The Crisis of Democracy

[Herb Schaffler]

A new study has found that the three major networks morning news programs, that you accuse of being corporate Republican networks, David, have had 254 Democrat guests on their programs versus 146 Republicans. Would you support on the basis of the fairness doctrine that these networks should have an even number of Democrat and Republican guests? I wouldn't because that would be a violation of free speech and freedom of the press. If people don't like what is being presented as news, they can turn it off or switch channels as I do. I haven't watched the news on the main three networks since the late 60's because of their left wing bias and it isn't a myth that the mainstream news media on television is biased to the left. Edith Efron did a study of news coverage on the mainstream news during the 1968 election. She calculated the number of minutes of positive and negative information presented on the air about Nixon and Humprey and found much more positive information about Humprey and far more negative information about Nixon. Conservative talk radio and Fox News have developed in response to the left wing bias on televisoin. This is good because it gives people an alternative to the leftist news reporting from the mainstream news media. We don't need a fairness doctrine. If the public doesn't like the coverage of the mainstream news media, they can always turn to conservative talk radio or Fox News or a conservative source on the internet like Newsmax. Before conservative talk radio, Fox News, and the internet, people could get their news from conservative magazines like National Review and Human Events. Where there is a need, the free market will provide it, there is no need for a fairness doctrine. Also, there are more than two points of view. There are at least 4 main political points of view: conservative, liberal, libertarian, and populist. Should we be allowing extra time for all these points of view? On the Iraq war there are those who want to escalate it, those who want an immediate withdrawal, those who want a gradual withdrawal, those who support the war but don't agree with the way the Bush administration is running it. Should we give equal time to all those various viewpoints? You can find numerous points of view on almost every issue. I see the fairness doctrine as opening a big can of worms.

[lenahan]

Originally Posted by DavidYeah

Herb: But the radio waves are different. They are owned by the American people and used by companies. If Americans, through the representatives, determine that the public airwaves should express a diversity of opinions, your business is #### out of luck. Hire some lobbyists while you can (before they're banned, of course). The airwaves are part of the public commons and are completely open to any manner of reform we see fit. It's a shame that media consolidation has put the vast majority of stations in the hands of a minority of operators who care not for diversity of opinion but for profits.

lenahan: There are liberal stations all over the country; I think the same should occur with them if or when they grow and have higher frequency levels. They should have a diversity of opinions on their stations. I think this should be done to prevent left wing talk from creating a sort of one party rule, given that one day liberal talk overtakes conservative talk in the ratings down the road, which is not impossible as you all may think. The younger generation is developing democratic/liberal/progressive points of view, and I fear they will try to go too far in time.

The internet, as I've already stated, is still a beacon of hope for diversity of opinion that will hopefully maintain a constant balance of expressed points of view, but anti-net neutrality efforts could result a sort of "bandwidth" consolidation that would reflect what occured with newspapers and radio and certainly television.

I dont think you understand. The airwaves do belong to the pubic, yes. And the public gets what they want. Rush Limbaugh is the #1 listened to radio talk show, and why is that? Because people like to listen to him. If they wanted to hear, say Alan Colmes more, he would be number 1. You can't force a private organization to put anything on they don't waht to. they would but on a liberal if they wanted to hear him. the end.