A Fairness Doctrine bill should include a section that requires any newspaper that receives funds from any government entity, federal, state and local, for public notices, legal notices, advertisements, etc., adhere to the same standards as radio and television stations.
This would in no way interfere with freedom of the press. Any newspaper could print whatever it wanted and exclude whatever it wanted, it just would not get any public money if it did not adhere to “fairness” standards. No private business should be guaranteed public business whatever their conduct.
Furthermore, nonconforming papers would be barred from access to press rooms in public buildings. Again, they can print whatever they want, they just could not get privileges if they refuse to the “fair.” Licensing boards do this with regard to male only taverns and clubs.
The appeal of conservative talk radio is that it is an antidote to the liberal MSM. A balanced press would create a balanced talk radio.

Dear Mr. Weyrick:

Don’t know if you’ve heard much talk radio lately, must be 90+% neocon/Likudnik claptrap and fear-mongering.  “They hate us because we’re free.” “Fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” “Nuke Iran.” “Give the government the tools they need to fight terrorists,” e.g., Homeland Security, Patriot Act, torture, indefinite detention without charges, domestic spying, Guantanamo, Unitary executive, national security state, secrecy and propaganda, endless war … everything has changed! 

What’s so conservative about that?  I’m not sure what or who you mean when you say “we.”

Mr. Stewart,
I don’t know whether or not conservatives are still a “we” in any meaningful sense. Six and a half years into the Bush era, the term may not be meaningful enough to be worthwhile. We’ll find out in the next four or five years, I suppose.

One thing is certain, though. Talk radio is a powerful weapon against incumbents, and a very direct method of applying direct pressure to sitting legislators. We can’t afford to lose it, any more than we could afford to lose the internet.

Mr. Swartz:

Again I’m compelled to ask: when you say “we,” to whom do you refer?

I agree that talk radio can be a powerful tool against incumbents and I am sympathetic to that important need.  However, in my opinion the incumbent administration did run disastrously amok and talk radio did nothing to cause it to change course—indeed was instrumental in its re-election, thereby perpetuating the disaster.  So it appears the blade cuts both ways.  I think the lessen is concentrated power in any area of politics corrupts.

If what you’re saying is that if the Fairness Doctrine is brought to bear we will lose an important Paleo-Conservative stronghold, I would suggest that what’s currently on talk radio is not Paleo at all, therefore there’s nothing to loose.  Conversely, if it means loosing the current Neoconservative fare, I consider that welcome and necessary change.

I can clearly envision the future of talk radio in the hands of an ideological enemy, since to me it already is.  In fact, I can’t imagine it being much worse.  I guess I now know how the Liberals have felt all this time, and I don’t like it.  So, maybe it’s better that nobody has talk radio all to themselves.

I think Mr. Weyrick and many other seemingly well-intended Paleo-Conservatives (not sure Mr. Weyrick actually still is Paleo) who continue to defend Limbaugh, Hannity, Mike Reagan, Bill Bennett, Janet Parshall, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved et al must be starring into a Norman Rockwell painting rather than seeing America for what it’s truly become.

Which talk radio hosts represent the paleocon view?
Neocons are well represented at Fox, Weekly standard,
new republic and other journals of opinion. No
conservative will shed tears if the opinions of
Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, Medved or Parshall do not
clutter the radio.

Mr. Stewart,
When I say “we”, I mean “conservatives”, just as I think the author did. I am not a paleocon, but I am a lot closer to their positions than to those of the neocons. I am not discounting the gravity of the neocon/paleocon split, nor am I suggesting that neocon talk radio is making America a better place.

I am doing two other things:

First, I’m suggesting that talk radio may be more friendly to paleocons in the future. Public opinion is headed our way, and even if it isn’t, we’ll need a powerful mechanism to counterwiegh the Democratic president and congress we’re likely to face after 2008.

Second, I hesitate to see congress start legislating speech. It simply can’t end well. I don’t trust them.

Stan:

This Paleo former listener wants to heave just thinking about these jerks on talk radio today.  What burns me even more is that the bastards stole our moniker, “Conservative”!  They should properly be called Neo-Liberals.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge there are no talk radio hosts who represent the Paleo view.  But, apparently, Paul Weyrick would have us believe that the majority of Americans would rather listen to these Neo-Liberals than good old Paleo-Conservatives.  I seriously doubt that’s true.

REPLY to following comments: 1) I don’t know whether or not conservatives are still a “we” in any meaningful sense. 2) No conservative will shed tears if the opinions of Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, Medved or Parshall do not
clutter the radio..3)the incumbent administration did run disastrously amok and talk radio did nothing to cause it to change course—indeed was instrumental in its re-election, thereby perpetuating the disaster.  So it appears the blade cuts both ways...4) I would suggest that what’s currently on talk radio is not Paleo at all, therefore there’s nothing to loose.  Conversely, if it means loosing the current Neoconservative fare, I consider that welcome and necessary change. 

I agree with the above sentiments. The term
“conservative” today means nothing. Talk Radio does respond to ratings, and it was such a delight to see pimps like Hannity and Limbaugh pretend to be on the side of the public on the immigration struggle. But Talk Radio
on the whole, has been politically bankrupt, an
empty shell, always following the path of least resistance, which in the last 8 years has been to partisan “Republican"…

It’s done more to stifle any intelligent debate over
the Iraq War, jumping down the throats of anyone
who dares question the premises of the war, associating
any critics as “apologists” for terrorists, and the
rest of the whole bag that Ron Paul faced in the
Republican debate in his exchange with Guiliani.

If anyone wonders why up until recently a majority of
the public believed Saddam was responsible for 911, they
have not been paying attention to talk radio. Guiliani can arrogantly make idiotic statements like he does routinely on the “war on terror”, thanks to all
the misconceptions that Talk Radio has perpetuated for
the last 8 years.

Nor has talk radio been very vocal on the economic
issues...the stealth agenda of Wall Street to sell out
the economic sovereignty of the United States.

Interestingly enough, we see Trent Lott’s true colors:
when Talk Radio benefits the agenda of his Wall Street
masters, it’s “good”, when it contradicts their agenda,
it’s “bad”.

Time you guys started realizing that America is not being
undermined by the “Left” or the “Liberals”, it’s been
sold by Wall Street and the CEO classes.

My blog: http://www.populistprospect.blog.com

I don’t like what talk radio has become but that doesn’t mean it’s okay for the state to destroy it.  eventually people are going to get tired of it, let it die on it’s own.

Mr. Swartz:

Okay, I understand that you feel that talk radio as it’s currently configured will serve as an important mechanism to elect Republicans in coming elections and that the Fairness Doctrine starts us down the road to legislated speech.  Under normal (former) circumstances I may be inclined to agree.  However, these aren’t such circumstances and, consequently, I can’t do that.

First, I must reject the use of the term “conservative” in the context of a category that includes both Paleo and Neo conservatives together.  To me there’s simply no common ground to justify conflating the two.  Furthermore, doing so allows Neocons, who have only a very narrow and non-conservative constituency, to ride the coattails of traditional conservatives.  In essence, Neocons are selling distinctly liberal agendas to the America people under the conservative brand.  Americans are buying these agendas not after careful analysis but by trusting in the brand itself.

In fact, Neocon ideology, whether it be domestic or foreign policy, is much closer to that of liberals than conservatives.  “Neo-liberal” is much more literally accurate.  As Bill Crystal has pointed out, Neocons could quickly easily find a comfortable home in the Democratic Party. 

As for elections, Republicans the current line up of talk radio hosts will help elect are precisely those of the Neocon ilk.  In fact, they will only promote those politicians that support the neocon foreign policy, irrespective of the domestic policies – even when they’re not Republicans at all (as in the case of Joe Lieberman, the Independent Democrat from the great state of Israel).  And, they will seek to unseat those conservative Republicans who are against the Neocon agenda like Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel.

Tellingly, Hugh Hewitt put it best when discussing the immigration bill on his show he said “we” could forgive anything but wavering on the War.

All one need do is to make a list of the top domestic and foreign policy issues and rate where Neocons, Paleos and Liberals stand on each.  It will immediately become clear just how dramatically different the Neocons are from Paleos, and how closely aligned Neocons are with Liberals.  When someone says that talk radio is dominated by the right, they must mean fascists, not conservatives.

Dan sed: “As for elections, Republicans the current line up of talk radio hosts will help elect are precisely those of the Neocon ilk.”

Dan, you need to understand that “neo-con” means more the
foreign policy, it’s got a domestic agenda as well.

What’s really happening here is that finally Nixon’s old
“Silent Majority” coalition is breaking apart. Partly
this is due to the success of the pro-business agenda
of the Republican Party, which talked about social
issues, but passed economic legislation that benefited
the CEO classes, Wall Street and the Park Avenue set.

They said it was Ronald Reagan who is the inspiration for
the last 30 years of Republican/Conservative dominance,
but it was really Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” that
united Dixiecrats with Urban Democrats, and Midwestern
populists along with the Country Club and Park Avenue
set.

What made this coalition work was opposition to the
McGovern generation that took over the Democrat Party,
that “Identity Politics” of the 1970’s of feminism, gay
sexual liberation, the entire “People of Color” movement
meaning “Native Americans”, Blacks, Hispanics.

But a lot of things are happening to disrupt that…
first and foremost, what Lou Dobbs calls the “War on
The Middle Class”. If you lose your job, your pension,
your health insurance, you’ve got more to worry about
then gay marriage or stem cell research or the federal
funding of college athletics. Another is that the “Cultural
War” that Buchanan talked about is having an effect---the
old “moral majority” has been undermined by the economic
instablity of globalizatio, outsourcing and so on.

Talk Radio is a little irrelevant, it’s really not much
different than Jerry Springer stuff. Catering to the
lowest common denominator. It will respond to popular
sentiment, so the REAL problem is not Talk Radio, but
the breakdown of old political coalitions.

My webpage is http://www.populistprospect.blog.com

Somebody sed: “When someone says that talk radio is dominated by the right, they must mean fascists, not conservatives.”

