With the exception of once having been subjected to it in a smelly city cab commandeered by a manic lane changing Muslim driver in downtown Minneapolis, I’ve never listened to Air America. And although I was at the time maybe one wine glass shy of slurring the destination of my humble abode to the driver, I was sober enough to know that despite the hilarity of the host’s painstaking and fruitless effort to insert even the slightest bit of fact into what amounted to one hell of a liberal spin cycle (not to mention the hilarity of his futile attempt at trying to do so over the ubiquitous static of the AM dial), this was a station doomed to fail. And fail it did; declaring bankruptcy a mere two and a half years later. And with the liberal hope of a competing voice, to the cascading success of conservative voices on the public airwaves, more or less lost it comes as no surprise that liberals (from Hillary to Barbara Boxer to John Kerry and a one RINO Senator Trent Lott) would be stirring up debate and discussion to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
With respect to Air America, it quickly became apparent that there was not a viable market for the product. While conversely, the market is proving that conservative talk radio is widely popular, as clearly evident with the success of stations such as the Twin Cities’ based KTLK 100.3 FM. But, as it is said, the best offense is a good defense and given that liberal radio is struggling to remain on offense, the party’s leaders have opted for a new tactic to limit the score of political points coming from the mouths of the conservative right. And, if liberals are successful, we would see the re-implementation of a 1949 Federal Communications Commission regulation requiring broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” In short, what was at once a conservative radio station in pursuit of courting a conservative audience, would soon become an audio amalgamation of ideology from every corner of any political spectrum. Think Victoria’s Secret meets Joe Boxer all in one locale. Sort of defeats the purpose of an intimate apparel store doesn’t it? Of course it does which is why it was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because contrary to its intended purpose, it failed to encourage the very sort of discussion it sought to bring forth. Moreover, there were concerns from many that it violated First Amendment free speech principles. Shocking no? And dare I say once again that here I thought it was the president and his cronies who were the leaders of trampling upon our civil liberties and personal freedoms.
The constitutionality claim of the fairness doctrine was tested and even upheld by the United States Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion v. FCC. Though the court then ruled that the doctrine did not violate a broadcaster’s First Amendment right, the court did caution that if the doctrine were to begin restricting speech, the constitutionality claim should be reconsidered. Then, a mere five years later, having not ruled the Fairness Doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in a separate case that the doctrine “inescapably damp[end] the vigor and limit[ed] the variety of debate” (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo). In 1984, just three years prior to the FCC overturning the doctrine, the Court further concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was in fact limiting the breadth of debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters). It was this final action that led to the FCC’s decision to overturn the doctrine despite a failed attempt by Congress shortly thereafter to reinstate the rule statutorily. The legislation was vetoed by then President Ronald Reagan. And, to this day, despite the suggestion by a number of liberal leaders to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, a bill sponsored in the United States House of Representatives by Indiana Republican Mike Pence forbidding the FCC from reinstating the doctrine passed with a wide margin of 309-115.
Yet, because liberals know full well they cannot successfully win the majority of their arguments, their directive has come by way of re-instating a Fairness Doctrine that would in effect stifle the voice of liberal opposition, in turn making free speech anything but free and fair. Such was the very reason the FCC repealed the rule in 1987. But hey perhaps the liberals in Washington are one something considering it’s worked out pretty well for the great modern socialist of our times Hugo Chavez. Remember this my friends, the first order of business for any successful socialist, communist, Nazi, et al. is to shut down the opposition. Furthermore, let us not forget that they’re deemed the “Public Airwaves”. They ought to remain free from government regulation. And with respect to Fairness, there exists fairness in opportunity to bring forth a message. Unfortunately, for the likes of Air America it was lost in translation.
But seriously in all fairness (no pun intended) there certainly is no shortage of liberals from every corner pursuing their agenda of bringing biased “news” into your living room and across the pages of your Sunday paper. As conservatives, we are but a small voice; a loud one yet significantly outnumbered to the extent we are but a minority on the airwaves and in the press. And, here despite that we’re grossly outnumbered (yet hardly outmatched) the ones calling for fairness would be the liberal majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment