Last week, conservative talk radio host Michael Savage was dropped from his “flagship” radio station. A representative of his former station blogged, “we have decided to go in a different philosophical and ideological direction, featuring more contemporary content and more local information. ‘The Savage Nation’ does not fit into that vision.”
Yet again, the ebb-and-flow of free people proves that the Fairness Doctrine and localism regulations are not necessary. Savage is the third-most popular talk show host in the country, with over eight million viewers – and he is still vulnerable to it. I’m certain he will find another station to host him, and he won’t do it by crying to the government, as liberals have done over newspapers (a traditional liberal bastion) and their own radio stations. Say what you want about Savage – maybe he’ll be off the air for good. Or maybe not. Either way, this is not a game the government has a need or right to get involved in, because of a little thing called the First Amendment. As George Will said on Sunday regarding McCain-Feingold regulations: “For James Madison, 10 words sufficed: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” It’s that simple.
10 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Sep 14, 2009 at 8:32 am
he won’t do it by crying to the government, as liberals have done over newspapers (a traditional liberal bastion)
I don’t understand this comparison. A congressman trying to find some path to keeping newspapers, which are dying out across the country, victims of changing technology, available in many outlets where they may be becoming exinct is somehow partisan?
2 Forde // Sep 14, 2009 at 10:15 am
Has a specific journalist asked for his column to be subsidized by the federal government? If not then this is a very poorly reasoned article.
Guys, I like the site but it needs more long form well reasoned and sourced articles and less of the drive by “we’re better than they are” snippets. I can go to redstate for that if I cared to.
3 sinz54 // Sep 14, 2009 at 10:34 am
If newspapers can only survive if those who purchase them get a tax deduction (!!!), as Ben Cardin proposes, then they ought to die.
Reporters and journalists should be well aware that as soon as the Government steps in with any kind of favor, whether it’s tax deductions or direct subsidies, sooner or later that will come with strings on the money. They should not like being dependent on Government favors for ANY support.
The Government has used that trick to force private organizations that get special tax breaks to admit women (remember the fight over The Citadel?), and now to tell General Motors how to run its business and even who it can have as its CEO.
For Ben Cardin’s information, we don’t get a tax deduction for watching PBS programs. It’s directly funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which in turn is funded by Congress), and by voluntary contributions by viewers.
Now if newspapers can survive off direct contributions by wealthy readers, the way PBS does, more power to them.
4 Bill_Bowman // Sep 14, 2009 at 10:40 am
Wow.
First of all, radio stations have listeners, not viewers. A little copy editing goes a long way, folks.
Secondly, what does the First Amendment have to do with syndicated radio programming? Is the author arguing that the First Amendment guarantees us all a radio program? If so, then sign me up for my three-hour slot.
5 sinz54 // Sep 14, 2009 at 10:41 am
balconesfault:
Of course it is.
Because if the DEMOCRATIC PARTY passes this bill, saving all these newspapers from the brink of failure, how can those newspapers then be trusted to maintain their objectivity? Are they really going to do investigative reporting or adversarial journalism on the political party that just saved them from extinction? Most likely they will go easy on the Dems from then on, knowing that what favors the Dems provide, they can also take away.
For a newspaper, whose bread-and-butter is objective reporting, to be beholden to one political party and the favors it hands out to save it from extinction is a blatant conflict of interest.
6 Forde // Sep 14, 2009 at 11:14 am
What is the central argument of this article ? Is that industry shouldn’t be subsidized? If so then make that argument, farmers will be real happy. This is an okay first draft of an article I lol forward to the followup
7 mickster99 // Sep 15, 2009 at 1:07 am
I disagree with your belief that Market Economics as an effective counterweight to large corporate media empires such as Rupert Murdoch is building. The public airwaves are judged to be owned by the American people and are regulated for appropriate content (FEC) and for-bid bandwidth licensing.
I lived as a young adult when the Fairness doctrine was in place. That was a time when a local news broadcaster and/or radio/tv manager/owner spouted a 3 minute opinion during the 6 oclock news hour and felt obliged to provide airtime for alternative points of view. We also got to see full-color videos of combat footage from Vietnam including american body bags lined up neatly in a row. Which obviously is far, far different business proposition now as we become a Murdoch Nation of cable/radio news 24/7. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. And still is both.
8 SFTor1 // Sep 15, 2009 at 2:49 am
The European model is to have newspapers, at least some, supported by the major political parties. That way you know the slant going in, and they can compete for credibility. It’s a sobering exercise, it appears.
All I know is that a daily newspaper holds information that is far richer than any radio or television broadcast, and far exceeds the information density that is available online. We will become less informed without daily newspapers.
Something to think about.
9 jabbermule // Sep 17, 2009 at 9:09 am
“Are they really going to do investigative reporting or adversarial journalism on the political party that just saved them from extinction? Most likely they will go easy on the Dems from then on…”
Actually, the vast majority of newspapers have always gone easy on the Dems – that’s why the Dems want to save them from extinction. Of course this is a partisan move…anybody who doesn’t see that is a blind partisan themselves.
10 New Hampshire Doesn’t Need The Fairness Doctrine | thelobbyist // Nov 18, 2009 at 9:45 am
[...] reaction from influential New Hampshireites to shut him down as quickly as possible, and it proves yet again that the Fairness Doctrine, localism and other government controls over media are not necessary to [...]
You must log in to post a comment.