Rush trying to turn the Fairness Doctrine into his martyrdom

[anti_shrub]

In Rush World, the people who want the Fairness Doctrine put back in place only do so because they can't stand the overwhelming truth that is his show.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091203/content/truth_detector.guest.html

Get a load of that massively inflated ego, complete with Rush photoshopped to look like the poster from The People VS. Larry Flynt.

[Prodemsouth]

1. Our reply, he can't stand that his ideas are debated. No is talking about

canceling his show, the air waves belong to the people.When they tried to bring it back just after Clinton got elected, his ape supporters called the Fairness in Broadcasting act the Hush Rush bill. We need to point out - we are not taking any show off the air- we just think other ideas should have equal time.

Edit add on: I will debate anyone who is against the Fairness doctrine and give them the red ass.

[anti_shrub]

4. What gets me is he acts like laws are passed to punish him

Yet its widely known he uses his clout to prevent liberal talk shows from getting national syndication.

Think about it ya windbag, if you wouldn't use your pull to squash liberal voices, there wouldn't be a need for a law to mandate it now would there?

[Prodemsouth]

5. Yeah right , great point!!

I forgot about Randi Rhodes.

[DocSavage]

7. Fairness

Suppose I own a radio station. What is the entire premise of owning that station. To make money. I put broadcasting on and charge advertisers a fee to promote thier products during that show. If the show is very successful, than I can charge a higher fee for that advertising. It works the same way on TV.

That said. Say I had a very sucessful program that drew a whole lot of listeners. It was a dog show, and I live in an area with a whole lot of dog owners. I made a lot of money from this show. But, the cat owners in town were mad. There was no radio program for them. A couple of people tried to produce one, had it on the air for a while, but not enough people listened for me to pay for the program with advertising. Well, along comes the fairness doctrine. I have to carry the cat program, possibly canceling a program that is popular and making money for me and the advertisers. Is that truly fair? May not be fair for me, but the other radio stations in town that had dog programing on at that time would sure do better.

Commercial radio is a business. If a progressive talk show host became popular and did a good show he/she would survive. It all comes to what people want to hear and what people are willing to pay for.

If your parents only read townhall.com for thier news and opionion, could you force them to read the NY Times also? My father hates the NY times, he is very conservative. Feels that thier opionion writers are "liberal commies". If the fairness doctrine comes back, should the NY Times be forced to hire right wing opionion writers to counter the ones that my fater hates?

[anti_shrub]

8. Yes they should.

The media is supposed to provide all points of view, not just the ones the owners have.

Putting a left wing columnist or radio show next to a right wing one would only illustrate the right's true feelings on certain issues.

[DocSavage]

10. What?

When did it become the responsibility of an owner of a media outlet to provide all views? For years newspapers have been editorializing on issues and not providing the other side. They endorse candidates and support issues that they want. An editor selects letters to post if they want. Are you going to force newspapers to print opposing views of thier editors?

My major point is that requiring a owner of a radio station to program segments that may loose money for him in his market sounds somewhat orwellian. There was a post on one of the other forums that said Randi Rhodes was beating Rush in his home market (somewhere in Fla). If Randi can do that without the fairness doctrine there, why is it needed?

[GAspnes]

11. The Fairness Doctrine

ONCE UPON A TIME, in a country that now seems far away, radio and television broadcasters had an obligation to operate in the public interest. That generally accepted principle was reflected in a rule known as the Fairness Doctrine.

The rule, formally adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, required all broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial matters of public interest. It further required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view regarding those matters. The Fairness Doctrine arose from the idea imbedded in the First Amendment that the wide dissemination of information from diverse and even antagonistic sources is essential to the public welfare and to a healthy democracy.

The FCC is mandated by federal law to grant broadcasting licenses in such a way that the airwaves are used in the "public convenience, interest or necessity." The U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, expressing the view that the airwaves were a "public trust" and that "fairness" required that the public trust accurately reflect opposing views.

more

An analogy would be requiring a business wishing to make a profit from public lands (by, say, logging a forest) to share part of the wood with that same public.

If the idea of public service doesn't interest you, try researching "the tragedy of the commons". Regulation of shared resources is an economic requirement to preserve those resources. Making a profit is not the only reason businesses exist.

[DocSavage]

13. Requirements

Public Trust does not equate to public property. The Govt regulates the air waves, issues licenses, assignes broadcast frequencies and power and ensures that broadcasts on AM do not come over your TV.

Price a license for a radio station. I know that in 1984 the cost was in excess of 300K after lawyers and such. And that was for a low power license. IMO, public service does not equate to bradcasting programs that will appeal to each Tom, Dick and Harry out there. I would want to broadcast a show that will generate the largest audiences.

To me, it seems that you feel that a radio station must provide alternative views. When WLIB (ficticious) starts brodcasting with a line up of Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Alan Combs and Rush Limbaugh to balance it out is that what you mean. Because, according to you, all stations must provide balance.

Now what will WLIB do with Limbaugh if they were forced to carry him. Oh, and they would have to pay for his programing, because Limbaugh is not free nor cheap. Put him on at 1 AM when no one will be listening or on in prime time to get the biggest bang for the buck. If you put him on during his regular live broadcast, who gets bumped to tape.

The worse thing about free speech is that it irritates people. That is what it is suppose to do. Irritating programing or writing has to be protected. The time of the fairness doctrine is past. No longer are we dealing with 3 TV stations in town. Now there is cable, satellite, internet. The programing is there. Are you ready for the right to challenge CNN, or ABC in the fairness issue.

Oh, and if Limbaugh is purged from AM, it is my understanding that Satellite signals are not regulated. WIth the advent of satellite radio, you are back to square one.

[GAspnes]

14. so, if speech on your station irritates you, it's Good Speech?

IMO, public service does not equate to bradcasting programs that will appeal to each Tom, Dick and Harry out there. I would want to broadcast a show that will generate the largest audiences.

Sounds like you value profits over your public duty as a citizen, let alone the user of a scarce resource which is most fairly used to benefit as many citzens as possible.

Love your handle, btw. Haven't read the ol' Doc in a looong time.

on edit: Oh, and if Limbaugh is purged from AM, it is my understanding that Satellite signals are not regulated. WIth the advent of satellite radio, you are back to square one.

No one has suggested purging Rushie Baby. Just balancing him with some sanity. Oh, and you're wrong. Satellite radio signals *are* regulated. See link

[DocSavage]

15. Profits over Public Duty

I feel that profits are important. If a radio station does not make money on a program, why carry it. I spent 22 years on active duty in the military. I think that I put my duty over profits for a long time.

Refering to your link. THE FCC'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 2003 WORLD RADIOCOMMUNICATION CONFERENCE
APPROVES DRAFT PROPOSALS

Draft proposals. It address wavelegenth and bandwith and frequencies, but I did not see anything about programing.

If Randi Rhodes can pull good ratings in Rush's home town in Fl, and stay on the air without the fairness doctrine, why is it needed.

[GAspnes]

16. One more time

A fairness doctrine is needed for broadcast media because:

The spectrum is limited. Someone gets a frequency, someone else does not. It was decided, a long time ago, that the entire spectrum belongs to the entire populace, not just a favored few.

As a frequency licensee, you would be glad the frequencies and power are regulated -- otherwise Rupert Murdock will set up a tower next to yours and spend whatever is required to obliterate your signal with his. Raw capitalism at its finest.

So, you have benefited from regulation, you are making a profit from a scarce resource that is owned by someone else (you think you own that spectrum? Watch your license being taken away). You have a responsibility in return -- to provide equal time to opposing political views.

Is that so hard to understand?

And thanks for your service. I am grateful that you served. But that doesn't entitle you to profit-at-any-cost when you muster out. Civic duty is a lifetime endeavor.

[anti_shrub]

17. Its simple

"If Randi Rhodes can pull good ratings in Rush's home town in Fl, and stay on the air without the fairness doctrine, why is it needed."

