« Wars over, but troops remain | Main | Control deer herds with hunts »

November 28, 2008

Fairness Doctrine unnecessary

I would like to respond to those who would like to see the Fairness Doctrine reinstated so that there can be regulation of certain programs or talk-show hosts who happen to have a differing opinion other than their own.

Whenever people complained about a new TV show that might contain offensive content, they were told to deal with it and change the channel or turn the TV off if they didn’t like it. So I say to you the same thing. Deal with it.

Why is it so hard to change the radio station or turn it off completely? Have you ever heard of putting in a CD or a cassette? Why not invest in a satellite radio? You can find plenty of news and talk radio to your liking there.

Talk radio, just like TV shows, news channels and the newspaper, is driven by ratings. If you turn it off, change the channel or quit subscribing to it, it will go away on its own without the unnecessary regulation of the Fairness Doctrine.

Kellis Miller

Blue Springs



Rightwing radio is only popular because conservatives are typically old, retired people sitting around all day with nothing to do but complain or listen to radio that only knows how to complain.

Lefties are busy working with no free time for idle pursuits like listening to talk radio.

This, as much as anything, explains the popularity of rightwing talk radio.

Back in the days of the Fairness Doctrine, I remember KMBZ weekend mornings were filled with community related content. Today, KMBZ weekend mornings are filled with "magic colon cleanser" and "how to get rich in the stock market" infomercials.

For that reason alone, please bring back the Fairness Doctrine.


The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than an attempt by one side to force the other side to "include them", even though in this medium, they can't seem to support themselves. Air America is hanging on by a thread, and liberals hate the fact that blowhards like Rush seem to make money hand over fist.

Fortunately, I think Jim is right. The only people screaming about the Fairness Doctrine right now are the republicans. Let's hope that should it hit the national stage and real debate begin, Obama remembers his current opposition.

BTW - The interstate example doesn't work, unless we start leasing portions of them for the exclusive use of certain companies. If you wan't to make sure that everyone has "use", quit leasing them out (doubtful, considering the $$$ the FCC makes by doing this) and operate all frequencies as open-access.


The "fairness doctrine" is feared because, as demonstrated by Air America, very few want to listen to liberal talk radio. If stations must give it equal time, they will have few listeners and fewer advertisers for those periods. They won't be able to afford this, so they will be forced to cut down on talk radio. And this is what Pelosi, Reid, et al really want. They don't need liberal talk radio, they have all the other media. They want conservative talk radio off the air.


Yes Air America is privately funded, just like am radio. Difference is AAR is owned by liberals, and conservatives have bought out am radio (as well as most of the rest of our media).

The market doesn't determine what programming is aired, the OWNERS do.


RB - Is Air America privately funded?


Jim - I hope what you wrote is true. If so, then I agree, its a non-issue. However, rjr and RBeigher's tyrannical expressions concern me.


Rbeigher - I can't speak for Engineer, but go for it. I'm always on the look out for liberal opinions that don't sound like they were expressed by a 10th grader or somebody who just read "that" chapter in Econ class. So far, the only liberal writer that I've found that exceed those expectations is Camille Paglia.

I'm all for liberals expressing their opinions. If they want radio shows and can come up with the funds to pay the costs, then nothing is stopping them. Perhaps they'll have more success in the coming four years.


Engineer claims that liberals are not able to do well on radio. Well tell that to Rachelle Maddow who did so well that she now has her own TV news talk show. Al Franken was a regular on Air America until he decided to run for the Senate. He certainly can hold his own with any con-servative. There were many good talk show personalities on Air America who are still talking on radio programs around the country. Engineer is afraid to hear the truth and to hear his B.S. artists have to respond to a challenge.


Why are the so-called conservatives so afraid of the Fairness Doctrine? The fairness doctrine requires equal time; that time can be shared time. Conservatives do not control the radio because that is all that listeners want to hear; it is because conservatives own the radio stations and networks. Advertisers want to support someone who shares their philosophy; they want to shut out opposing voices.

