My letter to Sen. Harkin

[Sir_Galahad]

This was a letter I wrote to Sen Tom Harkin this morning. As you may or may not know, Sen. Harkin is leading the charge to have the Fairness Doctrine re-enabled. Whether I listen to conservative radio or not, that is just wrong. IMO. So, I voiced my opinion with the seantor.

"Dear Sen. Harkin. I wish to voice my opinion and say that I am extremely disappointed that you have decided to lead the charge for re-enabling the Fairness Doctrine. As you know, one of the founding and core tenets of this country is that of free speech. Millions of people recognize that this bill is merely a thinly veiled attempt to silence the voices of opposition to the current administration. As one who is in touch with the current state of this country's media, you have to see that our current media network is completely slanted in favor of the current administration. The three major TV networks as well as over 90% of the major newspapers in the country all provide "news" that is highly favorable to the current administration. What few "opposition" voices you hear on the radio pales by number in comparison to the vast number of outlets biased towards the current administration. Why would you want to silence those voices? which is, in essence, what you would be doing if that bill was passed. Isn't it beneficial for all parties to see both sides of an argument. Isn't it beneficial for all parties to get as much input on an issue as possible in order to make decisions that benefit the country? And, isn't that what you were elected to serve in order to accomplish? To do what's best for the country? Do you really think that by silencing opposing voices is good for the country? If you do then I surely believe that we have the wrong man serving our great state. Thank you.
Galahad

[silverscreenselect]

The three major TV networks as well as over 90% of the major newspapers in the country all provide "news" that is highly favorable to the current administration.

I notice that you leave Fox out of your discussion, despite the fact that it's the highest rated TV and cable news network.

[Sir_Galahad]

The three major TV networks as well as over 90% of the major newspapers in the country all provide "news" that is highly favorable to the current administration.

I notice that you leave Fox out of your discussion, despite the fact that it's the highest rated TV and cable news network.

I do not consider Fox to provide a slanted point of view as I do the major networks and liberal media. If and when I watch Fox news or the Fox News Channel on cable I do not feel as if I am being fed a spoonful of conservative pablum as I do when and if I watch the aforementioned liberal media outlets.

[Bob Juch]

The three major TV networks as well as over 90% of the major newspapers in the country all provide "news" that is highly favorable to the current administration.

I notice that you leave Fox out of your discussion, despite the fact that it's the highest rated TV and cable news network.

I do not consider Fox to provide a slanted point of view as I do the major networks and liberal media. If and when I watch Fox news or the Fox News Channel on cable I do not feel as if I am being fed a spoonful of conservative pablum as I do when and if I watch the aforementioned liberal media outlets.

Of course not.

[wintergreen48]

Unfortunately, your letter comes off as though you were just a disgruntled non-Obama-phile suffering from a bad case of sour grapes. The real issue, the point that you should be making, is that the government should not be in the business of managing or directing the content of radio, television or other media. The Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to regulate speech-- in the interests of 'fairness,' perhaps, but nonetheless an attempt to tell broadcasters what they should broadcast-- and that is where your arguments should be made.

If they do succeed in reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, you will probably see (or hear) somewhat fewer 'conservative' (I don't think of Limbaugh as a 'conservative' so much as a 'jackass') talk shows on the radio, and more lefty ones, with a lot of disproportionality-- Limbaugh will keep his 12-3 slot (or wherever it is), and keep getting his 20,000,000 listeners, while the guy who currently does the 9-noon slot (or whatever it is) will probably move to some nighttime slot something, and will be replaced from 9-noon by Air America types, who will keep getting their 20,000 listeners. Advertising rates for the 12-3 slot will go up a lot, since that is where the audience will be, and the rates for the 9-noon slot will drop, because no one will be listening.

[Sir_Galahad]

I notice that you leave Fox out of your discussion, despite the fact that it's the highest rated TV and cable news network.

I do not consider Fox to provide a slanted point of view as I do the major networks and liberal media. If and when I watch Fox news or the Fox News Channel on cable I do not feel as if I am being fed a spoonful of conservative pablum as I do when and if I watch the aforementioned liberal media outlets.

Of course not.

Bob, if and when I watch the news, that's what I want, the "news." Not some slanted viewpoint on the news. Or some biased talking head spewing his or her editorial view on the news. I do not watch or listen to Sean Hannity on FNC, except when I want a good laugh. But, I feel that I get the straight skinny when I watch FNC. What do you disagree with about FNC, besides Hannity? Do you think Van Sustern, Cavuto, Beck or O'Reilly are really biased in their reporting. Do you really feel that they slant the news to give a conservative bias the way those morons like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman do?

[NellyLunatic1980]

Anybody who thinks the Fairness Doctrine silences opposing voices doesn't know dick about the Fairness Doctrine. Or the radio business.

