Betsy's Page

Monday, April 30, 2007

Why we don't need a new Fairness Doctrine

George Will has quite a good column on the so-called Fairness Doctrine and how the Democrats want to bring it back so that they can limit conservative talk radio.
Some illiberal liberals are trying to restore the luridly misnamed Fairness Doctrine, which until 1987 required broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to presenting fairly each side of a controversial issue. The government was empowered to decide how many sides there were, how much time was reasonable and what was fair.

By trying to again empower the government to regulate broadcasting, illiberals reveal their lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and their disdain for consumer sovereignty—and hence for the public.

The illiberals' transparent, and often proclaimed, objective is to silence talk radio. Liberals strenuously and unsuccessfully attempted to compete in that medium—witness the anemia of their Air America. Talk radio barely existed in 1980, when there were fewer than 100 talk shows nationwide. The Fairness Doctrine was scrapped in 1987, and today more than 1,400 stations are entirely devoted to talk formats. Conservatives dominate talk radio—although no more thoroughly than liberals dominate Hollywood, academia and much of the mainstream media.
Will traces the history of the Fairness Doctrine and how politicians from the Kennedy to the Nixon administration used it to target their political opposites. Reagan got rid of in in 1987 and talk radio blossomed. And the liberals can't stand that because they haven't been able to match conservative success in that medium. With the cornucopia of information that is out there for news consumers from the internet to satellite radio to cable TV. We don't need some government organization to try to measure opinion and figure out how much time should be devoted to each flavor of ideology.
Some of today's illiberals say that media abundance, not scarcity, justifies the Fairness Doctrine: Americans, the poor dears, are bewildered by too many choices. And the plenitude of information sources disperses "the national campfire," the cozy communitarian experience of the good old days (for liberals), when everyone gathered around—and was dependent on—ABC, NBC and CBS.

"I believe we need to re-regulate the media," says Howard Dean. Such illiberals argue that the paucity of liberal successes in today's radio competition—and the success of Fox News—somehow represent "market failure." That is the regularly recurring, all-purpose rationale for government intervention in markets. Market failure is defined as consumers' not buying what liberals are selling.
Liberals often seem to want to protect us from having too much choice as if Americans are too stupid to sort through an excess of information. They want to limit choice in education or for Social Security or Medical Savings Accounts. They thought that the new Medicare drug program would be too confusing for seniors, but they seemed to have managed just fine. I believe that people can manage to figure out which news sources they can listen to without the government trying to ration the commentary according to some mystical measurment of fairness.
Labels: Media

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:42 PM 0 comments

Comments:

George Will has quite a good column on the so-called Fairness Doctrine and how the Democrats want to bring it back so that they can limit conservative talk radio.

Some illiberal liberals are trying to restore the luridly misnamed Fairness Doctrine, which until 1987 required broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to presenting fairly each side of a controversial issue. The government was empowered to decide how many sides there were, how much time was reasonable and what was fair.

By trying to again empower the government to regulate broadcasting, illiberals reveal their lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and their disdain for consumer sovereignty—and hence for the public.

The illiberals' transparent, and often proclaimed, objective is to silence talk radio. Liberals strenuously and unsuccessfully attempted to compete in that medium—witness the anemia of their Air America. Talk radio barely existed in 1980, when there were fewer than 100 talk shows nationwide. The Fairness Doctrine was scrapped in 1987, and today more than 1,400 stations are entirely devoted to talk formats. Conservatives dominate talk radio—although no more thoroughly than liberals dominate Hollywood, academia and much of the mainstream media.

Will traces the history of the Fairness Doctrine and how politicians from the Kennedy to the Nixon administration used it to target their political opposites. Reagan got rid of in in 1987 and talk radio blossomed. And the liberals can't stand that because they haven't been able to match conservative success in that medium. With the cornucopia of information that is out there for news consumers from the internet to satellite radio to cable TV. We don't need some government organization to try to measure opinion and figure out how much time should be devoted to each flavor of ideology.

Some of today's illiberals say that media abundance, not scarcity, justifies the Fairness Doctrine: Americans, the poor dears, are bewildered by too many choices. And the plenitude of information sources disperses "the national campfire," the cozy communitarian experience of the good old days (for liberals), when everyone gathered around—and was dependent on—ABC, NBC and CBS.

"I believe we need to re-regulate the media," says Howard Dean. Such illiberals argue that the paucity of liberal successes in today's radio competition—and the success of Fox News—somehow represent "market failure." That is the regularly recurring, all-purpose rationale for government intervention in markets. Market failure is defined as consumers' not buying what liberals are selling.

Liberals often seem to want to protect us from having too much choice as if Americans are too stupid to sort through an excess of information. They want to limit choice in education or for Social Security or Medical Savings Accounts. They thought that the new Medicare drug program would be too confusing for seniors, but they seemed to have managed just fine. I believe that people can manage to figure out which news sources they can listen to without the government trying to ration the commentary according to some mystical measurment of fairness.

