Rush Limbaugh is Worried
Rush Limbaugh still imagines a country where the majority of American agree with him.. But this morning the Bloomberg/L.A. Times poll confirmed the earlier Newsweek poll that Obama is up 15 points on McCain.
This freaks El Rushbo out, especially because he sees the coming Democratic landslide as impeding his ability to take home $33 million a year from bloviating on the radio. His problem is that Nancy Pelosi says she might revive the "Fairness Doctrine", the law that used to say that broadcasters using the public airwaves to make money had an obligation to provide both sides of an issue to the public. Rush is hopping mad about the very idea that the 600 radio stations that run his show might have to put out the other side of his opinions like denying global warming. Why these liberal commentators might even be "non professionals."
So you have to put on nonprofessionals, give them some time, they get a chance to answer this stuff, you end up with boring radio, and you end up with a nightmare of logistics. The way it would manifest itself over a passage of time is that a lot of management just wouldn't put up with. "I can't run a radio station this way where most of my day is spent answering the phone from a bunch of liberals demanding that they get some time on the radio to respond to whatever my conservative hosts are saying," and so they shut it down. They kill the format, and they go play Chinese opera or whatever.
Comments (15)
Kind of hard to get worked up about this Jonathan... Rush built his empire during the 90s, with the Republicans out of power. I doubt he's worried about a Democratic president. It'll be a financial boon to him. Indeed, I remember people predicting the Big Fat Idiot's demise when Bush snuck his sorry butt into office and it didn't work out that way.
As for the Fairness Doctrine... is he really wrong that it'll generate a lot of boring media content? Doing radio well does take skill, after all.
Here's where he's being funny. If his show is so good and valuable and such a revenue generator, then they will not switch to Chinese opera. Rush, as a good capitalist, should at least have the guts to claim that he's worth the time of the program directors who will have to answer the calls from people wanting to respond.
But this whole agrument is probably moot. Radio is dying and we don't want a fairness doctrine for the Internet because we don't want the government interfering in content beyond enforcing net neutrality.
June 25, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP was hardly out of power in the 1990s, destor.
The Pact with America was 1994 and the GOP Congress ran roughshod over Clinton. Much of Clinton's triangulation to the right was due to an intractable GOP Congress that pulled him that way.
And then Limbaugh and Fox News ran Clinton as a boogey man on top of this, so they really had it both ways.
June 26, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
JT,
1. I personally disagree with Limbaugh's positions 85-90% of the time.
2. I consider him not a journalist, but rather an entertainer. Journalists don't make $33 million a year, do they?
3. As I recall the Fairness Doctrine, I had to do with "editorial" opinions expressed by those transmitting over the public airwaves. For example, if KXYZ broadcast a political opinion from its ownership, the station would be required to offer equal time to spokespeople with the opposing view. It was unrelated to the entertainment content of the station.
4 I take it from your post that you favor the reinstatement and expansion of the Fairness Doctrine to include the entertainment portion of radio (and TV?) stations. A position such as that emanating from a Professor of Journalism astonishes me.
Your whole career is made possible by freedom of expression; the INABILITY of government to dictate what we may or may not say. Now you seems to be advocating the abrogation of that great freedom. As long as Nancy Pelosi & Co. are in charge, let's have the federal government intervene in what is and is not said on the airwaves.
It's nothing less than shameful for someone in your position to advocate such a policy.
Talk radio is dominated by Right Wingers because of the demographic that listens to talk radio...you know that. Limbaugh succeeds because he says the things radio listeners want to hear, period.
The failure of Air America in the free market was just a reflection of the demographics of talk-AM radio. And you know that.
Keep the government our of regulating speech! Let Limbaugh preach to his dittoheads, most of them will be dead in 10 years anyway.
Again, shame on a Professor of Journalism advocating government censorship of free speech.
In fact, with the Internet, the whole concept of Journalism as some sort of professionalized activity is changing---we don't need a stinken credential from your ilk to write and speak freely.
June 25, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. It just gets way too close to the government regulating speech. And Limbaugh, I believe, would readily admit that he's an entertainer and commentator and not a journalist. Which is the history of radio, going back to Will Rogers.
It's not as if anyone listening to Limbaugh is fooled into thinking they're listening to objective journalism. He is absolutely honest about where his show is coming from. People are adult enough to take it for what it is.
There is the "public airwaves" argument. But, as you say... the people who want an alternative to Limbaugh are, for the most part, not talk radio listeners. The right is kicking out butts on AM radio. We're kicking their butts on the Internet. For a longterm investment... I'll take the Internet.
June 25, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullcrap.
It's not about regulating speech. It's about regulating who has access to that rare commodity, the radio microphone and the distribution company it is attached to.
Even with the fairness doctrine, Rush can say whatever he wants outside the famous seven words. as it is, no one can rebut him in the same media because the radio mega-corporations don't want them to. Rush supports monopoly radio, so they hand him the microphone. Air America doesn't support their monopoly so they work to kill that organization and don't let them on their stations even in markets that would like them.
The real issue isn't free speech. It's all about monopoly power of large communications corporations.
June 26, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Rush can say whatever he wants outside the famous seven words. as it is, no one can rebut him in the same media because the radio mega-corporations don't want them to. Rush supports monopoly radio, so they hand him the microphone. Air America doesn't support their monopoly so they work to kill that organization and don't let them on their stations even in markets that would like them." Wrong Air America didn't make it because no one wanted to listen...Having driven across the country on several occassions, you get to places where you can only pick up one or two stations with the talk format. I spent many hours listening to Randi Rhodes (sp) and Jennine Garafalow because it was the only one I could pick up. There was plenty of accesss "Bush sucks!" just doesn't make for entertaining radio.
June 26, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace,
It would be interesting to know what states you're referring to where you could pick up only Garofolo and Rhodes.
Take note, Taplin says Limbaugh is picked up on 600 radio stations. Maybe you didn't drive through any red states.
June 26, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As I recall the Fairness Doctrine, I had to do with "editorial" opinions expressed by those transmitting over the public airwaves. "
Not so. I remember, when I was a lot younger, President Ford was supposed to do the coin flip at the Super Bowl. He was running against Jimmy Carter at the time. They didn't broadcast the coin toss because they couldn't give equal time to Carter. That's how crazy it was.
June 26, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fredrick,
nowhere in his column do I see Johnathan Taplin advocating censorship;
"Again, shame on a Professor of Journalism advocating government censorship of free speech."
Nor is he advocating the return of the Fairness Doctrine, he referred to Pelosi mentioning that issue.
June 26, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," said press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.
From: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html?desc=topstory
Professor: I sure hope, and am sure, you are tenured. If not, you deserve the boot.
Your implicit views are antithetical to Freedom of the Press!
June 26, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious, don't know much about this, so more questions than answers:
Considering that it's only TV and radio frequencies that are finite, doesn't that naturally limit the scope of the Fairness Doctrine's application? And considering that they're finite, doesn't that in itself suggest the need for some minimal form of regulation through government control of licensing? In which case, how to avoid being tasked with weighing the interests of license-holders vs the public good? It seems unavoidable. Otherwise, if the public good is dismissed as unworthy of consideration, what criteria to apply in determining which broadcasters to favor with licenses? Absent some kind of Fairness Doctrine, it would seem to be a recipe for corruption and collusion.
June 26, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The REAL reason why Hush Bimbo is worried, is because Oprah is going to be sleeping in his bed in the Lincoln Bedroom.
June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
so they would be "non-professional" what ???
radio announcers ???
and radio announcers are the best source of information or something ???
Imagine if we put, like, scientists, or something, on the radio, to refute lush limpbag's falsehoods on global warming
or what if we allowed lawyers to go on the radio, and explain how perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes against justice
or what if we allowed a FEC Commissioner to spend a few hours a week explaining how campaign finance laws work, and how john mcsame is violating those laws
that would really tend to fuck up limpbag's act
dontchathink ???
June 26, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes. Flush Limburger, the guy loved by the family values patriots and millions of other wingnuts.
Here's a guy that went on a chartered jet to the Dominican Republic, armed with a supply of Viagra, prescribed to another person.
Now why would old Flush be sneaking down to the DR loaded up with Viagra? Couldn't he get what he wanted in the US?
Oh, and didn't old Flush get out of military service during the Nam years because he had anal cysts?
The Anal Cyst had anal cysts, heh heh heh.
June 26, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Limbaugh is right about thing: Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would drive any and all political discussion off the airwaves. Producers wouldn't waste a dime jumping through the regulatory hoops; conservative radio would become "news" radio and package their "fair" stories in a way that would still convey a right-wing worldview. You can influence opinion, after all, simply by ignoring a story, as proven by the current media moratorium on all things Iraq War. Rush wouldn't be so powerful, and earn so much money, if listerers didn't dial up his show. A lot of fine, upstanding liberals I know enjoy a guilty pleasure by listening in: Rush delivers a super-bong hit of sanctimonious outrage. Just by hearing the warbling timbre of his voice, they feel more intelligent, more moral and better qualified to VOTE than those churlish peasants tuning in for all the wrong reasons.
June 26, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink