Except on Dennis Miller's show, John McCain was never the candidate of conservative talk radio. But whatever doubts they had previously voiced about McCain, as Election Day approached, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Michael Graham and Jay Severin all arrived at the same conclusion: Barack Obama had to be defeated. These talkers combine for some 20 hours of broadcast time a day in this market, and down the stretch, they used all the rhetorical talent they could muster to make the case against Obama.
Naturally, with all those hours spent describing the doom that would befall America if Obama became president, he had no chance to win anywhere within the sound of these powerful voices.
Oh wait. He did win. Here and in many, many other markets where conservative talkers thrive.
Pardon the sarcasm (it comes with the territory), but liberals need to get over their fear of talk radio. When they have the right candidate with the right message, Democrats win elections. When they don't, they lose.
What the now-victorious Democrats must not do is go looking for revenge for their years out of the White House. That means: Forget about bringing back the so-called fairness doctrine.
It sounds innocuous, even noble: In exchange for a license to use the public airwaves, broadcasters must demonstrate to the Federal Communications Commission that they are airing issues of public importance and reserving airtime for opposing views. But the FCC abandoned this requirement in 1987, and the intervening years have seen an explosion of forums and media for expressing a given point of view.
If there ever was a justification for the government to tell broadcasters what they must air, surely the growth of cable television, satellite radio and, most of all, the internet has made it moot. You may not like what's being peddled in a given aisle of the marketplace of ideas, but more than ever you can take your ears and eyes elsewhere. Increasingly, as millions upon millions of bloggers have proven, you can tell everyone else what to think instead of listening to anyone at all.
We were pleased last month when 1st District Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter told us she would not support a return of the fairness doctrine. Better than most, Shea-Porter knows there are many ways to communicate with voters, having overcome the slights of Democratic insiders to win her party's nomination in 2006 and having twice mastered the art of grassroots campaigning to win hotly contested general elections.
The new Congress, with its strengthened Democratic majority, has far more pressing business than trying to "hush Rush" or "tame the Savage beast." If, nevertheless, the call for a new fairness doctrine progresses, we trust that Republican Sen. Judd Gregg will join Shea-Porter in voting no. As for Shea-Porter's fellow Democrats, 2nd District Rep. Paul Hodes and Sen.-elect Jeanne Shaheen, we repeat: There's no need to fear the AM dial. You won!
Beckapalooza: half revival, half AA meeting has reached 25 comments. Join the discussion!
BOSTON (AP) -- Officials in New England's coastal areas…
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- William Smart, who was devastated…
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- Two men are free on bail after…
Comments
Who decides?
By Victor Laszlo - 11/17/2008 - 5:52 pmThe basic question that the imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine" raises is: what low-level bureaucrat would decide the political content of a talk-radio show?
This is a free-speech issue; if you don't like what's being said then don't listen or, better yet, call in and argue your point or start your own program.
to vote
Just today's Republican talking point.
By Anonymous - 11/16/2008 - 1:04 pmLook guys- relax yourselves. There is no fairness doctrine coming back. Obama already said he opposes it. What you ought to be worried about is that Obama and McCain both support additional outlets for Low Power FM stations and increased local content. Expect tighter ownership caps and passive regulation. The radio stations around here that do little more then take Sean and Rush off the bird (i.e. Satellite) for rebroadcast will find their costs skyrocketing as they will be required to provide so many hours of local content. Medium and small market stations owned by companies out of Texas and Florida who don't give one rat's hind quarters about New Hampshire or anything but slashing staffs and making a buck will find themselves in deep doo-doo. No activist government required.
to vote
Old NH Guy
By Anonymous - 11/15/2008 - 4:50 pmYou write: "WE OWN the airwaves, not commercial broadcasters. Simple principles of consumer protection demand we not let OUR AIRWAVES be overrun with garbage that materially hurts consumers. And yes, the lies of Limbaugh materially hurt consumers of factual political information. Lying is cumulative and damaging."
Limbaugh is more factual than most mainstream journalists. You just want to hear only the information that you believe is true. They are "MY" airwaves, not just "YOURS" and this election was 53%-46% so about half of us still want free speech.
to vote
Two Faced
By Anonymous - 11/15/2008 - 4:43 pmLiberals are two faced about this topic. Progressives have all of the main stream press, most newspapers (Washington Post admitted that last week), the main media outlets, NPR and more.
Conservatives have AM radio and about 60% of Fox News coverage telling their side.
Now ask yourself......what is fairness?
to vote
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder
By millennia - 11/15/2008 - 12:58 pmTypical Monitor fashion, to come up with this piece as if the Monitor is anything but unfair in their news slant and coverage. On the letters page they are fair but their opinion bleeds through all day long.
Bunker might well be right...be very careful what you wish for.
Jocelyn,
You seem to just want to hear what you believe. That is not enlightened, it is just plain dumb and closed minded. Public radio is the antithesis of Rush Limbaugh, et al.
to vote
nothing fair about the fairness doctrine
By Anonymous - 11/15/2008 - 12:18 pmthose who want to bring back the fairness doctrine are afraid of hearing anything but their own opinion. to hear anything else causes them to go into apoplexy.
to vote
RE: "How about an unfairness doctrine? Just ram lies down our t
By Originalist - 11/15/2008 - 12:00 pmOldNH,
Whether or not something is a lie or not seems to be relative today. It is the eyes of the partisan.
Rush Limbaugh is not always right and I agree with him very little BUT often he has many good points that are relevant.
Just because you only want to hear what you believe, don't categorize everyone under the same label of "liars". It does show that you fear certain information being out there and shows that those lies just may be valid!
to vote
Yes it is about free speech
By Originalist - 11/15/2008 - 11:55 amI wonder though, why the Monitor protests so much about bringing back the fairness doctrine.
Could it perhaps be a sense of guilt by the editors? Maybe. Could it be because they do not want progressive outlets regulated?
Think about it. Pacifica radio has over 600 outlets and Amy Goodman, et al. would have to put Rush Limbaugh on the air hour for hour of some radical leftist being on the air.
Air (Scare)America would have to have Sean Hannity on the air for every hour Randi Rhodes is on the air or Laura Ingraham on the air for every hour Thom Hartmann is on the air.
NPR would have to play fair with taxpayers money and stop tugging at America's heartstrings with syrupy opinion masked as news. Conservative hosts would have to be installed to "add balance".
NHPR would have to have a conservative to balance the bleeding heart of Laura Knoy.
Next we would, in "fairness" have to regulate cable television as well. LINK TV as well as Democracy NOW! would have to offer alternative opinions. NBC, CBS and ABC could no longer play the political water boy for Obama or any liberal. They would have to offer balance......
Is it no wonder why the Monitor is against the fairness doctrine? Maybe it is not so unfair out there in the first place.
Those who support the fairness doctrine should be careful as they may just get what they wish for....."fairness".
to vote
Support Free Speech; Oppose Fairness Doctrine
By Anonymous - 11/14/2008 - 1:02 amChuck Schumer said:
to vote
It Is Time To Being Back The Fairness Doctor
By Anonymous - 11/13/2008 - 7:50 pmI am all for the fairness doctor because today there is too much hate in America. I like to beable to have a changes to call in on Public Broadcasting such talke TV's, Radio's It is the right to do is to bring back the Fairness Doctor !
Jocelyn Gallant
Salem, NH
to vote
the 1st amendment...
By Anonymous - 11/13/2008 - 3:16 pm...guarantees anyone a voice, not venue. This has been the decision of the US Supreme Court on several occasions. Radio isn't any more special than TV or print media or the internet.
to vote
OldCrazyNH
By Anonymous - 11/13/2008 - 12:50 pmChange the radio station if you don't like what you hear. Maybe some old recordings of Vladimir Lenin are available for you to listen to. Why don't you move to Vermont where like-minded people reside.
to vote
How about an unfairness doctrine? Just ram lies down our throats
By OldNH - 11/13/2008 - 11:36 amThis is bull. WE OWN the airwaves, not commercial broadcasters. Simple principles of consumer protection demand we not let OUR AIRWAVES be overrun with garbage that materially hurts consumers. And yes, the lies of Limbaugh materially hurt consumers of factual political information. Lying is cumulative and damaging.
The only argument put forth here is that there are many alternatives. This is not true, the internet is not an alternative to the radio in your car or on your kitchen table. Neither is cable tv. Nothing is, and yes the fairness doctrine is badly needed.
Poster below asks, "why not the same for newspapers?" Because we don't own newstands and printing presses that's why. Besides, radio station congomerators manipulate what you can hear by repeating shows across different stations and turning the power down on some so you have little choice of what to listen to. It's bull.
to vote
Cable talk shows are all heat and no light
By Anonymous - 11/13/2008 - 9:01 amOlberman is as bad as Reilly: They're just preaching to the converted. I cut back from Comcast Expanded Basic to just Basic and don't miss them a whit. These shows should try instituting their own "Fairness Doctrine." Remember skillful moderators like Ted Koppel? "Tell[ing] everyone else what to think instead of listening to anyone at all" is precisely what's wrong with the polarized political discourse in this country today.
to vote
what so fair?
By Anonymous - 11/13/2008 - 8:48 amIf the fairness doctrine is pushed through, and it seems like the stars are aligned for this, why not implement it towards newspapers and television as well? Wouldn't it be "fair" to require equal time to conservative ideas in the newspapers and in the mainstream media? Oh that's right, it's just meant to stifle or silence conservative ideas.
to vote
Gimme' A Break!
By Anonymous - 11/13/2008 - 8:34 amI used to be skeptical about the so-called media bias towards Liberalism but this election convinced me it is true beyond all doubt. I looked at 9 pre-election Newsweek issues and 6 magazine covers featured Obama while only 3 featured McCain. It was obvious that the network news channles devoted far more coverage to Obama than McCain and most segments portrayed Obama in positive light while many about McCain seemed to cast him in a negative light. What a lot of hypocritical nonsense form the Monitor editor!
to vote
Agreed
By Publius - 11/13/2008 - 8:01 amI remember the fairness doctrine from when I was young. For years I thought it was a good idea, and lamented its demise. But I've been persuaded by the arguments against reviving it and have concluded that the fairness doctrine a) is no longer necessary due to the proliferation of outlets for news and commentary, as the editorial describes; and b) would chill the public debate because of the costs it would impose on broadcasters as they seek balancing viewpoints.
to vote
Hard to believe...
By Anonymous - 11/13/2008 - 7:42 am...that the liberal Concord Monitor is admitting the "Fairness Doctrine" is meant to silence conservative talk radio. I do not believe any left-wing politicians have admitted this is the reason although it is quite obvious. You guys must be feeling pretty cocky since your man Obama got elected. I bet if McCain won the election, the liberal Monitor staff would be saying the opposite.
to vote