Conservative Talk Radio vs. The Fairness Doctrine
--Voltaire
Yesterday,
I wrote an entry ranting about Neal Boortz' elitist attitude toward
people needing Section 8 housing. In the same broadcast where he made
those comments, he asked a question that I wish to address in this
entry.
In the segment previous to the one where he talked about Section 8, he talked about the Fairness Doctrine, a topic which strikes terror into the so-called hearts of right wing radio hosts everywhere. Boortz, along with many of his fellow ultra right wingnut pundits, believes -- or wants his readers to believe -- that liberals want the Fairness Doctrine in order to censor conservative talk radio and get them off the air.
I don't know where they get that idea from, as freedom of speech and hatred of censorship are beliefs that are central to liberalism. Rather than silencing conservative voices, liberals seek to see a broader representation of all opinions on talk radio. For us, it's not an either/or thing, it's a both/and thing. Personally, I'd hate to see them leave the air, as listening to these wingnuts gives me a lot of rant-worthy blogging fodder, and it's a good way to monitor how the other side thinks.
I find much of what Boortz says to be reprehensible and repugnant, but I believe that to censor him and others of his ilk would be even more so. Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just for those with whom I agree. Americans still have the right to be wrong, just as long as they don't intefere with the rights of others to believe differently.
And this brings me to Boortz' question. I don't remember his exact words, but the gist was to the effect of wondering why liberal talk shows tend to end up as failures more times than not. This begs the question as to why conservative talk shows tend to have an easier time staying on the air and keeping listeners.
It's very simple. Unlike the average liberal talk show host, most conservative talk show hosts are not about civilized, reasoned debate; they specialize in low blows and ad hominem attacks. Boortz, in particular, takes great glee in being a jerk on air and rude to people with whom he disagrees, proudly referring to himself as an "equal opportunity offender".
In other words, they appeal to people's basest instincts, the lowest common denominator. They invite listeners to indulge their prejudices, justify their hate, and to blame "the Other" for their frustrations.
Conversely, most liberal pundits try to appeal to people's higher selves, to tolerate and learn to understand those who are different from ourselves, and challenge people to use complex reasoning when confronting complicated issues, and to rise above simplistic, dualistic, knee-jerk responses to troubling issues.
For many people, having to think and rise above isn't nearly as much fun as simply trashing people who are different from us and to make them the scapegoats for all the problems facing our world today.
Hence, conservative talk radio has a much easier time gaining and keeping listeners than does liberal talk radio.
Thoughts?
My Groups
-
The Thinking Man Updated: 27 minutes ago
-
Freethinkers Updated: 46 minutes ago
-
Science Updated: 1 hour ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
There have been a couple of extreme right wing political parties here in Oz that grew almost overnight spouting nothing but a culture of blame. They imploded almost as quickly because their supporters had no tolerance to those who disagreed.
Really? Remember political correctness?
My issue with the fairness doctrine is that it only makes sure that the left and the right are heard. What about the communists, libertarians, socialists, constitutionalists, anarchists, etc.? Where is their "fairness"? And what is fair about the government controlling a privately owned business?
I can go on and on but as a libertarian, I find the name "Fairness" to be total bullshit.
It's kind of funny that the right wingers are now so upset over perceived slights to the First Amendment. The same folks crying over the "fairness doctrine" are the first ones calling for heads to roll over Janet Jackson's nipple, bashing the ACLU for fundraising efforts, for opposing comprehensive sex education, for banning books, even at the university level. (There was an attempt to have a book banned at Clemson University last year by conservatives).
Don't get me wrong, some people on the far left go way overboard with the idea of "political correctness", but this isn't really a classic liberal idea. The original idea was to bring some civility back to civil discourse, but as is common of people everywhere, some went overboard with it. That said, I think we have to spend more effort defending the First Amendment from the right than from the left.
Note: "YOU are not a liberal. Not anykind of liberal." This was not intended towards you personally in any way!! It referred to Sean Hannity, the James Carville clone Mark Levin, news media, college professors, too numerous to mention and all those like them . But this, the idea that "Modern Liberalism' exists is a fraud. The purpose is to hide what they really are. Philosophically authortarian and politically socialist...The KING by another name, is the most important point. Emotion, (not intended) in my writing is a compliment in some ways, because most, if not all, complain of no emotion or feel to my poor writing ability. Emotion, and a felling of being there, is something that I admire in your posts.
I do think you make a dinstinction between Randi Rhoads types, who would be, in error, reffered to as liberals and Boortz types, reffered to as conservatives, that is not really there. They both sell a version of liberal and conservative that is just not accurate, for political purpose.