The FCC gives out radio broadcasting licenses for free, and these licenses clearly state that the radio station owners must "operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance". The radio station owners may own the radio station itself, but the public own the airwaves. The commercial use of the public's airwaves is supposed to reflect the community in which the airwaves are used. The owners and the radio companies are not broadcasting in the public's interest if they're using the public airwaves solely for conservative talk.

Take Washington, DC, for example. That city has three right-wing talk stations: WTNT 570, WMAL 630, and WHFS 1580. Up until two weeks ago, it also had one progressive talk station: WWRC 1260. The owner of WWRC decided to replace progressive talk with canned financial advice because God forbid somebody in Washington DC might choose to listen to Ed Schultz or Stephanie Miller and pose a threat in the ratings to poor ol' comedian Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham.

The citizens of Washington, DC, used to have a choice of what side of the spectrum to listen to. Now they don't. Is that operating in the public's interest? Did the citizens of Washington, DC, vehemently demand for a canned financial advice radio station?

Clear Channel used to own progressive talk stations in Cincinnati (WCKY and WSAI) and San Diego (KLSD)--all of these stations delivered top ratings and made good money. Then the owners of these stations silenced the progressive voices and replaced them with sports programming. These cities already had at least one sports radio station. These new sports stations now get near zero ratings. Are the owners operating in the public's interest? Did the citizens of these cities vehemently demand a second or third sports radio station? They must not have been or else people would actually be listening to those sports stations.

You conservatives love to talk about the free market. "Let the free market decide!" Well, guess what? The free market did decide... but some radio station owners don't like the free market's decision. They don't like the thought of competition against the right-wing talkers. Free market principles don't exist in the radio industry anymore. They're doing anything possible to silence progressive voices from the radio... and you have the nerve to falsely accuse Sen. Harkin and others of trying to silence conservative talkers?

I say the conservatives can keep their microphones and their 650 talk radio stations. But let's have 650 progressive talk radio stations, too. And let the free market decide.

[Sir_Galahad]

I say the conservatives can keep their microphones and their 650 talk radio stations. But let's have 650 progressive talk radio stations, too. And let the free market decide.

Nelly, I am in complete agreement with you on this. Take a look at the ratings, in general, for the liberal (oh, excuse me... progressive) radio shows. With few exceptions, they get no ratings. That's why they are off the air! Not to mention the fact that folks do not need to listen to radio because they can get all they want on NBC, CBS, ABC and the mainstream newspapers and magazines. There are virtually no such outlets for the other side so they have their voice on radio. That's why they have the ratings there because they have no other outlets.

[Bob Juch]

Do you think Van Sustern, Cavuto, Beck or O'Reilly are really biased in their reporting. Do you really feel that they slant the news to give a conservative bias the way those morons like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman do?

Absolutely!

[Sir_Galahad]

Do you think Van Sustern, Cavuto, Beck or O'Reilly are really biased in their reporting. Do you really feel that they slant the news to give a conservative bias the way those morons like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman do?

Absolutely!

I thought you'd say that.

The problem, Bob, as I see it is that you confuse the truth for bias.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The citizens of Washington, DC, used to have a choice of what side of the spectrum to listen to. Now they don't. Is that operating in the public's interest? Did the citizens of Washington, DC, vehemently demand for a canned financial advice radio station?

It looks to me as if the citizens of Washington, D.C. made their choice and Harking et al. want to undo it.

[Bob Juch]

Do you think Van Sustern, Cavuto, Beck or O'Reilly are really biased in their reporting. Do you really feel that they slant the news to give a conservative bias the way those morons like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman do?

Absolutely!

I thought you'd say that.

The problem, Bob, as I see it is that you confuse the truth for bias.

The way I see it, you're the one doing that.

[earendel]

I do not consider Fox to provide a slanted point of view as I do the major networks and liberal media. If and when I watch Fox news or the Fox News Channel on cable I do not feel as if I am being fed a spoonful of conservative pablum as I do when and if I watch the aforementioned liberal media outlets.

Of course not.

Bob, if and when I watch the news, that's what I want, the "news." Not some slanted viewpoint on the news. Or some biased talking head spewing his or her editorial view on the news. I do not watch or listen to Sean Hannity on FNC, except when I want a good laugh. But, I feel that I get the straight skinny when I watch FNC. What do you disagree with about FNC, besides Hannity? Do you think Van Sustern, Cavuto, Beck or O'Reilly are really biased in their reporting. Do you really feel that they slant the news to give a conservative bias the way those morons like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman do?

All news coverage is slanted. From the pictures and videos that are used, the portions of speeches that are quoted, the choice of interview subjects, etc., there is a bias. Of course those who agree with that bias don't see it as biased, but look at the other side as biased. That's why some people watch FOX and think it's "fair and balanced" and others think it's rabidly right-wing. The same is true for the other side.

