Comments on: The Barker and the Shill: The Fraud of the Fairness Doctrine http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/01/29/the-barker-and-the-shill-the-fraud-of-the-fairness-doctrine/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Robert H. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/01/29/the-barker-and-the-shill-the-fraud-of-the-fairness-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-36671 Robert H. Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:28:00 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/the-barker-and-the-shill-the-fraud-of-the-fairness-doctrine/#comment-36671 Selwyn Duke's - hope I pronounced the name correctly - piece is so prophetic. Not so much because of its keen insight and clarity but because it is the sort of missing 'truth' tonic that has been absent in America - the land of "free speech" - far too long ['free speech’- in a pigs arse most reasonable Americans will say]. Emboldened Leftist in media really began to come out of the closet, en masse, amid the 1960's. The obnoxious shrill shill-ing from the Left was made all the more pungent because of the mysterious power this syndicate had gained, behind the scenes, with which to rapidly stifle, snuff-out or silence “any” form of public forum counter-point debate. For thirty years, millions of (thinking) American citizens truly began questioning their own reasoning – I did -. Was I being unreasonably one-sided in my conservative beliefs? Was it possible that “I” could be among an estranged and diminishing minority? holding to flawed thinking and myopic reasoning??? Then, in the early 1990’s a miracle appeared – “Al Gore” Selwyn Duke’s – hope I pronounced the name correctly – piece is so prophetic.
Not so much because of its keen insight and clarity but because it is the sort of
missing ‘truth’ tonic that has been absent in America – the land of “free speech” -
far too long ['free speech’- in a pigs arse most reasonable Americans will say].

Emboldened Leftist in media really began to come out of the closet, en masse,
amid the 1960′s. The obnoxious shrill shill-ing from the Left was made
all the more pungent because of the mysterious power this syndicate had
gained, behind the scenes, with which to rapidly stifle, snuff-out or silence
“any” form of public forum counter-point debate.

For thirty years, millions of (thinking) American citizens truly began questioning
their own reasoning – I did -. Was I being unreasonably one-sided in my conservative
beliefs? Was it possible that “I” could be among an estranged and diminishing minority?
holding to flawed thinking and myopic reasoning???

Then, in the early 1990’s a miracle appeared – “Al Gore”

]]> By: nevadamistermom http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/01/29/the-barker-and-the-shill-the-fraud-of-the-fairness-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-36663 nevadamistermom Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:24:04 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/the-barker-and-the-shill-the-fraud-of-the-fairness-doctrine/#comment-36663 It is truly frightening. The "Fairness Doctrine" did little to promote actual balance in the media. It just meant that everyone disguised their bias as "centrist" and nobody wanted to touch the truly controversial stuff and just buried it instead - afraid of all the compliance red tape that would go along with presenting both sides. Nope, much easier to just present one side and call it "no side" or "centrist." Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather made a career of it, only one finally got called on it. I think ABC way back when had a talk show with William F. Buckley on the right and Gore Vidal on the left, and apparently it nearly turned into a slug fest on some occassions. It was before my time, but I'm guessing viewers would like something like that. And here's my point: I don't mind infotainment programming like that if it is driven solely by people's desire to watch it (i.e., market/ratings forces), but it becomes highly problematic when such programming becomes mandated. 1. Who will decide what issues are "controversial" and what issues are not? 2. Who decides who the spokespeople are for each side of the matter, each side of the debate? What if the "chooser" is biased and intentionally puts a strong, intelligent, articulate spokesperson on one side and a weak presence on the other side, to coincide with the chooser's own position on a particular matter? 3. How will we measure fairness - Equal results? Equal time? How will we ensure that this doesn't become something like affirmative action where someone identifies the "disenfranchised" viewpoint for a matter and then swings the pendulum hard in that direction under the guise of "restoring balance?" Giving 90% of airtime to the "underrepresented" viewpoint in the effort to "restore balance?" 4. How has media itself changed since 1949 and certainly since 1987? Doesn't the fact that we have millions of internet sites and hundreds of cable channels now mean that people inherently have access to all viewpoints on a matter, rather than being chained to the "big 3" networks for their news and commentary? 5. Who decides how many positions there are on a "controversial" subject? What if there are more than just two sides? Will all sides get their say, or just the "big 2?" 6. What mediums will be targeted? Just TV and Radio? Why only those two? 7. Where exactly is the unfairness occurring that this legislation is supposedly addressing? What viewpoints do not have equal access (not to be confused with equal outcome) to the public airwaves? 8. How do we explain the idea of "unfairness" when networks such as "Air America" have had free and ready access to media, yet has failed (i.e. Chapter 11) in the marketplace? 9. If the liberal viewpoints and talk shows were the ones that consistently got high ratings and brought in large advertising revenues, and the airwaves were dominated by such shows would Congress feel the need to address this "unbalance?" Would they then feel it was warranted to override simple supply/demand forces to begin telling businesses what they can and cannot program? 10. Why do you think CNN has put guys like Glenn Beck on the air? Could it be because the conservative veiwpoint consistently gets ratings and CNN wants a piece of the pie? The conservative talk shows live on not because the broadcasters are altruists who feel a responsibility to present conservative views, but simply because those views consistently get ratings and bring in advertising revenues. Money is the driver here, not political ideology. We all know that if Air America got 20 times the audience that Limbaugh gets, he'd be history and AA would immediately take his place. Just witness how long the networks will allow a sitcom with no ratings to persist. It can be measured in microseconds. And I can guarantee that conservatives wouldn't be wining about "equal time" or "fairness in media" were their shows canned due to low ratings. No, only liberals could possibly feel good about having their views presented by government mandate instead of by popular demand. The "Fairness Doctrine" was a bad idea when it was first adopted, but as a weak defense in support of it, media itself was so vastly different in 1949 that the major networks had a stranglehold on information over the airwaves. Today, the idea is so patently absurd that it's laughable. It's like the proponents of this legislation want everyone to believe we're still sitting in front of the Emerson, waiting for the tubes to warm up, as we breathlessly await the evening news and followed by another installment of "The Lone Ranger." The truth is, there is no "unfairness" occurring so there is nothing that needs to be corrected. But to the left, "unfairness" is consistently confused with "disparity in outcome" so I guess I'm not surprised by their attempt to resurrect this stinking corpse, just disgusted. It is truly frightening. The “Fairness Doctrine” did little to promote actual balance in the media. It just meant that everyone disguised their bias as “centrist” and nobody wanted to touch the truly controversial stuff and just buried it instead – afraid of all the compliance red tape that would go along with presenting both sides. Nope, much easier to just present one side and call it “no side” or “centrist.” Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather made a career of it, only one finally got called on it.