I guarantee that if the "Liberals" owned the stations and networks, con-servatives would want the Fairness Doctrine and would throw fits if they didn't have it.

Advertising on right-wing radio should be considered as political donations to the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh makes 50 million a year to talk Republican propaganda on the radio seven days a week. Every dollar of his salary should be considered a donation to the Republican Party, including the 100 million dollar signing bonus he got this year.

Republi-cons fear an opposing voice might challenge the right wing views they hold so dear.


Pub 17
Liberals, I assue, include the 63% of non-high school graduates who voted for Obama. Liberal talk radio can't even attract enough of this type of liberal to be ecomonically feasable. And there are those conservatives with college degrees and who have read many books who listen to talk radiol. Arminius has given some of the reasoms. Jim should look at your posts and others on this thread to understand the concern about the "fairness doctrune".

Pub 17

No, doof, liberals are much less prone to listen to AM radio to get their opinions. They read "books" and go to "college." And anyone who obtains a license can drive on I-70; it's just not necessarily in a vehicle to which they own title. If I could broadcast without owning a radio station, I'd doubtless be doing MY best to drown out Clear Channel and their ilk.


"The reason is quite simple. The airwaves belong to all of us. It is just like the national highway system. Everyone is entitled to be able to drive on I-70 not just the left wingers or right wingers or abortion nuts."

No, not everyone can drive on I-70. If you cannot afford a vehicle, you cannot drive. A talk show must be able to show it can pay for itself (unless it's subsidized like NPR's shows) before it can be aired. Liberal talk radio does not work because you can get the same views on CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and most newspapers. In addition, liberal talk radio tends to be whiny. That tends to turn off people.


"the right wing are the biggest group of hipocrites in the world, except for islamic fundamentalists, but, they're running a close second..."

What's a hipocrite? Someone smart enough to spell simple words correctly?

Pub 17

Two words: Clear Channel.

homer glasgow

the right wing are the biggest group of hipocrites in the world, except for islamic fundamentalists, but, they're running a close second...


The market is the "decider" when it comes to content.

If there are people so shallow that a talk show influences their lives we need no Fairness Doctrine, we need an idiot doctrine.(which needs no regulation, just the ability to recognize idiots)


Tell ya what - let's put liberal talk shows on our am stations for 30 days and you Rush fans can pay for satellite radio to hear him.

Yep, real fair, isn't it?

And the sad reality is Rush is on THREE TIMES A DAY. Instead of airing other shows, even liberal talk radio, they just repeat Rush.

I see nothing wrong with balance. You can turn off the station when they play something you don't like and I can (for a change) turn it on when they play a show I like. It is not fair that I have to pay for satellite radio and you don't.


"This issue is very important. It is a back-door attempt at censorship, falsely in the name of "fairness.""

No, this issue is a red herring, trumped up by Conservatives as a real threat when it isn't even being discussed by those in a position to implement it. It isn't on anyone's radar for immediate action in Congress and President-elect Obama opposes it.

So tell me, Quad Kings, how is this a real threat to anyone?

Quad Kings


The highways are public property too. You don't see one group arguing that for every truck carrying elephants across country there must be an equal number of trucks carrying donkeys (regardless of whether the donkeys are marketable).

The people promoting "fairness" on the airways through regulation are disingenuous hypocrites. Why aren't they promoting equal time for conservative news broadcasts on television airways? The news media are predominantly liberal ... Why is that fair but predominantly consevative talk-radio is not fair?

This issue is very important. It is a back-door attempt at censorship, falsely in the name of "fairness."



The reason is quite simple. The airwaves belong to all of us. It is just like the national highway system. Everyone is entitled to be able to drive on I-70 not just the left wingers or right wingers or abortion nuts.

They are MY airwaves too and I did not cede their use to any one group.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright