.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Why Liberals Want to Reimpose the ‘Fairness Doctrine’
By Paul M. Weyrich

Liberals know they cannot compete in radio on an honest and level playing field. So they have fallen back on their old stand-by plan: when you need money, let the taxpayers foot the bill. When you can’t compete, force popular radio programs that make a profit to give you equal time. Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine and the liberals get free airtime while conservative talk radio continues to operate as a business should, meeting its payrolls and paying taxes…


  • If somebody wants it let them pay for it.
    I am sick and tired of being robbed so others can sit back and relax.

    By Blogger ablur, at 2:03 PM  

  • I do some consulting work for the National Association of Broadcasters and share your concerns about the revamped Fairness Doctrine. Rep. Hinchey claims his new bill will diversify the media by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market, yet in practice, placing limits on the station ownership has been shown to have the exact opposite effect. If corporations are forced to sell off certain stations, the majority of those properties will find themselves unable to compete against cable, satellite, radio, and the Internet for the advertising dollars on which they rely. And without the necessary income, these stations will eventually fail, resulting in less competition and ultimately a more homogenized media, neither of which is in the best interests of the public.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:48 PM  

  • I agree, ablur. It is tiresome dealing with the 'robbers' of our society. Whether it be in this context of the....ahem... 'fairness doctrine' or whether it is Hillary 'Robbem' Clinton wanting to 'take the profits' of Exxon and put it into alternative fuels, it is enough to make you cough up fur balls.

    But it is relentless, and the minute we let up is when we lose.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 5:14 PM  

  • You have hit upon a good point, Jefferson.

    Rarely does the government implement new "good policy" in my humble opinion.

    Even if the intent is good and honerable (but usually there are other motives involved) it is the outcome that is most important.

    I am a big believer in unintended consequences and I think much of what Congress ends up doing through legislation falls victim to this.

    Campaign refinance for example.

    Although one might argue that in many cases it really isn't a case of unintended consequences, but more accurately, it is a matter of what they really had in mind.

    Instead, they sold us, and we bought, their bill of goods.

    Rarely will a politician try and get legislation through that will have a negative impact on themselves.

    The fairness doctrine will only bring viewership down, and therefore ratings, down. This will bring advertising revenue down, bringing income down. And as you pointed out Jefferson, screw up competition, resulting in closures and further consolidation.

    I see no advantages, no positives, to this proposition at all. None.

    Now if I was a liberal, why this would be another victory in the war of limiting free speech.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 5:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home