there's nothing wrong with restoring the notion that a wide range of ideas ought to have a place on the nation's radio airwaves, which are, after all, publicly owned - not the private property of a handful of corporate broadcasters.
Huh? First you assure us of how silly the idea of the Fairness Doctrine coming back is...and then you call for its return. Schizophrenia, they name is Toledo Blade. The editorial continues with its laughable self-contradiction by telling us how wonderful the Fairness Doctrine is on the heels of assuring us that fears of its return are just a paranoid fantasy:
One way to call attention to this principle would be for Congress to hold hearings, calling the AM radio potentates on the carpet to explain to the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet why their medium has become so one-sided in most communities.
Congressional hearings on an issue that the Toledo Blade has just informed us that fears of its return are just plain silly.
We also invite the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the problem in Toledo because this city is a case in point. Right-wing talkers on local stations have the last broadcast word on virtually any topic of public import. Divergent opinions are not only scorned, they're mostly not even heard.
"Right-wing talkers." The perfect tell that lets us know where the Toledo Blade is coming from. As far as worries that "divergent opinions" are not even heard, has the Blade ever heard of a radio network called NPR? Let us now continue to allow the Toledo Blade explain to us why the return of the Fairness Doctrine is so necessary even though we are paranoid to even think it might return:
This imbalance, conservatives claim, is simply because no one wants to hear liberal talk radio. But the truth is that opposing opinions have been pushed out as radio conglomerates obtained a stranglehold on scarce broadcast licenses.
To put a fine point on it, anyone can start a newspaper - no government license required. But AM broadcast licenses are all taken because of frequency interference issues, so no one need even apply.
That paradigm may change with the up and coming advent of Internet radio, streamed to homes and motor vehicles. But in the meantime, the public interest must not be sacrificed to narrow economic special interest.
Yeah, radio stations must be forced to broadcast those "winning" shows like Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, and the currently missing Randi Rhodes. But don't worry about the return of the Fairness Doctrine even though the Blade is telling us the radio "imbalance" must be corrected.
The Fairness Doctrine was established by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949 to make sure that the broadcast airwaves, considered a public trust granted to licensees, carried competing opinions on important issues. The need to mandate fairness was based in part, on the scarcity of radio and television stations. At that time there were fewer than 3,000 radio and 100 TV stations nationwide.
But by the 1980s, there were more than 10,000 radio and 1,400 TV stations, and cable television was opening the possibility of a seemingly unlimited number of TV outlets, all of which suggested to some that the public no longer needed protection from narrow propaganda. More important, Ronald Reagan was in the White House and his FCC chairmen, first Mark Fowler and then Dennis Patrick, opposed the doctrine. When two federal judges - Reagan appointees Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia - ruled that the doctrine was not a statutory obligation, Mr. Patrick repealed it in 1989.
And suddenly many failing AM stations became economically successful but never mind that. The all-knowing Toledo Blade demands a return to the past.
While only one station's license was ever revoked under the Fairness Doctrine, since it was repealed there has been a steady increase in the dominance of conservative talk radio on stations across the country.
And, now, whenever someone bemoans the lack of liberal voices, conservative politicians and talk-show hosts scream that liberals are trying to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage and others of their ilk by making broadcast companies choose either to air liberal shows nobody wants to listen to or broadcast fewer conservative talkers.
But no one we're aware of is demanding that right-wingers be kicked off the radio, or that stations become bland, ideological eunuchs. The issue is adding liberal commentators so there is some balance.
The issue is that most radio stations would prefer not to be forced to add money-losing liberal commentators like Jim Hightower and Mario Cuomo proved themselves to be. Many such stations would prefer to just drop the whole talk show format than add those losers but it the meantime it would also mean they would have to drop their winners such as Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham rather than lose their licenses. So tell us again why we shouldn't worry about the return of the Fairness Doctrine:
It's time for Congress to ask why the AM airwaves continue to be dominated by a narrow viewpoint and what effect that has on issues of public concern. And if broadcasters do not willingly provide listeners the range of opinions they need to figure out where they stand on these issues, perhaps it is time for the FCC to require that they fulfill the public trust.