Labels: Media

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:42 PM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Monday, April 30, 2007

Why we don't need a new Fairness Doctrine

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Monday, April 30, 2007 Why we don't need a new Fairness Doctrine George Will has quite a good column on the so-called Fairness Doctrine and how the Democrats want to bring it back so that they can limit conservative talk radio. Some illiberal liberals are trying to restore the luridly misnamed Fairness Doctrine, which until 1987 required broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to presenting fairly each side of a controversial issue. The government was empowered to decide how many sides there were, how much time was reasonable and what was fair. By trying to again empower the government to regulate broadcasting, illiberals reveal their lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and their disdain for consumer sovereignty—and hence for the public. The illiberals' transparent, and often proclaimed, objective is to silence talk radio. Liberals strenuously and unsuccessfully attempted to compete in that medium—witness the anemia of their Air America. Talk radio barely existed in 1980, when there were fewer than 100 talk shows nationwide. The Fairness Doctrine was scrapped in 1987, and today more than 1,400 stations are entirely devoted to talk formats. Conservatives dominate talk radio—although no more thoroughly than liberals dominate Hollywood, academia and much of the mainstream media. Will traces the history of the Fairness Doctrine and how politicians from the Kennedy to the Nixon administration used it to target their political opposites. Reagan got rid of in in 1987 and talk radio blossomed. And the liberals can't stand that because they haven't been able to match conservative success in that medium. With the cornucopia of information that is out there for news consumers from the internet to satellite radio to cable TV. We don't need some government organization to try to measure opinion and figure out how much time should be devoted to each flavor of ideology. Some of today's illiberals say that media abundance, not scarcity, justifies the Fairness Doctrine: Americans, the poor dears, are bewildered by too many choices. And the plenitude of information sources disperses "the national campfire," the cozy communitarian experience of the good old days (for liberals), when everyone gathered around—and was dependent on—ABC, NBC and CBS. "I believe we need to re-regulate the media," says Howard Dean. Such illiberals argue that the paucity of liberal successes in today's radio competition—and the success of Fox News—somehow represent "market failure." That is the regularly recurring, all-purpose rationale for government intervention in markets. Market failure is defined as consumers' not buying what liberals are selling. Liberals often seem to want to protect us from having too much choice as if Americans are too stupid to sort through an excess of information. They want to limit choice in education or for Social Security or Medical Savings Accounts. They thought that the new Medicare drug program would be too confusing for seniors, but they seemed to have managed just fine. I believe that people can manage to figure out which news sources they can listen to without the government trying to ration the commentary according to some mystical measurment of fairness. Labels: Media posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:42 PM 0 comments Comments: George Will has quite a good column on the so-called Fairness Doctrine and how the Democrats want to bring it back so that they can limit conservative talk radio. Some illiberal liberals are trying to restore the luridly misnamed Fairness Doctrine, which until 1987 required broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to presenting fairly each side of a controversial issue. The government was empowered to decide how many sides there were, how much time was reasonable and what was fair. By trying to again empower the government to regulate broadcasting, illiberals reveal their lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and their disdain for consumer sovereignty—and hence for the public. The illiberals' transparent, and often proclaimed, objective is to silence talk radio. Liberals strenuously and unsuccessfully attempted to compete in that medium—witness the anemia of their Air America. Talk radio barely existed in 1980, when there were fewer than 100 talk shows nationwide. The Fairness Doctrine was scrapped in 1987, and today more than 1,400 stations are entirely devoted to talk formats. Conservatives dominate talk radio—although no more thoroughly than liberals dominate Hollywood, academia and much of the mainstream media. Will traces the history of the Fairness Doctrine and how politicians from the Kennedy to the Nixon administration used it to target their political opposites. Reagan got rid of in in 1987 and talk radio blossomed. And the liberals can't stand that because they haven't been able to match conservative success in that medium. With the cornucopia of information that is out there for news consumers from the internet to satellite radio to cable TV. We don't need some government organization to try to measure opinion and figure out how much time should be devoted to each flavor of ideology. Some of today's illiberals say that media abundance, not scarcity, justifies the Fairness Doctrine: Americans, the poor dears, are bewildered by too many choices. And the plenitude of information sources disperses "the national campfire," the cozy communitarian experience of the good old days (for liberals), when everyone gathered around—and was dependent on—ABC, NBC and CBS. "I believe we need to re-regulate the media," says Howard Dean. Such illiberals argue that the paucity of liberal successes in today's radio competition—and the success of Fox News—somehow represent "market failure." That is the regularly recurring, all-purpose rationale for government intervention in markets. Market failure is defined as consumers' not buying what liberals are selling. Liberals often seem to want to protect us from having too much choice as if Americans are too stupid to sort through an excess of information. They want to limit choice in education or for Social Security or Medical Savings Accounts. They thought that the new Medicare drug program would be too confusing for seniors, but they seemed to have managed just fine. I believe that people can manage to figure out which news sources they can listen to without the government trying to ration the commentary according to some mystical measurment of fairness. Labels: Media posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:42 PM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment