Equal opportunity talk? (un)fairness in broadcasting.

A movement is taking place underfoot to 'level the playing field' in the area of AM talk radio. Certain legislators backed by lobbies from the media and beyond have taken serious measures to force radio stations to give equal airtime to the liberal left, to promote their spiel, and to do so by enacting federal law. In essence "The Fairness Doctrine" championed by Senator Charles Schumer of NY, demands that if a radio station airs a conservative talk program, it must also air a liberal talk program to accomplish some sort of balance. This is supposedly because there is a preponderance of conservative talk programs broadcasting from the AM band. To date, virtually all liberal programs attempting to air have failed miserably due to lack of interest on the part of listeners or because those calling in more frequently took them to task rather than promoting their doctrine.

Schumer, responding to inquiries about his Fairness Doctrine said, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?” Oh sure, we all believe in fairness, but let's take a look at the liberal definition and logic of the issue of fairness. Quoting from an article printed in The Hill, a well established online news site, the senator elaborated, “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

This is the best logic he can come up with -- equating the limitation of public broadcasting of pornographic sleaze, to forcing an unsolicited opposing political position on an unresponsive public? Did I miss something? If I'm not mistaken, he is comparing his and his cronies' ideology to pornography. You know, I probably wouldn't take it that far, but if that's what the good senator has to say about it, I guess I will have to go along with it -- leftist liberal chatter=pornography. But seriously, how can they possibly make a connection between limiting something as offensive and destructive as pornography to superseding the citizen's right to listen to or sponsor whatever political perspective they choose.

Also quoting from The Hill, Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Isn't it the essence of free enterprise to provide for the public what they are willing to buy? If the public doesn't wish to buy their talk radio, in a normal free society the proprietor of that spiel ought to look to another public, or another medium at least to peddle their wares -- or go broke. Now the leftists want to officially subsidize their own blather on AM radio by federal decree. My question is: Since when has the Senate turned into the politburo. I guess since the benevolent Soviets failed in their attempt to impose thought control and official government compelled dialogue in Russia, our very own bolsheviks are going to force their new and improved version down our throats here in the new Obama-nation.

One last thought: Where was the the hue and cry for 'fairness' amid the major television network (mis)treatment of the candidates during the last four-year-long presidential campaign? Who was it that outspent the other candidate by more than double, who had two channels on sattelite TV bought and paid for, whose most adamant supporters and endorsers were virtually every news(?)caster and prominent spokesperson/talk show host from all of the major networks except one (FOX)? Do I detect a hint of imbalance or unfairness here? No one should begrudge anyone of their right to endorse whichever candidate they choose, but we are not talking about a simple right to endorse here; these news(?) people are swearing to be impartial, when their transparent biased commentary makes no attempt to disguise their unrequited love for the Obiden ticket as though the public were so stupid not to recognize the superficial ruse.

So we exercise our right to boycott the hypocritical TV networks and turn to talk radio to listen and find some degree of solace and straight talk. And now their gestapo has tracked us, and insist on force-telemarketing their unsolicited claptrap there too with the sanction of the federal government.

Out of here for now.

ABC The AMERICAN broadcasting corporation?

I thought I had heard everything. When I received an email claiming that ABC had a policy of prohibiting the display of the American flag by its employees and those representing the network my first thought was that it was just another hoax. It was simply unbelievable to find that it was true, but more than that, it has been their official policy since shortly after the 9-11 attack in 2001.

My question is: What possible reason could they have for such a thing? Their response is that they did not want to offend anyone. What??! Offend whom?! Has it come to this? They sell their allegiance for the country that granted them the privilege of speaking their mind without fear of reprisal, the freedom to report the news irregardless of whom it may offend? Now the flag that represents that freedom, the flag that countless patriots fought and died to defend is a source of embarrassment and shame. That somehow they may offend someone who doesn't agree with the tenets of a free society seems absurd beyond imagination. Who are these people, and to whom do they owe their allegiance?

It seems that anyone who expresses the least degree of 'patriotism' is labeled a product of inbreeding whose intellectual capacity is not sufficient to warrant any but token derisive consideration, therefore, they want no part of alluding to that appearance. Well here is my take, ABC. You have deeply offended me and I suspect anyone who still regards the flag as a symbol of the freedoms purchased by the blood of millions of selfless patriots who felt it an honor to sacrifice their lives, leaving that precious legacy to their posterity and yes, to you, ABC.

Yes, ABC has the freedom to keep the flag off those whom they employ, but I also have the freedom to express my disgust and to not subscribe to their network. I also reserve the right to persuade others to do the same.

Now we have a president elect who refuses to wear any representation of the flag and who likewise refuses to pledge allegiance to that flag. My next question is: To whom or what does he pledge his allegiance if not to the country that he will be sworn to represent and defend as our Commander in Chief? I sincerely hope that I am overstating this behavior and perhaps overreacting as well, but I don't think so. Ladies and gentlemen, this is cause for very serious concern.

More to come: The resurrection of the 'Fairness in Broadcasting' legislation proposed by the new congress.

The Obamanation of the Media

This is the first commentary on the SPUDS blog, and it comes soon after the election of a man literally sponsored and likely elected by the major media and big money the proportions of which we have never before seen in American politics. The forces behind him with their absurdly arrogant posturing as keepers of fairness, openness and nonpartisanship have breached frontiers heretofore unknown.

I had my alarm clock/radio set on the NPR station, and for the last year, every single morning I was awakened with the usual glowing commentary overflowing with unbridled praise for the good Senator Obama and his sidekick, Joe B. This was usually followed by an ample dose of subtle sneering at Senator McCain and or Governor Palin. It never took more than five seconds from the time the alarm went off for the unbiased and incorruptible commentators to proceed with the courtship of their president select in almost comical reverent tones. I suppose they could have had more to say, but it rarely took me more than ten more seconds to hit the snooze button (usually accompanied with a hearty commentary of my own).

I have purposely avoided network television for a long time, but during the ridiculously protracted campaign for the present presidency which began shortly after the last inauguration of George junior back in 2005, I limited my NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN viewing to random snippets when my lovely wife happened to have the tube tuned to one of those bastions of truth, justice, and the American way. Without fail, within the brief moments before I could reach the remote, I witnessed there too, the never ending shameless gushing of our national "news" droids in their conga line literally fighting to out-showcase each other for the Obiden cause, and likewise to out-smear the pitiful McPalin ticket.

Did you see it? If you didn't, open your eyes.

Out of time - more coming up.