July 30, 2007

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

Eric Wilhelm of Wilmington spouts the usual canards about there "not being a liberal media," and wants proof that "Senators Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer advocated the return of the fairness doctrine."

Ever hear of Google, Eric? Check it:

  • From The Hill: Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Tuesday that the government should revive the Fairness Doctrine, a policy crafted in 1929 that required broadcasters to balance political content with different points of view. “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” he said. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, said this week that she would review the constitutional and legal issues involved in re-establishing the doctrine. Not to mention there was this exchange on Fox News Sunday:

    [Host Chris] WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

    FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

  • Joseph Klein details why Hillary would revive the FD, not to mention the little tidbit Senator James Inhofe claimed he heard in an elevator conversation three years ago with Barbara Boxer. Speaking of which ...
  • Barbara Boxer recently voted against (July 19, to be exact) a measure "To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine."

The simple fact of the matter is that we are only hearing cries of "revival" from Democrats.

The concern is that large numbers of radio stations are owned by a few media conglomerates. These companies are interested in promoting a conservative or corporate agenda. This has severely limited competition. No attempt is made to promote or include liberal talk in many major markets.

Again, Wilhelm claims the media are "not liberal" because the owners of the media outlets are large corporations. As if this automatically means that a conservative agenda is their goal. If liberal talk radio could actually make a buck, you can be assured that these "dastardly" corporations would be snapping up the popular hosts as quickly as Ted Kennedy swam away from Mary Jo Kopechne! As for major network news, as media critic Bernie Goldberg has stated, since these outlets do not make a lot of revenue (as opposed to their network entertainment programming), these "dastardly" corporations do not have nearly as much interest in the direction the Courics et. al. take. And newspapers? With the advent of the "new media" (Internet, etc., which offer more conservative points of view), readership has plummeted, to put it mildly. Like major network news, they are no longer [news] monopolistic behemoths, and their readership (viewership) now has myriad other options.

How long did it take for Limbaugh and Hannity to have a large following? It took several years. At one time Fox was a fledgling company. Air America was born only two and a half years ago.

The problem with this comparison is quite simple: Limbaugh, Hannity and FNC all GREW and grew substantially in two and half years. Air America was, simply put, a total disaster.

Wilhelm obviously holds the view like that of far-left Eric Alterman, who thinks that since the American media isn't as politically left as Hugo Chávez, that it is therefore "conservative."

Posted by Hube at July 30, 2007 12:03 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)