Well first of all, the neo-con agenda is the pro-business,
pro-globalization, pro-Alan Greenspan Wall Street
economics. The internationalism, the interventionist
foreign policy, is just the other part of the economic
agenda, which is to make the world safe for ‘Democracy”,
meaning International Finance Capitalism.

Talk Radio depends on ratings that’s true, but it also
depends on advertisers. Talk Radio can’t exist if
it gets too independent of the neo-con--read pro-Wall
Street---line. 

That is why there is really such thing as a “Free” Press
or a “free” market either come to think of it.
Advertising...the economic elite supports internationalism
because it goes along with their globalization agenda.

So a lot of talk radio tends to emphasize a lot of stuff
that is appeals to the lowest common denominator of the
audience---sort of Jerry Springer for political junkies---
and nothing that might offend advertisers in the businesss
community.

my webpage: http://www.populistprospect.blog.com

Mr Stewart,
You may be right about the term ‘conservative’ we shall see.

I hope the election results will split the GOP and the conservative apparatus, because a split means real choice and a vigorous opposition. I just don’t think banning speech is acceptable.

Mr. Swartz:

Let me make clear, even concede, one thing about my position on the Fairness Doctrine:  I don’t know much about it, and I very well could be wrong.  In fact, I’m not even saying I favor it.  I’m really just playing devil advocate and at the same time expressing my deep dislike and distrust of talk radio and Neocons in general.

I’m certainly not in favor of “banning speech” or suppressing political expression.  My limited understanding is that the Fairness Doctrine would require that opposing views be given equal time on public airwaves.  To me, that sounds positive in general and may serve as a balancing foil against Neocon fear-, war-, and hate-mongering, which I blame for much of this country’s current troubles.

But, I could be wrong.  If instead of providing equal time to opposing views, the Fairness Doctrine actually quells political speech, for anybody including Neocons, then that seems unfair and counterproductive, as well as un-American, and I would viscerally oppose it.

Mr. Weyrich, as he has in the past in circumstances
such as the debate on the chemical weapons ban,
misstates or gives a shortened version of Sen. Lott’s
views and actions.  Although I have not discussed the
issue with Sen. Lott, I imagine his problem with some
talk radio hosts and special interest groups is that
they emphasize some portion of a greater issue such as
immigration reform and demonize the entire effort on
the basis of that portion.  With the rise in
popularity of talk radio and TV, including local talk radio
in Mississippi, the public’s general lack of
awareness and knowledge of the federal (and state)
legislative process has been replaced by snap-shot,
anecdotal and often uniformed (if not intentionally
mischaracterizing) analysis by so-called or self-
proclaimed experts.  These “expert analysts”, such
as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Bill Press, driven
by the network and sponsorship demands to produce
ratings, blend TV/radio “entertainment” considerations
into their product, their so-called analyis and
opinions, and give very little true consideration
to the issues and those elected to address such
issues.  Hannity’s recent interview of Sen. George
Voinovich on immigration reform is the best example
of provocation by interrogation and disrespect.

What Sen. Lott and others are observing, I believe,
is an awareness of this phenomenon. I do not believe
Sen. Lott is for less information and education
being available to the public by limiting discourse
and debate.  I believe Sen. Lott recognizes, as a
result of intentional or negligent misinformation
outright mischaracterization by talk radio and TV
of the substance of important issues such as
immigration reform, a need to counter it with much
more information and education regarding such issues
and the methods of reform available and being
considered.  The result of such efforts by Sen. Lott
and other elected leaders will be the production of a
more informed, less misled electorate rather than
an electorate informed and educated by talk radio and
TV.

Pasted below is an excerpt from a letter to the editor that Senator Lott sent to the Washington Times on June 25th, and was published on June 27th.  I think it clearly explains his position in regard to the Fairness Doctrine.

“Your suggestion that I raise “the
specter of reviving the Fairness Doctrine” has no basis in fact.  In the Fox News Sunday interview cited in your editorial, I said:
“I’ve been defended by talk radio many times, and I will support their rights to tell their side of the story, right, left or the middle, forever.  I don’t think this Fairness Doctrine that would try to require there be X amount on both sides is fair.”
I point out this quote because in yesterday’s editorial you failed to mention the very quote that undermines the premise of your entire assertion that I, along with liberal special interests and Clinton White House staffers, support reviving this failed doctrine. 
Last week, I used even harsher words when talking with Sean Hannity.  I told him, “I never meant that we should have the Fairness Doctrine imposed to stifle people like you or anyone on talk radio.”
The Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter.  I believe the market will drive radio content, and it has driven liberal attempts at talk radio right out of business.”

Mr. Weyrich proves that he really has no clue what he is talking about.  Last time I checked a Congressional Directory and the Senate Rules Committe web site listed Sen. Bob Bennett as the ranking member of the rules committee. NOT Trent Lott as Mr. Weyrich claims. It took me 37 seconds to find that out. Of course I suppose that was 37 seconds of trying to get the facts that Mr. Weyrich just didn’t have to spare.

Paul, do a little homework before spouting off.  You have basically done what many have accused Trent Lott of doing.  Boy that is rich!!