Oops! Wrong part of the schizoid editorial. Hey! Why not just call it the "Balance Doctrine?" See, that way you won't sound so bizarre in mocking those who fear the return of the Fairness Doctrine when in the next breath you...call for its return. Instead you could demand a "Balance Doctrine" without sounding quite so hypocritical. New name; same results.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Toledo Blade Editorial Writers
February 22, 2009 - 10:04 ET by P.J. GladnickIf you are a Toledo Blade editorial writer...or anybody else, you are welcome to join my Twitter list: @pjcomix
Don't forget Her
February 22, 2009 - 10:08 ET by motherbeltDon't forget Her Speakerness, Maxine Waters, and even Bill Clinton.
Don't you just love how liberals keep bringing up the Fairness Doctrine, calling for its return, and simultaneously claim that it's just a paranoid illusion on the part of conservatives?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Waaaahhhhh
February 22, 2009 - 10:19 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThis sad old song again. 'It's not fair!' whines the left. How about we balance the taxpayer funded NPR/PBS nonsense? Talk about unfair, why do I, as a taxpayer, have to pay a premium for DVD's, books, CD's my taxes already paid for? Shouldn't those items be free (I'll gladly pay shipping and handling) to all taxpayers?
D
P.S. I never watch/listen to either, haven't for years.
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Public airwaves
February 22, 2009 - 10:39 ET by Big WallyYou would think that liberals would realize the Public doesn't want to listen to their propaganda on the radio also! Oh I forgot, they do realize this, thats why they are so for bringing this crap back.
Folks we are in trouble "Mark Levin"
of course Big Wally
February 22, 2009 - 10:51 ET by candanceThat is the whole premise behind liberalism. I'm mad because people are ignoring my ideas so I will force radio stations to promote them. I feel guilty about poverty so I will force you to give half your income away. I don't like the family unit so I will push a progressive agenda on the next generation. And I certainly don't want the masses to have their own trump card over government control, so I will take their guns away.
Then they have the nerve to accuse everyone else of controlling them.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Too right.
February 22, 2009 - 12:08 ET by dervishAnd the logical end of that way of thinking, when you have the power to make it happen, is to put dissenters in "re-education" camps until they see the light and start thinking correctly. All for their own good, of course, which they are too ignorant to appreciate.
The more things change...
"Liberals have many tails, and chase them all." H.L. Mencken
Another
February 22, 2009 - 10:56 ET by alamojbAnother contradiction:
"...in the waning days of AM radio." vs "But AM broadcast licenses are all taken because of frequency interference issues, so no one need even apply. "
Take an Radio that still has dials on it, and slowly scroll through the AM side. If your area is like where I live there are vast swaths of unused places on that dial.
First they demean AM radio,
February 22, 2009 - 11:05 ET by alamojbFirst they demean AM radio, then they decide it is important and must be regulated. Typical liberal twisting and contortion act. I used to give libtards the benefit of the doubt that maybe they just saw things from a different perspective, but increasingly I have come to the conclusion that many liberals lie with ease.
Who ya gonna believe, the Blade or Arbitron?
February 22, 2009 - 11:00 ET by nkviking75This imbalance, conservatives claim, is simply because no one wants to hear liberal talk radio. But the truth is that opposing opinions have been pushed out as radio conglomerates obtained a stranglehold on scarce broadcast licenses.
Yeah, ignore the years of ratings data from Arbitron that show that conservative talk cleans the clock of liberal radio. Ignore the fact that many of the e-e-e-e-vil Clear Channel talk stations have propped up liberal radio by carrying their programs. Or that Clear Channel has sold off a number of stations in smaller markets to concentrate on large markets. (I worked for a small cluster of Clear Channel stations until 2007, when we were sold.) It's a conspiracy, I tell 'ya! </sarcasm off>
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
You'll notice that no one requires fairness in Congress.
February 22, 2009 - 11:31 ET by superconWhere's the balance in Congress?In Congress and on the stimulus bill "divergent opinions" were silenced by Nancy Pelosi's jack booted hoove.I don't recall anyone worrying about "fairness".Isn't it interesting how in the arenas where the left dominates they have a much different standard.
How many right-wing opinions make it to the pages of the Toledo Blade I wonder?We now have a government dominated by the most far-left socialist pinkos this country has ever seen but somehow their message has been silenced.
The very idea that there should be some sort of mandated government standard of "equality" is nothing more than socialism plain and simple.
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
I loved this comment
February 22, 2009 - 11:09 ET by MidAmericaI loved this comment from the editorial. Talk about cluelessness.
What could be more characteristic of a totalitarian state than limiting information to a narrow range of options? Democracy's very survival depends on a public that is well-informed, sometimes whether they wish to be or not.
But of course they don't consider talk radio as anything but a public nuisance..
The argument that liberal shows aren't as interesting or profitable to station owners is essentially a bogus one. Liberal bloviators have the potential to be just as obnoxious, narrow, condescending, and self-aggrandizing as the right-wing windbags.
Yeah MidAmerica,
February 22, 2009 - 11:34 ET by UpNorthNo one can see the hypocrisy of claiming that "limiting info to a narrow range of options" is "characteristic of a totalitarian state", coming from a member of the dead tree media that has been in the dems pocket for decades.
They can't address the fact that people who listen to radio just don't want to, and won't, listen to a bunch of libs screaming at us to worship the 0, and see the Porkulus as the second coming of the New(Raw) Deal.
Fall on theirs
February 22, 2009 - 11:44 ET by bknownstThe fools at the Blade should fall on theirs. What kind of moron thinks liberal talk radio would be profitable? All we get is liberal garbage from every other medium but talk radio. They can't insert subliminal messages to con people of low intelligence to believe them on radio so they want talk radio eliminated! Bye the way, I did not see any opposing commernts in this article. Where is their objectivity and balance?
A "waning" business that's also "lucrative?" In who's world?
February 22, 2009 - 11:42 ET by CobraManWhatever happened to intelligence? I wouldn't describe a lucrative business as "waning." That's just stupid!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
In who's world?
February 22, 2009 - 12:26 ET by ReaverIn the same world where Rush Limbaugh is simultaneously irrelevant and running the Republican party.
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out?
--Will Rogers
Bizzaro World
February 22, 2009 - 12:57 ET by CobraManThat must be this world.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Toledo, huh. That's
February 22, 2009 - 11:52 ET by RR GOPToledo, huh. That's somewhere in Ohio isn't it?
Seems like Libs take over wherever more than 50,000 people live in one place. They must be putting Kool-Aid in the water supplies in cities or something.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Liberals
February 22, 2009 - 12:15 ET by bob randolphI believe it was RUSH who said a liberals mind is "Inexplicable and cannot be fathomed" . I really think their brain is hardwired like this.
Let the Public decide
February 22, 2009 - 12:21 ET by richb313Yes, the radio frequency spectrum is considered the public airways. Here is a novel idea, let the public decide. Oh, wait, they already have decided. AM Radio Station Owners and Managers are not as interested in political ideology as they are in profits. Profits are determined by the number of listeners. The more listeners the more they can charge for ads. It is self regulating. One day, how far in the future I do not know, the public may decide they would rather listen to something else then all the Managers and Owners will scramble to change format or other options. The one and only reason that Talk Radio is on the air is that it is profitable and it is profitable because the public (We the Citizens) like to listen to it. As far as differing opinions most of the talk radio shows that are succesfull relish the calls from people or guests whose opinions differ from there own. Rush is the exception. Most radio personalities could not carry a 3 hour broadcast and keep an audience like he does in a mostly solo effort. It is what works for him but does not work for most of the others who are on the airways. The day that the numbers for Rush's show move to an unprofitable drop the Owners and Managers will drop him as fast as they can and replace him with something they can make money with. As I said at the start the public has already spoken and they have said keep the Talk Format going.
Pot Calling The Kettle Waning???
February 22, 2009 - 12:29 ET by flyingmonkeyThe Toledo Blade has a lot of chutzpa describing any other medium as "waning," (UPDATE - The Kansas City Star has announced a fourth round of layoffs.) and the Blade has suffered two rounds of layoffs themselves.
Radio is a capitalist enterprise that would considerate it folly to refuse any show that makes money. If the loony liberal left could find somebody that Americans wanted to listen to, you would be hard pressed to find a station manager reluctant to give him or her air time.
Again, the left wants to stifle success in the name of so called "fairness."
HOLY FREAKIN TOLEDO!
February 22, 2009 - 12:57 ET by BobAnthonyIsn't Toledo home to news/talk giant WSPD Radio? I guess the people at the "Gay" Blade (since Toledo was birthplace of gay icon and Hollywood Squares greatest center square Paul Lynde) have also not heard of the facist communist outlet Pacifica radio. And don't forget college lefty run radio stations.
I guess they didn't hear about Telecom 96 when broadcasting became barrowcasting with corporate America really increasing how many stations a company could own like Clear Channel, Cox, CBS, etc.
The Blade needs to be dulled AND QUICK!
