Too bad.

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

It’s been such a good talk radio topic!

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine — a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

In my opinion, it would be good for talk radio, and good for conservatives, if the Democrats would be dumb enough to go after talk radio with a revivial of the Fairness Doctrine. That would be the sort of thing that would get folks organized, mobilized and energized.

The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.

I think they’ve just been messing with us, but others suspect a stealth attack – recreating the Fairness Doctrine without calling it that.

Just as pink was the new black and The Backstreet Boys were the new New Kids on the Block, the FCC is now turning “Localism” into the new Fairness Doctrine.

With the dominance of syndicated program, talk radio lacks a local perspective, goes this theory – and the FCC would attack the success of hosts like Savage, Rush and Hannity by requiring local stations to carry more local programming. This is from trade journal Radio and Records:

An Alarm: Radio programmer Brian Jennings writes that the White House claiming to have no intention of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine isn’t the whole story. He says the mainstream media never reports on plans for the new version of the legislation. “It’s called localism and diversity of ownership and it’s the Fairness Doctrine in new clothes.” He says the Democrats’ plans include programming advisory boards, tougher licensing requirements, and any other means they can “achieve what they would love to implement – the Fairness Doctrine.”

Of course, that wouldn’t necessarily force balanced views onto a specific station covering a specific topic, as the Fairness Doctrine would do. And it might be a good thing for talk radio, creating slots for more local talent to be developed.

One Response to “Unfairness”

  1. 1 Candace from Illinois

    The dominance of syndicated programming is due to radio companies losing their shirts because of bad management decisions. They can’t afford local talent, thus syndication. It’s much easier for Democrats to go after syndicated national shows because the focus of those shows is national. Had the “suits” in radio been more audience focused and less obsessed with lining pockets of the owners, there would be no “fairness doctrine” talk and radio popularity would have soared, bringing in the profits. Under an audience focus ( not those ridiculous hotel radio focus groups), there would be plenty of local as well as some syndicated offerings. Democrats would have regarded radio as The Untouchable. Instead, we are settling for a Fairness Doctrine Lite when we shouldn’t have to settle for anything less than what we want-audience driven radio with the hosts and content that we desire to hear and that easily sells commercial time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: