A simple reply to the hysteria surrounding the Fairness Doctrine

Long-term contract.

We had a little bit of a discussion on the blog yesterday about the plans those evil Democrats have to pull your favorite squawkers off the air. Now you can live in the comfort of knowing that at least 620WTMJ radio isn’t concerned about any government intervention in the foreseeable future. (Granted we’re left panting over the exact number of years we’ll be blessed with Mr. Syke’s leadership. He’s promised to say more about it all today.)

Of course, logically, the signing of such a long agreement pretty much precludes Mr. Sykes from squawking about his future, doesn’t it? I’d rather expect he shouldn’t fear monger this subject any more. It would be inconsistent for a sophisticated business operation to offer such a contract if they were concerned about the future independence of the airwaves.


  1. Tinkerbell says:

    Dear Cindy,
    Understanding the reversal of laws already occuring and the impacts of these on our society, it is not hysteria to contemplate the likelihood of a scenario to reinstate the fairness doctrine.

    The present administration relies upon having the majority lulled into complacency. If you aid and abet them, you lose your effectiveness as a watchdog and pundit.

    As also discussed yesterday, commercial enterprise can be effectively used to silence dissent, by convincing advertisers it is not in their best interests to patronize certain media. This type of covert bullying tactic (akin to blacklisting) happens more frequently than some might like to acknowledge.

    No hysteria here. Just a careful watch, and a firm resolve to not help those who would “divide and conquer” conservatives.

    Perhaps if the gov’t takes over all communications we shall need to learn morse code and pound it out on drums!

  2. Tink-

    You’re right about the “divide and conquer” strategies. It is used by BHO’s pal Bill Ayers to set off his “bombs” from within the establishment inside of from the outside during his younger, hippie days. I’m sure that BHO, being the scholar that he is, took note.

  3. Oh, Tink, I think you’re wrong. One can certainly look out for the bad in today’s governmental environment without resorting to grandstanding and name calling. Losing such poor characteristics does not diminish the effectiveness of the work effort.

    Again, you are assigning fear to things that only could be. It’s exactly the same tactic you say you despise, only you are using it!

    An asteroid could hit the planet in 15 seconds. Go be afraid of that instead.

  4. Tinkerbell says:

    Cindy, it is good to be a watchdog and pundit without grandstanding and name calling. I agree. No need then, to call commentors hysterical.

    I do not feel “fear” fairness doctrine any more than I “fear” a pothole and make a plan in advance to avoid it.

    Asteroids are not a good analogy to this. With current laws overturned, there is precedent. We do not have a similar history with asteroids.

    But just in case someone is feeling a bit of heat (not asteroid induced), I will whistle a diversionary tune and back away from this subject. Then those who are fearful may feel calm.

  5. Cindy, Charlie’s contract notwithstanding, the reemergence of the fairness doctrine would be the end of talk radio as we know it. The shows would have to change in such a way as to make them non entertaining, unprovocative, and uninteresting.

    Government monitors/auditors/employees would have to field complaints of bias and determine the appropriate course of action. Over the air raido would be reduced to whacky morning shows and music.

    Now, that may be your preference, as many people do not like to listen to what they refer to as ‘squawk’ radio. But for those of us, who occasionally, or often, listen to talk radio shows, reinstitution of the fairness doctrine would mark the end of the format.

    Congrats to Charlie for his stimulus package. But that’s not a sign that the fairness doctrine is on the horizon.

  6. Cindy,
    Should you be forced to give an alternate view on your blog in the name of fairness? Of course not, it’s your blog, your opinion. Same goes for radio talk shows; their show, their opinion. Your intense dislike for the medium taints your view of the Fairness Doctrine and what the left wants to use it for. Had Air America been successful, the Fairness Doctrine would not be of any interest to this President or those in Congress. The easy answer is to simply use the on/off button.

  7. This is silly. Cindy didn’t say she was ok with the idea, she said the idea is unlikely to implemented.

  8. Julie – I am not forced to allow opposing opinions, but I do. In fact, I just did. 🙂

    Had Air America been successful, a Republican would still be president. In which direction has the Republican party gone with the success of right-sided squawkers?

    They are welcome to do whatever they like to make a living. But, if by offering my opinion I might suggest that the emperor’s bum is showing, just maybe someone else will turn these guys off so we can rebuild the Republican party.

  9. So, you are saying that talk radio is the reason for the Republican party’s downfall? Now I know your distain for talk radio has clouded your judgement.
    The existing politicians in the party have managed to mess things up all on their own. Using talk radio as a scape goat for lack of true conservative leadership is getting old.

  10. Julie –

    1) It’s not the “Conservative Party;” it’s the “Republican Party.”

    2) You can disagree with me freely. There’s no reason to question my judgement.

    3) Though you seem well trained, you left out the very important “pregnant pause” as you were demanding your point be taken.

  11. Randy in Richmond says:

    What’s wrong with the Republican Party is not the fault of talk radio. When the party turns to the middle, as it did with Bob Dole and John McCain, it loses elections. Bush I could also be placed in this category. When their already elected Senators and Congressmen(women) try to be like, or placate, the Democrats, they lose.
    I disagree with Cindy because I enjoy listening to Rush and to Laura Ingrahm. The Speaker of the House has said she wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and her power and position give the idea enough credence to at least get my attention. Obviously when one uses words like hysteria, fear mongers, grandstanding , name calling, and fear it means they have very strong feelings about the issue. But I do not believe Air America’s existence or non-existence decided who our President is today.

  12. Yes, Nancy Pelosi saying it is reason enough to pay attention. I would be happy to see her retire to private enterprise and take Mr. Reed along.

    Still, the President is opposed, the FCC chairman is opposed, the cable companies are opposed, and I imagine the broadcast stations are opposed as well. Unless we have only one or two media outlets in a given area (with more than one or two residents), or the media companies become one megacompany, there isn’t much of an argument for having such a law. It’s a straw man.

  13. Randy in Richmond says:

    I think having Obama opposed is the biggest reason it won’t go anywhere as long as he doesn’t change his mind. Satellite radio is a big proponet of bringing the dcctrine back for obvious reasons but I don’t believe they have that big a lobby.

  14. When I read your response, all I can think of is “what the h__l is she talking about?” It’s like I’m listening to Mark Belling lambasting someone for something they didn’t say at all followed by a high and mighty attitude. I must say, I do find you an interesting character.

  15. I think I’ll take that as a compliment.

    Trust me, Julie, you aren’t the first person to be offended by my willingness to hold true to my own opinion, nor I daresay will you be the last.

  16. Excellent point, Cindy.

    What I love is the fact that those who are running scared of the bogeyman of the Fairness Doctrine, are usually the same ones who decry TV news and papers as being the liberal media.

    I recently read that most guests on Sunday talking head shows are more often Republicans, yet the shows are supposed to be liberal? At least no one has gone off the deep end with a comment about the “free market” at work. That makes the F.D. v. liberal media even more of a joke.

  17. Randy in Richmond says:

    If you refuse to accept that network news, all but one cable news channel, and most major newspapers are liberal you are in denial and live in a world different from the real one.
    You fail to mention that the source of where you ‘recently read’ about the Sunday talk shows was Media Matters’, hardly a bastion of neutrality. They basically took a conclusion and formulated an argument to make their point. Much of their reasoning is based on the numerous appearances of the ‘conservative’ guests John McCain, Colin Powell, Orin Hatch, and Chuck Hagel. It’s a numbers shamnesty that would make Bernie Madoff proud. And didn’t one of those conservative guests endorse Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate while serving in that body.

  18. Offended? Hardly. You read a whole lot into what people say. You are not a polarizing figure despite your attempts. Keep digging into Brookfield politics and the school board, that is what you are good at, being offensive is not.

  19. Dear me, Julie if you weren’t offended I guess that means you’re like that all the time.

    Go ahead. Write back. It looks like the last word is important to you.

  20. Avoid the whole “liberal media” argument, here is a tangent based on: “They basically took a conclusion and formulated an argument to make their point.”

    Did anyone read “The Black Swan?” (I’ll say up front that I didn’t finish, because I got impatient with the author’s voice.) His basic premise is that the human mind is so attuned to narrative thought patterns that we do indeed filter out information that doesn’t conform to our inner narratives–sort of a built in logic failure.

  21. It will NOT be the “fairness doctrine.”

    It will be regulatory imposition of “community needs”.

    That won’t cancel Charlie. It WILL, potentially, cancel other kinds of programming and re-program TMJ/ISN by force.

  22. Randy in Richmond says:

    I’m curious about an entry you have on your site. When you say ‘that was last night’ referring to the Jan. 2nd reporting of Daschle’s $140,000+ tax bill–does that mean you reported this on Jan. 3rd? I thought this story just broke.

  23. BrkfldDad says:

    Daschle filed amended taxes on 1/2. The story though didn’t break until last night 1/30.

  24. Randy in Richmond says:

    My misunderstanding. Thanks


  1. […] also thought that long term contracts such as the one Charlie Sykes recently signed should put an end to talk about the Fairness Doctrine. I disagree, but linked because of the discussion […]