Tim's Favorite Blogs
Media Matters
Blog Directories
Thursday, February 19. 2009
The New Lie
For the past few days I’ve had writer’s block. Not so much writer’s block, but a lack of ambition. Interesting topic for naval gazing considering Rush Limbaugh just signed an eight-year contract for $400 million. Where does the old windbag get it all to go on the radio everyday and chatter? There’s gotta be days when he doesn’t feel like you doing it.Probably not many though. He’s second only to Oprah Winfrey in daily entertainers when it comes to influence and income and he is not only the king of his domain, he’s the king of the talk radio airwaves.
Good for Rush. The American economy will benefit from his being on the air, getting paid $50 million a year to talk shit on the radio. The other day he got taken to school for saying he wanted President Obama to fail; as in Rush wants the stimulus plan to fail so even more Americans lose their jobs, homes and everything we hold dear.
The one taking Rush to task: the Reverend Pat Robertson. “That was a terrible thing to say,” Robertson told U.S. News and World Report. “I mean, he’s the president of all the country. If he succeeds, the country succeeds. And if he doesn’t, it hurts us all. Anybody who would pull against our president is not exactly thinking rationally.”
Jeez, if Pat Robertson says Rush is not thinking rationally, just how off the deep end is Limbaugh? Actually, it appears the reverend is softening his tone these days, not so partisan and certainly not so venomous. But Rush has been off the deep end for a long time, since 1995 when the Republicans took control of Congress and Limbaugh thought it all had to do with him and his radio program.One shouldn’t minimize the influence of Rush Limbaugh, he has 20 million regular listeners, but he and his apologists can and do overstate Limbaugh’s influence over the American electorate. This past election proved that.
How many of those 20 mil actually vote?
Limbaugh has become the mouthpiece for the Party of No and for the likes of Limbaugh and his fellow right wing radio talkers, partisanship — extreme division — are what fuel their popularity. If he can promote and stoke the hope of President Obama and the Democrats failing, then that will ensure his popularity.
Hard to say how many friends I have who listen to Rush, but whenever they bring him up — and they always bring up Rush — I ask them if believe everything Rush says; do they take him seriously or do they think, as one friend claims, Rush is just entertainment. They dance around the answer, not wanting to commit either way, but it’s easy to find out how much stock they put into the ravings of Rush when they repeat something they heard from his radio program.
One day my friend and I were driving down the freeway and my friend said something so off the wall I was astonished. I wish I could remember the topic, but this was a while ago. It was something about either political or social policy, so after recovering my composure, I asked, “Did you hear that on Rush or Roger?”“Roger” is Roger Hedgecock, a local radio talk show guy (now syndicated nationally) who was once the mayor. He was also convicted of campaign contribution charges, but the verdict was over turned on a technicality: the judge gave the wrong instructions to the jury and there was some juror misconduct. To avoid another trial, Hedgecock agreed to a plea deal that left him convicted of a misdemeanor. After successfully completing his probation, the charge was expunged from his record. This is pertinent because now Hedgecock claims he was never convicted of anything,
My friend, while we were driving and talking, stopped for a moment and then began to explain why it didn’t have to matter where he heard it, that it was so obviously true. Sometimes you have to doggedly ask someone the same question over and over until you get the right answer — the truth: Rush Limbaugh in this case.
The point being, regardless of what people might tell you, if they listen to Rush Limbaugh — or Roger Hedgecock for that matter — they are totally in the tank for that right wing gabber and always believe what they hear from these people is gospel truth.
What brought this to my immediate attention for this venue was something being distributed by the likes of the guy in Tuesday’s post; Newsmax.com is fomenting the idea that the Democrats are about to introduce and pass the Fairness Doctrine. “What is the Fairness Doctrine,” you ask?Let me tell you! Introduced in 1949, it required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to controversial matters of public interest and the Federal Communications Commission was charged with enforcing the rule. Back in the day, radio — and especially the new medium of television — didn’t want to scare away listeners or viewers with information of import. In this time devoted to controversial matters of public interest, the broadcasters were required to present contrasting and opposing views of the controversial subject.
The broadcasters were given wide latitude in how to present the information and how to present the contrasting views, but it didn’t require the broadcasters to give all sides in a debate equal time. For that, we have the Equal Time rule, which requires broadcasters to give equal time to candidates. There are quite a few loopholes in that one which is why FOX could get away with Sean Hannity lobbing softball questions to Sarah Palin so she could beat Barack Obama over the head with her answers.
In 1987, under the direction of President Reagan and with the support of a Democrat-controlled Congress, the Fairness Doctrine was removed. Not much came of it right away, but the first “thing” we noticed — we being those of us at the old Shepherd Express Newsweekly — was this guy from Missouri called Rush Limbaugh. Without the Fairness Doctrine in place Limbaugh could be syndicated anywhere in the U.S. and the broadcasters would not be required to add another talk show host with an opposing viewpoint. It was pure gold for the radical right of the Republican Party.
Just before the elections this past November, a newsy from FOX, Bill Hemmer, asked Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) about the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine. Foolishly, Schumer gave the Hemmer an honest answer. Schumer is for it and equates it with regulating pornography on the airwaves. Here’s the clip: ClickSince that little clip, about a minute of airtime, the radical right has been all a-twitter about the Democrats stripping us of our First Amendment rights! Even if the Fairness Doctrine were instituted, gabbers like Limbaugh wouldn’t be muzzled, but the radio stations that offer Limbaugh would be required to offer the opposing viewpoint. They don’t want to do that of course because the dearth of radical right gabbers is a huge moneymaker for them. Let’s not pretend it’s about a political viewpoint, it’s about making money.
The fee for the broadcast license is minimal, it used to be free, and part of the responsibility of owning a broadcasting license is the holder must provide programming for the common good of the community. It can be debated whether or not Rush Limbaugh — or Air America for that matter — provides programming for the community’s greater good, but it’s in the FCC mandate. Which is why the music stations you might listen to instead of Rush and Roger provide news, weather, sports and traffic updates at least once an hour.
Actually, weather and traffic updates have turned out to be the big moneymakers during the morning and afternoon drive times since everyone going to and from work tunes in to hear those announcements. So, they are offered twice an hour and on some stations, ever quarter-hour.
Part of that greater good, according to the Fairness Doctrine, was providing all points of view on the controversial issues of the day. One could and should argue is the greater good being served if only the opinions of Rush, Roger and Air America are broadcast on their respective radio channels?
The Internet has really leveled the playing field in many respects. We can get any viewpoint with a couple clicks of the mouse. In fact, I get daily updates from Newsmax and Air America in my e-mail.
Not everyone has a computer though, let alone the Internet. My sister, for instance, doesn’t have high-speed Internet or cable television. She listens to the radio though; all she needs is an antenna. Is she getting all points of view when listening to Rush and Sean Hannity? Of course not.
But that’s not even the point. The radical right wants us to believe the Democrats have on their agenda, high on their agenda, re-implementing the Fairness Doctrine. That is patently false, a lie. It isn’t on Senator Schumer’s legislative agenda and if you search the Library of Congress website, the only bills pertaining to the Fairness Doctrine were introduced by the Republicans, H.R. 226 (House of Representatives) and S.R. 62 (U.S. Senate) to prevent “repromulgating” the Fairness Doctrine. Both bills are in their respective chamber committees.So Rush Limbaugh is safe in assuming he will get paid his $50 mil a year for the next eight years and just maybe that will be good for the economy. And it will give my friends and I something to argue about — again and again and again.
Calendar
Quicksearch
Categories
AD Links
Referrals
Syndicate This Blog
Blog Administration
Powered by
TheForkesReport