Great news: Support for Fairness Doctrine rises six points since last year
posted at 1:07 pm on August 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I was kidding when I wondered whether the reinstitution of Fairness would qualify as force majeure for Limbaugh’s new contract. Belated note to Clear Channel’s lawyers: You might want to look into it.
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.
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…
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.
Last year’s Rasmussen poll came up in yesterday’s post, coincidentally enough. The breakdown as of July 2007: 41/41, with 18% undecided. What explains the shift? Either it’s part and parcel of the trend generally towards the Democrats or … what if, ironically, it’s being fueled by conservative reaction to election coverage? Rasmussen didn’t make the party crosstabs public last year but the ideological breakdown was 51/33 in favor among liberals and 40/48 against among conservatives. If Republicans are now “fairly evenly” divided, then conservative numbers have almost certainly shifted in favor of Fairness, which is less odd than you think when you note how Rasmussen’s question is phrased: “Should the government require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary?” If you’re a righty who hasn’t given much thought to the issue, a law that would “correct” for pro-Obama bias in the media might sound like a fine idea.
The good news? Support for extending Fairness to the Internet has dropped considerably, from 34/50 to 31/57. Even Dems oppose it by a double-digit margin. The more populist and proletarian the medium, I guess, the less inclined the public is to meddle.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
That’s because voters aren’t educated on the issues. So, they see the “fairness doctrine” very superficially as a way to correct media bias - and nobody likes media bias. It’s just a matter of educating people that the “fairness doctrine” directly translates into massive amounts of political speech being stifled. I’m not worried.
My guess is Limbaugh’s contract probably does have a force majeure clause that’s broad enough to encompass a legislative change that forces him off the air. The good news is that I think he got paid a ton of money up front and probably wouldn’t have to refund that. :)
Outlander on August 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
It was brilliant of the FCC to call this the “Fairness Doctrine,” because hey…who can argue against fairness, right?
Next stop, the sedition act!
Slublog on August 14, 2008 at 1:11 PM
They never asked me.
Fairness. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
john1schn on August 14, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Fairness to a lib talking head is having six Democrats and one RINO on a panel.
JammieWearingFool on August 14, 2008 at 1:13 PM
I am sick of these polls.
Not many people know what this doctrine is all about.
jencab on August 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I want to look at the internals, guys…
newton on August 14, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Last time I checked, 90% of actual liberal bias was denied by its sources, and 90% of actual conservative bias was admitted to by its sources.
Guess who gets hit with the “Fairness” stick if it passes?
MadisonConservative on August 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Seems like it wouldn’t be THAT difficult to get around the “Fairness” Doctrine. Just follow up Rush’s show with some generic lib that doesn’t cost much. Better yet put on a show presenting the “real” liberal viewpoint (i.e. the Dem platform) rather than the Dem’s spin version of what they believe. You could even back it up by idiotic statements from various libs. Still a pain in the ass but doable.
BuzzCrutcher on August 14, 2008 at 1:21 PM
With all do respect to Rasmussen…..the polling questions are retarded. I imagine 75% of the respondants didn’t have any idea what the real question was.
David in ATL on August 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM
In the days of the previous “fairness” doctrine, it was only “controversial” positions that caused the doctrine to kick in.
The way it usually worked was that the govts position was usually considered non-controversial, therefore the stations weren’t required to give away opposing time.
MarkTheGreat on August 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM
It’s not the cost of the host that matters, it’s the lost advertising revenue because nobody listens when a lib is on.
MarkTheGreat on August 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM
What do the internals say? They are the key, not the big numbers on the top of the page.
Weebork on August 14, 2008 at 1:26 PM
In other news, water is still wet.
CurtZHP on August 14, 2008 at 1:27 PM
A perfectly stupid post. Is that a lie or are you being hyperbolic? If you really want to make me look foolish, you’ll post those figures. But I’m guessing you’ll choose a snarky retort and zero substance to support your statement.
Lying is not a conservative value.
The Race Card on August 14, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Rush should pre-empt the people pushing this agenda and break one of his rarely broken rules of not having guests on his show. Open line Friday could be Smack-a-Lib Friday. Debate some renowned liberal and challenge them on the issues. He could probably do it with his entire brain tied behind his back. Would be quite entertaining too.
captivated_dem on August 14, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I’m okay with a “Fairness Doctrine” if they only require it where it belongs, on publicly funded outlets. Let them do a 5 year trial, on publicly-funded broadcast outlets.
DaveS on August 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Where exactly did you check “last time?”
The Race Card on August 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM
“Fairness Doctrine” is absolutely Orwellian. 1984 was 20 years early.
silverfox on August 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM
One thing that gets left out of this discussion is the amount of talk radio (alot of it leftward-oriented, at least where I am) conducted at the local level.) So, it’s not going to be just conservative talk radio that is affected.
Also, talk radio has become a medium for national media pundits to reach local audiences in a targeted way — important in things like presidential election cycles. For example, one of our local AM stations had Paul Begala on yesterday talking about the Democrats and Obama.
BigD on August 14, 2008 at 1:30 PM
The Race Card on August 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Have you never seen the media surveys, that show their perceptions of bias (or lack thereof)? And, surely, you aren’t meaning to imply that Limbaugh considers himself to be unbiased? THAT is “perfectly stupid”.
DaveS on August 14, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Because “equality” has taken the place of “Liberty” in the minds of all to many Americans…
catmman on August 14, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Freedom of Speech?
nazo311 on August 14, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I’d be willing to bet that most of the people polled like the word “fairness” and would vote favorably for that reason alone. Also, the poll could have been taken in San Francisco. In any event, I’m not buying the poll numbers.
However, it would be fun to have Rush Limbaugh as a guest on Olberman’s show!
orlandocajun on August 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Are you dense, or do you just not listen to conservative talk radio? Every host admits to their leanings. Now go listen to NPR. “All Things Considered”, my ass. Go watch Bob Schieffer’s little rant at the end of the CBS Evening News. Go watch the Today Show as Matt Lauer needles righties and slobbers over lefties. Or, dare I mention it, watch the unnamed dipstick’s “Speshul Komment”.
While it may have had mild hyperbole, the vast majority of conservative outlets announce their bias, while the liberal outlets scoff at the notion of “liberal media”.
Hence, the fairness doctrine would nail the talk show hosts, TV hosts like O’Reilly and Beck, and state-sponsored radio and television would remain untouched, as would regular newscasts.
MadisonConservative on August 14, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Bottom line…..
Fairness = Equal treatment
Which, taking it to the simplest test means Everyone gets screwed.
Remember Billy Jeff’s ” I feel your pain!”
It’s the Dem’s M.O.
Schmo on August 14, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Note how the word “freedom” isn’t part of the title of the “Fairness Doctrine“
Black Adam on August 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I don’t think you guys understood what Madison Conservative meant. Conservatives in media ‘fess up to being conservatives; liberals in media deny it. Therefore, the Fairness Doctrine would come down on conservatives like a ton of bricks.
All this reckons without the internet (and satellite radio, but mostly the internet). They can make all the noises they want about controlling it, but unless they’re willing to set up a parallel internet, like China, there is no mechanism to do it.
And if they did that, they’d kill the goose that laid the golden eggs for our late 20th C economy.
S. Weasel on August 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM
My experience, and the experience of most people I know, as well as pretty much every study put out by such as the Pew Research Center, Media Research Center, and others.
So far, you’ve done nothing but decry points supported by numerous polls and studies which, among other places, have frequently been featured on this site.
So put up or shut up, bigmouth.
MadisonConservative on August 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM
If Republicans are now “fairly evenly” divided,then conservative numbers have almost certainly shifted in favor of Fairness, which is less odd than you think when you note how Rasmussen’s question is phrased: “Should the government require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary?”
I do find it odd! How, if you describe yourself as Republican and or conservative, can you answer this in the affirmative!?
McCain-Feingold anyone?
aLoha Tim on August 14, 2008 at 1:42 PM
The FCC will rue the day. So many people nowadays are politically polarized and media-hungry. The calls to FCC about lack of “fairness” on any given show would melt the switchboard.
innominatus on August 14, 2008 at 1:50 PM
All polls are suspect to me, unless I can see the exact question and the exact choices. I can conduct two polls and get two radically different interpretations based on how I phrase things.
ynot4tony2 on August 14, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Eh. I don’t like this kind of poll. Most voters–regardless of ideology–probably aren’t very educated or informed on what the Fairness Doctrine is. Give them a day to research it, then ask them the question again.
Exactly. Most people read the question and think “I like fairness. The media seems have a very (insert “liberal” or “conservative” here depending on the person) bias. This sounds like a good idea!”. Even though it’s anything but fair, they get an automatic lead in support because people don’t know what it is and assume it is fair because of the name. It’s like them calling it the “Employee Free Choice Act“. You like free choice, don’t you?
malan89 on August 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM
What’s stupid is your remark. He has never said he’s unbiased and doesn’t try to be.
Akzed on August 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Can’t believe nobody’s mentioned Voinovich yet.
innominatus on August 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM
The First Amendment should not require majority support.
Kristopher on August 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I dunno. Sounds pretty straighforward to me.
iurockhead on August 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Bingo.
Let them try it. The SCOTUS will put this to rest for good.
carbon_footprint on August 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Is this poll funded by Tide Foundation again?
Sir Napsalot on August 14, 2008 at 2:11 PM
1. People are stupid
2. Stupid people like terms like “fair” and “equal”
3. Stupid people don’t like the “unfair” free market
marklmail on August 14, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I’d love to believe this, but I’m afraid I don’t. 200 years of history has shown that any amendment can be abridged at any time by any legislation for a given pretext.
Laserjock on August 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Remember two things:
1. SCOTUS affirmed McCain-Feingold’s anti-speech provisions. Political speech is not entitled to great deference anymore.
2. SCOTUS affirmed the old Fairness Doctrine in 1969 (Red Lion v. FCC). Why not affirm a challenge to a new Fairness Doctrine now?
Outlander on August 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I bet most of the people in favor of it innocently believe that regulation would be in place to give ‘equal time’ to both sides.
Even though the Fairness Doctrine is wrong even in principle, it is even more wrong in that ‘fairness’ is not the goal here - snuffing out conservative viewpoints is.
Grafted on August 14, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I question the timing.
fossten on August 14, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Should this come to pass, it will certainly be before the SCOTUS. At that time, the proponents of the FD will have to show how the lack of the FD results in an unfair condition. This will be hard to argue when confronted with the market realities of Air America (there isn’t a market for Air America). If an unabashedly liberal broadcast can’t survive on its merits, how can one make the argument that it’s unfair the audience doesn’t want to hear a particular viewpoint?
That’s the real beef liberals have. Nobody wants to listen to what they have to say. So they run to Mommy to make everyone listen.
BobMbx on August 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I really liked the fact that it included TV. I’m pretty sure it did before when it was the law of the land, but the big difference now is the ability of the “new media” to push stories into the public eye.
There was an old labor trick called “work to rule,” in which factory workers would stop doing things the quick way that they had figured out, and started doing things the way they were written down in the manuals. With the help of the new media, and Fox News, lefty media bias will be exposed, and pressure can be applied to add conservative content/journalists. How about a nice class-action suit if the “Fairness Doctrine” is unfairly applied?
smellthecoffee on August 14, 2008 at 3:53 PM
so 47% of the people favor communist control of the media?
kirkill on August 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Lawyers are the only people that favor these new laws. Or any new laws. I want a law were we get rid of the lawyers.
kirkill on August 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM
so 47% of the people favor communist control of the media?
kirkill on August 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM
You mean, the other 53% think the MSM is unbiased?
DfDeportation on August 14, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I can hardly wait to get “equal time” on Spanish TV.
DfDeportation on August 14, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I will be so happy when hose bag Hussein goes back to backbencher anonymity on Nov. 5th, so we don’t have to worry about things like losing our First Amendment right to free speech.
Akzed on August 14, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Dumber than I thought. Never assume anything.
Entelechy on August 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM
I’m all for a fairness doctrine..
in our high schools, colleges, and universities!
dhunter on August 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM
The proof is in the pudding. From what I’ve read over the past couple of years, the lefties want to silence radio, not television. If that were the case, then no TV news broadcast in America, including Spanish stations when it comes to immigration, would have time to report any other news.
This is why only radio is targeted. TV stations would argue, in part, they already have balance.
But MSNBC and CNN are great examples of how this is not so.
madmonkphotog on August 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM
I would like to see how the questions are phrased.
koypop on August 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM
I don’t think enough people realize what the “Fairness Doctrine” really is.
CP on August 14, 2008 at 4:51 PM
The name of the Patriot Act on the other hand doesn’t try to camouflage controversial issues with a feel-good header.
freevillage on August 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM
These must be people who do not understand it and its ramifications. Also, they must be people who do not recall how boring and silly it was the last time it was around.
jeanie on August 14, 2008 at 5:01 PM
This Georgia conflict really brought the Ronulans out of the woodwork.
MadisonConservative on August 14, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Heh! +1
Neocon Peg on August 14, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Just more proof that most people, on average, are stupid.
Jaynie59 on August 14, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Conservatives can refute the arguments of liberals.
Liberals can only shout down conservatives–and when conservatives won’t cave, they resort to trying to shut down the arguments they cannot refute.
njcommuter on August 15, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Libs never admit to being a lib…conservatives walk proudly. Tough days ahead.
tomas on August 15, 2008 at 8:30 AM