I think ABC way back when had a talk show with William F. Buckley on the right and Gore Vidal on the left, and apparently it nearly turned into a slug fest on some occassions. It was before my time, but I’m guessing viewers would like something like that. And here’s my point: I don’t mind infotainment programming like that if it is driven solely by people’s desire to watch it (i.e., market/ratings forces), but it becomes highly problematic when such programming becomes mandated.

1. Who will decide what issues are “controversial” and what issues are not?

2. Who decides who the spokespeople are for each side of the matter, each side of the debate? What if the “chooser” is biased and intentionally puts a strong, intelligent, articulate spokesperson on one side and a weak presence on the other side, to coincide with the chooser’s own position on a particular matter?

3. How will we measure fairness – Equal results? Equal time? How will we ensure that this doesn’t become something like affirmative action where someone identifies the “disenfranchised” viewpoint for a matter and then swings the pendulum hard in that direction under the guise of “restoring balance?” Giving 90% of airtime to the “underrepresented” viewpoint in the effort to “restore balance?”

4. How has media itself changed since 1949 and certainly since 1987? Doesn’t the fact that we have millions of internet sites and hundreds of cable channels now mean that people inherently have access to all viewpoints on a matter, rather than being chained to the “big 3″ networks for their news and commentary?

5. Who decides how many positions there are on a “controversial” subject? What if there are more than just two sides? Will all sides get their say, or just the “big 2?”

6. What mediums will be targeted? Just TV and Radio? Why only those two?

7. Where exactly is the unfairness occurring that this legislation is supposedly addressing? What viewpoints do not have equal access (not to be confused with equal outcome) to the public airwaves?

8. How do we explain the idea of “unfairness” when networks such as “Air America” have had free and ready access to media, yet has failed (i.e. Chapter 11) in the marketplace?

9. If the liberal viewpoints and talk shows were the ones that consistently got high ratings and brought in large advertising revenues, and the airwaves were dominated by such shows would Congress feel the need to address this “unbalance?” Would they then feel it was warranted to override simple supply/demand forces to begin telling businesses what they can and cannot program?

10. Why do you think CNN has put guys like Glenn Beck on the air? Could it be because the conservative veiwpoint consistently gets ratings and CNN wants a piece of the pie?

The conservative talk shows live on not because the broadcasters are altruists who feel a responsibility to present conservative views, but simply because those views consistently get ratings and bring in advertising revenues. Money is the driver here, not political ideology. We all know that if Air America got 20 times the audience that Limbaugh gets, he’d be history and AA would immediately take his place. Just witness how long the networks will allow a sitcom with no ratings to persist. It can be measured in microseconds. And I can guarantee that conservatives wouldn’t be wining about “equal time” or “fairness in media” were their shows canned due to low ratings. No, only liberals could possibly feel good about having their views presented by government mandate instead of by popular demand.

The “Fairness Doctrine” was a bad idea when it was first adopted, but as a weak defense in support of it, media itself was so vastly different in 1949 that the major networks had a stranglehold on information over the airwaves. Today, the idea is so patently absurd that it’s laughable. It’s like the proponents of this legislation want everyone to believe we’re still sitting in front of the Emerson, waiting for the tubes to warm up, as we breathlessly await the evening news and followed by another installment of “The Lone Ranger.”

The truth is, there is no “unfairness” occurring so there is nothing that needs to be corrected. But to the left, “unfairness” is consistently confused with “disparity in outcome” so I guess I’m not surprised by their attempt to resurrect this stinking corpse, just disgusted.

]]>