SoCo Magazine - May 2008 - (Page 35) By RichaRd costa have to do With FRee speech? hannity its speculative decline in the new century, owing to new technologies such as satellite and iPods—is owed in large part to Ronald Reagan. In the 1980s, Reagan deregulated the Fairness Doctrine, a law designated by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949 to require equal broadcasting time for opposing political views. Ironically, Byron York of the National Review wrote last year that the political right was initially afraid of the Fairness Doctrine’s demise in the 1980s because of an already left- leaning media. They feared less equal time. Then came Limbaugh. But since the growth of radio has affected everything in recent years from wasteful spending in local and federal governments to the sale of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, certain elements in our country—many left of center but some to the right as well—would benefit from talk radio’s demise, or at least its weakening. Keeping citizens ignorant of what’s going on behind the scenes allows for political action free from the critique of a talk host (who’s often a stand in for the average American). Enter the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, calling stations to uphold the public trust and their duty to provide balanced information. Think about it: On the limited airwaves of yesteryear, the FCC didn’t believe a broadcaster should be the singular advocate of one point of view. In short, it mandated “fairness.” Reagan’s deregulation in the 1980s allowed for the wide range of broadcasting personalities we have today. After more than a decadelong boom in the talk radio industry, the Fairness Doctrine has become a talking point for those who disdain the free speech of a largely independent or rightwing crowd. But when I spoke to the personalities behind the microphone, I found a richer story of an industry both in bloom and possibly nearing its twilight. Inside Talk Radio Roughly a year ago, the subject of the Fairness Doctrine was a source of constant debate on news shows and talk radio. Barack Obama’s website says he “believes that providing opportunities for minority-owned businesses to own radio and television stations is fundamental to creating the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves and demands.” Presidential wannabe Dennis Kucinich said on Lou Dobbs last summer that the Fairness Doctrine is an “opportunity for America to revisit the issue of consolidation in the media and how it relates to whether media is serving public interest.” Would this mean all the tour de force personalities we enjoy or loathe on talk radio will be replaced by a bureaucratic, undertoned talking head? A mandated foil? Affirmative Action for the airwaves? A wet blanket for every prescient observation? Hell, no. Last summer, the House voted 309 to 115 to prohibit FCC from using taxpayer money to force the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasts featuring the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage. The push to reinstitute the old law is seen by insiders as a plan to limit the freedom of talkers who have influenced everything from recent presidential elections to the awareness of illegal immigration. Syndicated broadcasters, however, are the product of merged broadcasting companies, but the bottom line is this: If a host is interesting, he or she will garner a following. Hence a Rush Limbaugh will often be found more interesting than a local host with a meager following and presumably less talent. Dennis Kucinich was the one presidential candidate looking to make the doctrine happen and was quite verbal about it, yet we didn’t hear Hillary and Obama making it a key issue in their recent battles (as of this writing in March), though most M ay 2 0 0 8 | s o co m a g azi ne . i nfo | 35 http://socomagazine.info
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.