According to Rasmussen…:
Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too.
I have to wonder what kind of rock those alleged 47% live under, to either think…:
-
that there isn’t an over-ample amount of both liberal and conservative opinion out there
-
that the “Fairness Doctrine” will “balance” anything.
I also wonder something that wasn’t in the Rasmussen breakdown: were part of that 47% conservatives who believed that the “Fairness” doctrine would actually bring conservative points of view to network, non-Fox cable and the major-market print media?
It’d be interesting to see the way the questions were put to the audience. Stating the issue as “should television and radio be balanced by federal decree”, for example, might make respondents think the question was about the general question of “balance”, rather than the left’s attempt to silence talk radio and the conservative internet.
At the same time, 71% say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) do not agree.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) say the government should not require websites and blog sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints. But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary (full demographic crosstabs available for Premium Members.)
Again, I’d love to know the actual questions.
Is it worth being a “premium member”? Probably not.
Imagine the outcry when the wacko Phelps family of Kansas gets to have anti-gay programs on all of the stations that have pro-gay rights material.
Yeah, but that’s not how it’ll work.
The “Fairness” Doctrine didn’t assign ideological quotas to station’s schedules. What it did was give a grounds for the public to challenge a station’s license renewal.
When stations renew their licenses (and I forget what the time period is for that), the FCC takes complaints from the public about the station’s “public service”. During the period of the “Fairness” Doctrine, that meant that people could write the FCC and complain that the station’s politics didn’t grant equal time. Investigating these complaints and adjudicating them was part of the license renewal process was part of getting the license renewed; the FCC could assign corrective actions or (in theory; don’t know if it ever happend) deny renewal.
Since the license was vital for keeping the station on the air, most stations’ managers opted not to rock the boat – opted to play toward the middle and avoid complaints that could lead to costy, license-risking challenges.
There’ll be no phalanx of complaints demanding equal time for Phelps. I have THAT much faith in my fellow citizens.
But in a world where Atrios and Kos draw half a million visits a day, the left powers that be COULD, in a “Fairness Doctrine” run broadcast world, send hordes of droogs after any station up for renewal, demanding more liberal programming “in the public interest”; an Obama-appointed FCC would likely give the complaints plenty of credence.
It occurs to me that this comment should be a post.
Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary…
…But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary
I’d LOVE to see the political inclinations of that 47% and 31%. I am pretty sure I can correctly guess it, but I would like to see it for sure.
Calling Jonah Goldberg…
I’m not Jonah Goldberg, but here’s a quote from the rasmussen report:
Democrats are more supportive of government involvement in the airwaves than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats favor it, and only 26% are opposed. Republicans and unaffiliated voters are fairly evenly divided.
Even Democrats say hands-off the Internet though but by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Fairness