The Unfairness Doctrine

Life is unfair.

I happen to agree with a character from Babylon 5 in his summation of why this is good and this is a paraphrase... "Imagine if we actually DESERVED all of these horrible things that happen to us and life was fair! I for one welcome the general hostility of the universe" - Marcus

So now on to the Fairness doctrine:

Whenever a liberal/progressive/socialist/whatever label is attached for identity purposes speaks about "fairness" what they are actually saying is that they want to force themselves into a market that they could not get into otherwise/ want to make it harder on those who are successful to stay successful because of jealousy or ideological differences.

The fairness doctrine is intolerant: It forces radio stations to balance content ideologically regardless of what makes money. FYI NPR is "balanced" to the left and it makes no money. Radio America that syndication station that Al Gore and others started to 'counter' the conservative talk radio shows failed miserably with multiple money raising scandals including misappropriating funds from a Boy Scout Troop.

The fact that they couldn't compete in an open market restarted the idea that they ought to force their point of view on the air in the name of "fairness". It isn't fair, it is distinctly unfair to force programming upon a private industry that largely consists of family safe programming...more so than TV.

They are jealous to the point of disgust or hatred amongst the rabid. And so they ask themselves "if they can do it why can't we?"

They then answer themselves within their own ideology..." its those damned big corporations keeping us down "

The fact is that they ran their stations like a damned charity and it never ever ever ever made money because they were not entertaining and couldn't sell advertising revenue.

So now they seek to limit the free expression of those who CAN sell advertising and entertain radio listeners. It is a simple plan to remove any free speech that they don't approve of.

Then they talk about accountability:

What responsibility (if any) do radio stations have to 'balance'* the content going out over their transmitters and riding upon the (and here's the clincher) public air waves.

The answer, aside from keeping the programming generally decent, is to let the listening public decide what they want to hear. Radio stations do extensive surveying of their public and determine what to carry based on the market. Some Democrats believe that they have an additional responsibility to be a mouth piece for the DNC. This is based upon a flawed perception that it is currently a mouthpiece for the RNC (which it is not) None of the top 3 Talk Show hosts are registered Republicans...and republican congressmen seldom vote how those in talk radio would like. And that is why it is entertaining.

Rush Limbaugh puts callers that disagree with him on at the head of the line over those that will just agree with him...because it isn't entertaining to have someone agree with you...its just bad radio.

Glenn Beck does the same and Sean Hannity I believe has the most people on from the opposing point of view of any host...even letting a liberal guest host for him on vacation.

Here's the thing: The fairness doctrine it made AM radio suck for a long time (1949-1987).

from Wiki "In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[11] The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional."

Here...an honest quote also from wikipedia citing Senator Tom Harkin:

A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "..we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back."

So the only reason they want it is to FORCE their point of view on the public because they aren't entertaining enough to make enough money even to subsist the program much less make a profit.

It is stupid, selfish, unconstitutional, and lame. I live in one of the most left of center states in this country and Rush Limbaugh is on the air, a local host proceeds him and it is followed by Dennis Miller. All three are relatively conservative with Rush being the king of em all. There is no clamor in any station here to get rid of Rush. The reason that these shows are successful isn't just their point of view. It is how they present it, in a format that is entertaining and (most importantly to the broadcaster) profitable.

It would be unfair to artificially lower the profitability of an entire industry just because you can't come up with a good idea Democrats.

Really Mr Krugman?

As seen HERE Paul Krugman continues to fellate Barak H. Obama. Why "temporary government spending increases are good". See what he FAILS to see is that this isn't temporary...this is continuing the never stopping increases in government spending...and we aren't talking about just keeping up with inflation or repairing a single bridge or stretch of highway.

Government spending since the inception of the income tax in 1913 has never decreased. Any time there has been a shortfall of revenue from TAX RECEIPTS the government has gone out and BORROWED MONEY from PRIVATE BANKS AND SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS in addition to issuing treasury bonds.

Now one of the chief criticisms leveled at former President George W. Bush was that he exploded federal deficit spending. You can read all about that HERE and that is by Paul Krugman as well. President Obama has not stated how this will be paid for...not it won't stimulate teh ecoomy to 1.14 trillion in additional tax revenue much less GDP as all it does is redistribute wealth and give away money for sex education programs and union payoff's a la the Davis-Bacon provision in Obama's Huge and Stimulating Package. You can read details of it HERE.

This stimulus plan is not a one time thing. Obama has already said he wants to spend much more of taxpayers money on government projects including socialized healthcare.

Paul Krugman believes whatever is appropriate for the time and has no real core values or beliefs. He is a classic Progressive/Fascist because he believes that government should do everything just because he thinks it can. He would call himself a pragmatist, but that is just salesmanship. It is a line that is the same as "its for the children" or some other emotionally appealing line of argumentation that doesn't hold up to fiscal scrutiny much less consistency internally.

The "Because Milton Friedman Says It, Then It Must Be True Because I Usually Disagree With Him, And I Agree With Him Because it is My Candidate that Won and I am A Hack Journalist."

Go pound sand Mr. Krugman.