Since Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006, they've been hot to muzzle talk radio (they know Rush Limbaugh was largely responsible for the 1994 Republican Revolution) by reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine that Ronald Reagan did away with.
That effort was successfully blocked last year, but we we knew they'd be back.
National Review says the Left is still working on the Fairness Doctrine, only repackaged under a new name: localism.
In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” that cleverly recasts the Fairness Doctrine as “localism” by stating that “any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism.”
The center’s report also urged quotas by race and sex for radio-station ownership, because a survey of all “10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.”
So what would that look like and how would it work?
What does “cultural diversity” mean in practice? One witness at an FCC localism hearing actually complained that a “population of 60,000 Somali Americans” in Minneapolis-St. Paul were forced to get by with a mere “10 regularly-produced TV series on vocational training, acculturation, health education and other topics of vital importance” accounting for “approximately 20 hours of programming a week . . . because the community is not deemed to be a viable market.”
This cultural diversity is to be enforced by professional ethnic activists and other perpetual malcontents: All “licensees should convene and consult with permanent advisory boards.” These advisory boards “should include representatives of all segments of the community.”
Basically, a vocal group of a particular ideological bent or "identity group" could dictate programming on local radio stations--regardless of whether such programming is marketable. In other words, while people can now "vote" for or against programming with their purchasing dollars in conjunction with advertising dollars, the listening public will now have programming forced on them whether it's financially viable or not, whether they want to hear it or not. The diversity mandate will require the broadcast of material whether anyone outside a small but vocal constituency wants to hear it or not.
Since there are only so many hours in a day, forcing new programming onto the air waves will force other programming off, to make room. What will go? Perhaps the point-of-view programming that offends these vocal groups?
Rather than start their own radio station and develop the marketability of their own programming, liberals are forcing radio stations to offer their drivel whether anyone wants to hear it or not.
Actually, they tried going the "free market" route with Air America, which was a colossal flop. So now they want to use the power of government to regulate free speech.
The last time I checked, that was prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. But then, what does that matter anymore?
0 comments:
Post a Comment