2008 Woodie Awards
Mainstream media play shill
Rodney Wren
Issue date: 2/16/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
If you're old enough to remember the days when freak shows were in carnivals and not daytime television, you may know about the barker and the shill. The barker was a bold salesman who sang the praises of the exhibits, and he made no bones about his agenda: He wanted your business.
The shill was very different. His job was to stand amidst the crowd and pose as one of them; he would then feign awe as he claimed to have seen the show and that it was truly a jaw-dropping experience.
I don't know why, but this occurred to me as I was listening to Congressman Dennis (cut-and-run) Kucinich and Senator Bernie (I'm a socialist) Sanders was on about the "Fairness Doctrine." For those of you not acquainted with this proposal, it harks back to a federal regulation in place from 1949 to 1987. Basically it was designed to ensure "fairness" in broadcasting, mandating that if radio and TV stations air controversial viewpoints, they must provide equal time for the "other" side.
However, this effort is simply an effort motivated by a desire to stifle conservative commentary. After all, it isn't lost on the left that the dumping of this doctrine in 1987 directly coincided with the rise of conservative talk radio. Freed from the threat of hefty government fines, stations were finally able to formulate programs based on market forces and not government regulation. Thus did Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and many other give voice to the usually silent majority.
So why do I take issue with the "Fairness Doctrine?" The problem is that this regulation would be applied to talk radio but not arenas dominated by liberal thought; a perfect example of which is the ever-present mainstream media (which presents the "other side"). This is because talk show hosts trade in red meat commentary, whereas the mainstream press is more subtle in its opinion-making.
We don't have to worry about "responsible journalists," the proponents say; it's those acid-tongued firebrands who pollute discourse with their ranting who bedevil us.
The shill was very different. His job was to stand amidst the crowd and pose as one of them; he would then feign awe as he claimed to have seen the show and that it was truly a jaw-dropping experience.
I don't know why, but this occurred to me as I was listening to Congressman Dennis (cut-and-run) Kucinich and Senator Bernie (I'm a socialist) Sanders was on about the "Fairness Doctrine." For those of you not acquainted with this proposal, it harks back to a federal regulation in place from 1949 to 1987. Basically it was designed to ensure "fairness" in broadcasting, mandating that if radio and TV stations air controversial viewpoints, they must provide equal time for the "other" side.
However, this effort is simply an effort motivated by a desire to stifle conservative commentary. After all, it isn't lost on the left that the dumping of this doctrine in 1987 directly coincided with the rise of conservative talk radio. Freed from the threat of hefty government fines, stations were finally able to formulate programs based on market forces and not government regulation. Thus did Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and many other give voice to the usually silent majority.
So why do I take issue with the "Fairness Doctrine?" The problem is that this regulation would be applied to talk radio but not arenas dominated by liberal thought; a perfect example of which is the ever-present mainstream media (which presents the "other side"). This is because talk show hosts trade in red meat commentary, whereas the mainstream press is more subtle in its opinion-making.
We don't have to worry about "responsible journalists," the proponents say; it's those acid-tongued firebrands who pollute discourse with their ranting who bedevil us.
Be the first to comment on this story