Want the PLAIN truth and no spin? Listen to The Plains Radio Network online. It's like nothing you've ever heard.
www.plainsradio.com
An interesting note
February 22, 2009 - 13:05 ET by CobraMan"Isn't Toledo home to news/talk giant WSPD Radio?"
Thank you for that info. I did a little research on that station and I noticed this little gem:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Since there is no "fairness
February 22, 2009 - 15:06 ET by motherbeltSince there is no "fairness doctrine" for WSPD to be in violation of, I guess he will ahve to hold his fire for now.
But I loved this final graf from your source:
Finkbeiner’s best tool for combatting WSPD is to use his own bully
pulpit to fire back. And look – it’s working! We didn’t even know who
Carty Finkbeiner was until this incident came to our attention, and now
his victimization is going coast to coast via the virtual pages of RBR.
WSPD has slimed him and he has slimed WSPD. It’s what freedom of speech
is all about.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Carty Finkbeiner
February 22, 2009 - 15:40 ET by NorthCoasterTalk about overblown Libtards!
Toledo has problems and Carty is one of them.
Our Federal Representative, Marcy Kaptur hails from the Toledo Metropolitan area too and she's just as clueless. The Libs in Toledo outweigh the rest of us in her district by shear numbers.
Fairness Doctrine makes sense
February 22, 2009 - 13:50 ET by Kingfish17The Fairness Doctrine makes sense, and here's why it does:
Paper, (the A.M. broadcast spectrum), is a finite resource. Sure, we can grow more trees or recycle, (and split the broadcast bands through technology into numerous radio stations). But lets face it, paper, (and the A.M. broadcast spectrum), is not an infinite resource. Therefore, this scarce limited resource belongs to the people and should be regulated.
You have your right of freedom of speech and expression, but because paper, (or the A.M. broadcast spectrum), is a limited resource belonging to the people, our government is going to have to make sure that this limited resource is made available to all viewpoints, just as our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Too many right wing viewpoints in print? The answer? Book burning and recycling to start imediately.
Sieg Heil
Kingfish
February 22, 2009 - 13:53 ET by Free StinkerOther than the fact that you forgot to add the /Sarcasm Off switch at the end of the comment, I agree 100% ;-)
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
Kingfish, In markets were
February 22, 2009 - 16:34 ET by brerolKingfish, In markets were there is limited air space is there no other form communication tools such as tv, newspaper or the internet for local liberals to communicate their viewpoint? And are these other tools compelled by law to share their space with viewpoints they may otherwise disagree with? I aplaud the the USA Today editorial format where they give equal space for a counter point to their opinion of the day. But no one would even suggest the USA Today be compelled by law to do so. Law of such would clearly be a violation of the 1st amendment. Our goverments purpose of owning the airwaves is for the purpose of preventing one radio station from unfairly blocking other stations.
Public Airwaves Crap
February 22, 2009 - 14:10 ET by slickwillie2001This 'public airwaves' nonsense has been used as a wedge to insert government into radio as well as wireless telephony. Initially it was obvious that some body needed to allocate radio frequencies so two radio stations in the same city wouldn't fight over the same frequency, so government volunteered. Since then they have used their frequency allocation power to overregulate and to score huge obscene amounts of money from business.
How much of your cellphone bill is an indirect form of taxation that travels through the cellphone provider to the government that charged the provider for the frequencies they use? This same 'public airwaves' garbage could be extended to assert control over most anything we do as Americans, including cable TV and satellite radio and internet.
A proper conservative solution to this would be to get the government entirely out of this business and allocate it to an independent industry organization guaranteed to be non-political. Let's not just NOT bring back the Fairness Doctrine, let's take away the power that government has to EVER do it.
More inane drivel from the advocacy/adversary media third-rank..
February 22, 2009 - 14:39 ET by CKA in Red State USAThanks for pointing out the nth example of why the advocacy/adversary media's days are numbered.
just to be fair
February 22, 2009 - 14:49 ET by RousseIt's time for Congress to ask why Hollywood
continues to be dominated by a narrow viewpoint and what effect that has
on issues of public concern. And if movie makers do not willingly
provide movie goers the range of entertainment they want to watch on these issues, perhaps it is time for the FCC to require
that they fulfill the public trust.
Rousse
February 22, 2009 - 15:53 ET by NorthCoasterPlease add:
Print Media, NPR& FM Broadcast Radio, Broadcast TV, Cable TV.
If a fairness doctrine would be planned to truly be fair, all broadcasts in an area must be taken into account. As it is now, AM Radio is not just the last bastion of Conservative talk. Has anyone listened to the whole range of stations available on AM? There are Religious stations located in little towns all over the country with only enough power to reach a few counties away. There are minority run stations serving small populations of interest. There are oldies stations catering to special interests from Jazz, Big Bands 50's Rock, to the classics. AM reaches the great middle of the country that no media outlets from New York or California care about. This drive to silence right wing talk is all about power propaganda and censoring Free Speach.
It's far from all politics!
February 22, 2009 - 16:36 ET by slickwillie2001And let's also be aware that the statement that 'right wing talk dominates talk radio' is just liberal hype. Talk radio has financial help programs, consumer advocate programs, religious programming, car maintenance, gardening, homowner's DIY programs, cooking programs, health and medical awareness, etc, etc. I have never seen stats on how much of talk radio is political vs other, but I would like to know.
Where's the Yodelling?
February 22, 2009 - 17:54 ET by Kingfish17I'm kind of partial to yodelling. Yet I can't find a yodelling station on neither AM or FM or Cable or wherever!
Bring back the fairness/equal time for yodelling doctrine!
Gregorian Chanting
February 22, 2009 - 18:20 ET by P.J. GladnickAnd don't forget about Gregorian Chanting and Mongolian Yak love ballads.
Gregorian Chanting???/
February 22, 2009 - 18:35 ET by misterbillIsn't he up for an academy award this year???
Best singing underwater,I think.
I think an arguement can be
February 22, 2009 - 16:28 ET by Ryan Mc.I think an arguement can be made here. Most theatres have only 8-12 movies at a time. There are only so many movies that get into the theatres. Therefor we need to ensure balance for the American dialogue. For every movie with a transvestite vampire there should be a pro-life movie. For every murder Bush fantasy movie, there should be an FDR caused the 1932 recession to be a depression movie. For every CIA is evil because they murder innocent people movie, there should be a America saves the world movie.
Of course I don't support this idea and am joking if liberals want to go down this road this is what they need to argee with to be consistant. HAHAHA, I know liberals being consistant. Funny.
To the biased Blade: How
February 22, 2009 - 16:19 ET by Ryan Mc.To the biased Blade:
How can you call the return of the fairness doctrine a conspiracy theory and then in the same article argue that it should be brought back in some form. You call for hearings on the topic by congress, and the FCC. You provide no facts to back up any of your assertions. First, please put forward a single fact showing conservatives dominate talk radio. NPR has a station in almost every major city. They are overwelmingly liberal to communist. Second, please explain why networks like air america fail all the time? If this talk is wanted or there is a market why does no one listen? You act as if only these guys had a chance, they'd be sucessful yet time and again even with donations they fail. Could it be that NPR and others fill the void quite nicely? An editorial that simple states opinions without facts and real analysis based on those facts is worthless. Not that I expect much from this paper, but you've managed to disappoint again. Impressive. See you in bankruptcy court.
How can they make arguments out of both sides of mouth?
February 22, 2009 - 18:21 ET by CKA in Red State USAHey, they're part of the advocacy/adversary media.
They aren't governed by the laws of physics or anything else that the rest of us are.
In their intellectual and moral distress, it makes sense for them to say what they have.
Perfect shills for fascist Obama and his thugs and thugettes.
The joke is on them...
February 22, 2009 - 17:11 ET by MotherNobody wants to listen to depressing, uninspiring Libtard Radio NOW nor will anyone want to listen any harder later even if Libtard radio is forced on 50% of all AM stations.
They just don't 'get' it. THEY SUCK caca. Their defeatest blather is disheartening to anyone with a heart, soul and half a brain. Boo freakin' HOO.
Cute...
February 22, 2009 - 18:00 ET by CortillaenWhenever someone questions the massive amounts of money Obama's campaign raised (such as why basic screening of donations was removed, where the money came from, and how many donators gave more than legal amounts), we're told that it was purely the result of Democrats/the left simply being so awesome at making use of an emerging medium (read: the internet), so we should stop trying to make sure the law was followed. On the other hand, the left's argument for returning the Censorship Doctrine is that they failed miserably to make use of an emerging medium years ago, so now they want competition quashed.
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Cortillean
February 23, 2009 - 10:13 ET by NorthCoasterYou are truly leading the Ox.