The so-called ‘fairness doctrine’ would supposedly bring ‘balance’ to the airwaves and many Democrats on Capitol Hill have been doing considerable saber rattling for its revival, including Michigan’s own junior Senator, Debbie Stabenow (whose husband had an ownership stake in the failed Air America Network).
But the more the Dems talk, the more the American public don’t like what they are hearing apparently. Rasmussen reports a significant decline in the number of those polled who support the revival of the ‘fairness doctrine’:
Just 38% of U.S. voters think that the government should require all radio stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary.
Forty-seven percent (47%) oppose government-imposed political balance on radio stations, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure which course is better.
These findings are a dramatic nine-point drop-off in support for the Fairness Doctrine from a survey last August when 47% said the government should require all radio and television stations to offer balanced political commentary.
HT: RedState.com
Yeah..I’m not sure how free our market really is anymore, but I’m still committed to the concept of a free market and free marketplace.
Hey Mike,
You mean the “free market?” What a novel concept! Great points, Dude!
You simply cannot force “balance” in a market that is simply driven by a market audience. You can’t bring “balance” to Rush (Hannity, etc.) since people only listen to him because they WANT to, not because they’re forced to.
In thinking of this, my thought is that I don’t want “fair and balanced” I want “accurate.” That’s what I’m listening for, no matter who I’m listening to. If people want to listen to flaming liberals on the radio, they would. The market numbers prove they do not want any more than what they have. If people wanted to stop listening to Rush, he’d go out of business.
Chris,
Once again, you have stated the issues in a clear and concise manner. You truly have a gift for words.
I know that we do not agree on many issues but I am encouraged by your second, third and fourth paragraphs. The issue for me is just that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and others like them are unashamedly conservative and not concealing that fact. Much of today’s journalism seems to be nothing more than veiled opinion pieces bent on pushing an all-out liberal agenda. I would have no problem with that if the ones doing the so-called “reporting” were up front about it. If it is out in the open, we can address it on it’s own merits.
I am also of the opinion that the majority of the people in this country are more than capable to come to their own conclusions. The problem is that many either do not have the time to educate themselves or they don’t care about educating themselves. Anyone who has seen the Jaywalking segments on the Tonight Show knows this! How many people are aware of what is even IN the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? Every American should have a copy of each of these documents in their home and have a working knowledge of what is in them.
The Fairness Doctrine denies the listeners the choice of opinion on the airwaves. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has equated political speech with pornography, which is an absolutely absurd argument. The First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech but does not guarantee a right to be HEARD! This is why Air America died. Too few people wanted to hear it. The markets, when left to themselves, weed out the weakest elements. If something is profitable, it survives. If it loses money, it dies. We don’t need the government to interfere with the markets just to prop up entities that should fail, with our tax dollars.
Senator Schumer, we are not as stupid as you may think we are!
There’s something interesting going on in this story here. Note that the two questions are not the same:
“Just 38% of U.S. voters think that the government should require all radio stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary”
and
“47% said the government should require all radio and television stations to offer balanced political commentary.”
Now there is a subtle, but noticable difference here. The first and most recent question talks specifically about talk radio. Whereas the second question is much broader.
Often times the way a question is asked can skew the results. Like Chris said, people listen to talk radio because they want to listn to an opinion that aligns with their belief system. Television is viewed as being a place for public news more than opinion.
I’m of two minds on this.
On the one hand, I think that some people (Rush, Al Franken–just to be fair) need a bit of a balance. I know too many people who listen to Rush and take it as truth and fact…I could see why bringing in another side to balance things out would be needed…it would provide the objectivity that so many people claim is missing from the media.
However, I don’t think people really listen to Rush looking for “news.” They want opinion…the people who are listeners of commentators with a specific ideology are going to disagree with the other side anyway or just flip the channel. And if someone is offering commentary on their own opinion it just seem to negate the idea of an “opinion” by forcing another side to offer their “opinion.” It’s free airtime when, honestly, couldn’t the person offering the balance just go out and get their own show? If there’s an audience that wants to hear a competing view then surely they would listen to it, right?
I’ve been a journalist and written commentary pieces. I didn’t have to have someone come in and write a “counterpoint” to my piece and I would have resented it if they had. If someone disagrees, they’re free to call or write a letter expressing that…I don’t need someone else writing just to contradict me, you know what I mean?
When it comes to actual news, then we need to hold the media to objectivity and getting both sides of the story. But with shows that exist just to get a certain point across and express the view of a commentator–does anyone really need to be told the other side? They will agree or disagree and can make up their own minds. If they disagree they can seek out their facts on their own.
But maybe it’s a positive. Maybe Paul can follow up Howard Stern.
Doesn’t recent history show that the entertainment industry pretty much writes its own rules? I know that from time to time public outcry forces congress to take action, and somewhat reign them in. But after all it all comes down to the money, and what ever public opinion desires, the industry provides.
Not to be too cynical…
In the midst of an election, I can see how the poll would be different…Now that that is settled and we have(some of us) moved on…”We the people”, don’t want government involved with what we choose to listen to on a daily basis. I think most people believed that the Fairness Doctrine would cover an equal number of stations under each option instead of equal time on each channel. Unless they remove all options altogether…we still control the dial on our personal radio/media equipment…we can just change the channel or even better…turn it off…*: )