[TheCalvinator24]

Clear Channel used to own progressive talk stations in Cincinnati (WCKY and WSAI) and San Diego (KLSD)--all of these stations delivered top ratings and made good money.

KLSD was ranked #20 in San Diego before the switch (middle of the pack). The ratings did go down after the switch, but that doesn't mean that ownership was wrong to try something different.

I can't find any pre-switch ratings for the two Cincinnati stations, but i suspect that ownership there was also trying to break out of mid-pack ratings.

None of these stations ever delivered "top ratings." Radio station owners don't make major changes to format when a station is pulling in "top ratings."

IOW, you're making stuff up.

[Jeemie]

Anybody who thinks the Fairness Doctrine silences opposing voices doesn't know dick about the Fairness Doctrine. Or the radio business.

The FCC gives out radio broadcasting licenses for free, and these licenses clearly state that the radio station owners must "operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance". The radio station owners may own the radio station itself, but the public own the airwaves. The commercial use of the public's airwaves is supposed to reflect the community in which the airwaves are used. The owners and the radio companies are not broadcasting in the public's interest if they're using the public airwaves solely for conservative talk.

Take Washington, DC, for example. That city has three right-wing talk stations: WTNT 570, WMAL 630, and WHFS 1580. Up until two weeks ago, it also had one progressive talk station: WWRC 1260. The owner of WWRC decided to replace progressive talk with canned financial advice because God forbid somebody in Washington DC might choose to listen to Ed Schultz or Stephanie Miller and pose a threat in the ratings to poor ol' comedian Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham.

The citizens of Washington, DC, used to have a choice of what side of the spectrum to listen to. Now they don't. Is that operating in the public's interest? Did the citizens of Washington, DC, vehemently demand for a canned financial advice radio station?

Clear Channel used to own progressive talk stations in Cincinnati (WCKY and WSAI) and San Diego (KLSD)--all of these stations delivered top ratings and made good money. Then the owners of these stations silenced the progressive voices and replaced them with sports programming. These cities already had at least one sports radio station. These new sports stations now get near zero ratings. Are the owners operating in the public's interest? Did the citizens of these cities vehemently demand a second or third sports radio station? They must not have been or else people would actually be listening to those sports stations.

You conservatives love to talk about the free market. "Let the free market decide!" Well, guess what? The free market did decide... but some radio station owners don't like the free market's decision. They don't like the thought of competition against the right-wing talkers. Free market principles don't exist in the radio industry anymore. They're doing anything possible to silence progressive voices from the radio... and you have the nerve to falsely accuse Sen. Harkin and others of trying to silence conservative talkers?

I say the conservatives can keep their microphones and their 650 talk radio stations. But let's have 650 progressive talk radio stations, too. And let the free market decide.

No offense, Nelly, but if you don't think radio wouldn't put on "progressive" programming if they would actually...you know...get LISTENERS, then you're nuts.

"Equal opportunity" does NOT mean "equal outcomes".

If "the public owns the airwaves", then the public has ALREADY MADE ITS WISHES KNOWN...by their CHOICES of what to listen to.

[Sir_Galahad]

Absolutely!

I thought you'd say that.

The problem, Bob, as I see it is that you confuse the truth for bias.

The way I see it, you're the one doing that.

<LOL> I thought you'd say that, too.

OK. We can continue to agree to disagree.

[Sir_Galahad]

Unfortunately, your letter comes off as though you were just a disgruntled non-Obama-phile suffering from a bad case of sour grapes. The real issue, the point that you should be making, is that the government should not be in the business of managing or directing the content of radio, television or other media. The Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to regulate speech-- in the interests of 'fairness,' perhaps, but nonetheless an attempt to tell broadcasters what they should broadcast-- and that is where your arguments should be made.

Thanks for the critique, Wintergreen. I was trying to make that point and not come off as you noticed. I am not a disgruntled anything but I will fight for our freedoms.

[TheCalvinator24]

I am hopeful that your worry will be unfounded.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... -doctrine/

[Jeemie]

I am hopeful that your worry will be unfounded.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... -doctrine/

You need to get out into the blogosphere, where even this is being spun.

Because, according to the right-wing nutjobs, there are versions of "the Fairness Doctrine" which aren't being called "the Fairness Doctrine".

I.e. supposedly Obama is very much in favor of having local issues and local hosts being broadcast a greater percentage of the time.

BTW to journey into the RW blogosphere is both fascinating and slightly terrifying...I do not believe I have ever witnessed thousands of people undergoing mental breakdown all at the same time before.

Guys on this board, like galahad and Daniel and Weyoun and BiT- they're almost leftists compared to some of the guys melting down in the blogs and RW message boards.

[TheCalvinator24]

BTW to journey into the RW blogosphere is both fascinating and slightly terrifying...I do not believe I have ever witnessed thousands of people undergoing mental breakdown all at the same time before.

You didn't see the early manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome?

[Sir_Galahad]

I am hopeful that your worry will be unfounded.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... -doctrine/

You need to get out into the blogosphere, where even this is being spun.

Do you have URLs for some of these. I have not ventured out into those waters.

Guys on this board, like galahad and Daniel and Weyoun and BiT- they're almost leftists compared to some of the guys melting down in the blogs and RW message boards.

I just consider myself a conservative and believe that this country is going the wrong way down that one-way street.

[Jeemie]

BTW to journey into the RW blogosphere is both fascinating and slightly terrifying...I do not believe I have ever witnessed thousands of people undergoing mental breakdown all at the same time before.

You didn't see the early manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Oh I saw it...but those guys are insane already!



PS As bad as "the libs" can get, I rarely saw threads calling for secession, civil war, or a revolution. This is commonplace from the "cons" today.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

BTW to journey into the RW blogosphere is both fascinating and slightly terrifying...I do not believe I have ever witnessed thousands of people undergoing mental breakdown all at the same time before.

You didn't see the early manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Oh I saw it...but those guys are insane already!



PS As bad as "the libs" can get, I rarely saw threads calling for secession, civil war, or a revolution. This are commonplace from the "cons" today.

Some Vermont Residents Want to Secede From U.S.

KENNEDY: The main beef seems to be with President Bush and the war in Iraq, though some in this secession movement also blamed Democrats for failing to provide an alternate progressive voice. Former college professor Thomas Naylor says the U.S. is controlled by corporations and secession is the only answer.

NAYLOR: Fixing the system becomes a virtual impossibility. We think that the United States is unsustainable. It is ungovernable and unfixable.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278564,00.html

[Jeemie]

You didn't see the early manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Oh I saw it...but those guys are insane already!



PS As bad as "the libs" can get, I rarely saw threads calling for secession, civil war, or a revolution. This are commonplace from the "cons" today.

Some Vermont Residents Want to Secede From U.S.

KENNEDY: The main beef seems to be with President Bush and the war in Iraq, though some in this secession movement also blamed Democrats for failing to provide an alternate progressive voice. Former college professor Thomas Naylor says the U.S. is controlled by corporations and secession is the only answer.

NAYLOR: Fixing the system becomes a virtual impossibility. We think that the United States is unsustainable. It is ungovernable and unfixable.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278564,00.html

Hence my use of the term "rarely".

Even more rarely did such ideas disseminate up to national TV and radio...and yet now we have Glenn Beck out there saying we are on the brink of another 1860.

[franktangredi]

Of course those who agree with that bias don't see it as biased, but look at the other side as biased. That's why some people watch FOX and think it's "fair and balanced" and others think it's rabidly right-wing. The same is true for the other side.

That's as fair and balanced a statement of fact as I've seen.

I had an interesting experience back in the summer of '05. I was at a party where the most conservative woman in my church choir was railing against the New York Times. She called it a 'commy rag.' Her main complaint was that the mainstream media were not telling the truth about the war in Iraq -- the good that our troops were doing there and the progress they were making. She called it a left-wing coverup.

A week later, I was at the National Scrabble Championship in Reno, having lunch with a couple of older players who are true old-time lefties. They were complaining to me that the mainstream media were not telling the truth about the war in Iraq -- the awful things that our troops were doing there and the fact that the war effort was a dismal failure. They called it a right-wing coverup.

And I sat there quietly thinking, "There's somebody back home I'd love to introduce you to."

I've experience the same thing in my business, textbook publishing. Jewish and Arab reviewers complaining that the same chapter was both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Evangelical and atheist reviewers claiming that the same chapter was both anti-Christian and pushing a Christian agenda. Because often, when people claim they want balanced and unbiased reporting, what they really mean is, "I want reporting that tells only MY truth." [Disclaimer: that is not directed at anyone here. It's a general opinion I've long held.]

I think one measure of a media outlet at least trying to be balanced is the caliber of the opposition voices they publish or broadcast. When William Safire was writing a column for the Times, I always went to him to help me understand the conservative viewpoint. When he retired from his column, Safire praised the Times editorial staff for always allowing him to express his views even when much of the readership wanted his head on a platter. (What caliber are the liberal commentators who get a voice on Fox?)

Some people today have also commented that there are right-wing blogs out there that make the Fox crew seem like liberals. Likewise, I would add that anybody who thinks the Times is a left-wing newspaper has obviously never seen a left-wing newspaper.