Heirs of Liberty Press

Localism: Fairness Doctrine Renamed

Suzan Tisdale, Columnist

In addition to providing local news, raising billions of dollars for charities around the country, informing voters, and acting as a lifeline in times of emergency or crisis, radio stations are businesses. They are in business to make money. There isn't a damned thing wrong with that. Do you go to work every day just to feel better about yourself? Or do you go to work so you can earn a living and take care of your families?

They can change the name and call it whatever they want to, but the current administration is trying to squeeze through the back door what they can't get in through the front.* This administration has become infamous for changing the names of things to make them sound better or different. Take terrorist acts and change it to man-made disasters. Or the swine flu to porcine induced influenza or H1N1. Kind of just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? It doesn't matter what you call a pig, or even if you slap some lipstick and a cute hat on it; it's still just a smelly pig.

I am referring to the Fairness Doctrine. Although they may have changed its name or perhaps have dropped that doctrine all together and substituted it with a completely new strategy, the end result and intent are the same; shut up the conservatives and get them off the airwaves.

The new game in town is called localization. Simply put a radio station could only broadcast those shows that are coming directly from their own broadcast booths. That would mean if you wanted to listen to Rush, you'd have to go to Florida to hear it. Or if you wanted to listen to Glenn or Sean, again, it would require a trip to New York. Sure, we could attempt to listen to these programs over the Internet but I'm sure that if there is a will within this current administration, they will find a way to halt that as well.

The FCC’s 2008 proposals to substantially increase localism requirements included: (1) requiring broadcasters to establish permanent community advisory boards to discern the needs of their communities; (2) the adoption of renewal application processing guidelines based on the content of stations’ programming; and (3) burdensome changes to rules about the location and staffing of stations’ studios.

Simply put, the government would appoint community advisory boards to tell the radio stations what the needs are of the community. Sounds like a job for ACORN to me. It doesn't matter what the ratings tell them; it doesn't matter what the advertisers tell them. Additionally, there would be rules regarding where and who would be staffing the stations' studios. Perhaps we could get Tim Geithner to head this one up too?

If there were any commentators, celebrities, or entertainers out there that had a liberal agenda or platform that could pull in the audience numbers or the bucks that Hannity, Beck or Rush pulls in they would be on the air right now.*If there were such a person or persons with the liberal agenda that could give any of the conservative commentators a run for their money, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Why do you suppose there isn't anyone like that, anyone on the air with a liberal agenda or message that has the audience or ratings that Rush, Sean or Glenn have? Could it be that these men are as popular as they are for a reason? Could it be that the majority of Americans want to hear these people? Is it because their messages resound with the American public? Is it because these men are saying what we all believe and hold to be true?
The liberal left already has 99% of the television airwaves. Just look at MSNBC or CNN for instance. They have undoubtedly the most liberally bent moderators -I can't find it in my heart to call them journalists- out there. CBS, NBC, and ABC aren't far behind. They all get a tingle up their legs at the mere mention of Obama's name.

I believe the current administration is afraid. They're afraid that Americans have awoken from their long, apathetic slumber. Americans are becoming more educated, more aware, more in tune and in touch with everything going on around them. Part of that is due to the good work that people like Rush, Sean and Glenn do every day. If the current administration weren't afraid, they wouldn't be pushing for localization or for the Fairness Doctrine. If they weren't afraid of us, the American people, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The National Broadcasters Association's position states that "The FCC’s localism proposals would impose a significant financial hardship on all broadcasters, with little tangible benefit to the public. With ever increasing market pressures, new localism rules are unnecessary because without locally-oriented programming, broadcasters will not survive. If the new rules are adopted, they will represent a significant reversal of FCC precedent. In the early 1980s, even before broadcasters faced serious competition from cable, satellite and the Internet, the FCC determined that many similar regulatory requirements were an unnecessary burden that did not promote the public interest. Today’s communications marketplace is dynamically competitive and local broadcasters face market pressure both from within the broadcasting industry and from other media."

Fairness. We have to have social fairness. We have to have fairness in justice. Economic fairness. Climate fairness. Fairness, fairness, fairness. Is it fair that we have to have this stuff crammed down our throats every time we turn around? Is it fair that the government can come in and tell us what we can listen to?

The first Amendment to the constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a*redress of grievances. *

If localism or the Fairness Doctrine isn't in direct violation of the First Amendment, I don't know what the heck is.