Rush's show is syndicated by the largest radio conglomerate in the U.S. and if you aren't being syndicated by them you're pretty much talking to the houseplants. Rush has made it clear if they syndicate Randi Rhodes (or any liberal talk show not done by a Fox puppet liberal I'd wager), he'd leave them.

It's why he occaisionally mentions CNN offering him his own show, its his way of reminding the syndicators that he has options if he should decide to leave.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

12. We're supposed to have a free press..

The government is not supposed to mandate what opinions the media covers. The media is supposed to provide equal opportunity for all voices to be heard. It's not supposed to mandate that the other side be heard, when the listeners don't want it. Talk radio is a conservative haven. Many liberal voices manage to break through, and become popular. If Rush uses his clout to crush his liberal opponents, then that's wrong. If a liberal talk show host is cancelled because he or she isn't popular, then that's the way it goes. It sucks, but you can't force right-wingers to listen to liberal opinions, at least not by government mandate.

On edit: A clarification. I'm simply saying that while the government has a responsibility to require radio stations that operate under public protection (FCC), to provide equal access, they can't force radio stations to not cancel shows that are ideologically popular, just to be fair.

[Lefty48197]

19. That's some might good twisting of the facts you're doing Doc

The airwaves belong to the people. We dictate what goes on with them, not a huge media conglomerate from New York. They cannot pollute our airwaves any more than they can pollute our air.

[DocSavage]

21. People's airwaves

You are aboslutly correct. And all it takes is obtaining a license and you can broadcast to your hearts content and broadcast what you want. And I would have a real probelm with the govt telling you what you had to broadcast because of fairness.

Rush can threaten now because he has the ratings and makes money for the network. If Bill Clinton did a radio show I am pretty sure that his numbers would be real high, Rush would have to shut up or put up.

My problem with fairness doctrine is when does it stop. Does the communist party of the USA have room in this? How about the Greens? Who oversees this? It seems that the issue is all about AM talk Radio. It is conservative, so what. The people that listen are the core of the right. It does no matter what is put on to balance what they say, if Bill Clinton, Gov. Cuomo, or any other progressive says anything to balance it, they will be discounted or just switched off.

I do have one thing lefty. Polluting the airwaves is not like polluting the air. You can switch off your radio or TV, you cannot stop breathing. I have a satellite dish hanging on my house and I can tell you that there is a bunch of trash on 500 channels. I just don't watch it.

[jos]

2. He's right to be worried

He only took off after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed near the end of the Reagan administration. The right is scared to death of it because it would force the conservative conglomerates who own the rain stations to air non right-wing points of view. And, for example, it would prevent radio stations in California from acting as cheerleaders for the recall, or for Arnold, without giving Davis and Cruz equal time. In other words, it would force stations to actually be "fair and balanced."

[JPace]

6. Would someone educate me on the Fairness Doctrine?

I am not that familiar with it. I understand it up until
it was repealed during the Reagan years. What has happened
to it since that time? Anything New? I can't stand to
read Limbaugh's article.

[GCP]

18. It seems like they've got their talking points from King Karl

Our local right-wing loonie talk show host is ranting on about it today. They're shitting their pants that some actual fairness might be re-introduced to the airwaves.

[JPace]

3. I went over there for a nano second....

but couldn't stand his picture much less
read his words.

He is the most pompous braggart I think
I have ever heard....and a bully with a
perverted view of politics. I resent that
he knows how to twist and manipulate
unsophisticated people into believing
in a political party that consistently
exploits them economically.

[number6]

9. Message to Rush

shove a rusty pipe up ur ass...

and f*ck u 2, u bloated ass wipe...

what ever hapened to a free n open market place..
n oh ... consummer choice I' mm the customer
and the customer is always right, you SUCK RUSH !!!!!

[Lefty48197]

20. Here's an excellent link re: The Fairness Doctrine

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/06/30/1f.ed.col.monks.0630.html

This is the best comment I have ever read on this subject.