A box Pandora herself would be loathe to open.

"Tommy from Temecula, you're on the air... GO!"

Well, while I find your advocacy of the Fairness Doctrine about as refreshing as a Silkwood shower, I feel compelled to respond due to my fear that like the mighty Maguai, should I not, your posts on the matter will continue to multiply each time I click on our little site past midnight.

All kidding aside, while I was anticipating a rather peevish response would flow from my fingertips to key board, bypassing restraint completely, your last got me thinking that perhaps you weren't necessarily advocating a return to the Fairness Doctrine, only that you could think of no other plausible scenario to deal with what you see as a "problem" of bias, particularly in the mainstream media.

There will be four parts - I.) The Insiders View. II.) The Nuts and Bolts. III) The Philosophical. and of course IV.) The Summary. If this all seems a bit "much," please bare in mind that I was under the impression we were all on the same page about the deleterious effects the Fairness Doctrine had in the past, and the absolute information devastation it would wrought in the future were it brought back. Upon reading Titus' last I realized this was not the case, and I want to deal with this is one felled swoop.

I.) The Insiders View

You are probably not aware of 570 AM WVMI, out of Biloxi, MS. It was a plucky little independently owned AM Talk Radio station that serviced South MS. Later it was absorbed by Triad Broadcasting, and homogenized, later shut down (if I remember correctly), and its' content and format moved to a station within the Triad family with more wattage, and thus a greater range. Well, I worked for that radio station. It was during a hiatus from the casino, and before my time at the Grand. I sold advertising. I even did a few commercial voice overs, met more then a few station managers, and for that year and a half (maybe two) learned more than I expected. But mainly, I kept food on the table selling advertising. And more to the point, selling advertising spots for Rush Limbaugh's show, In fact, that little joint survived almost exclusively on selling his slots - this was before Beck went national, Hannity even. And upon reading Titus' last entries, I recalled a conversation (or 2) I had with a bright station manager.

Some called it "kismet" when Johnny Carson broke on to the late night talk show host scene. The genera was just coming into real popularity on television, and here was an entertainer who's style of comedy, interviewing prowess, and gags fit the medium perfectly. He set the standard for what a professional late night talk show host should be. The same can be said of Oprah (Donahue helped pave the way, but he was a morning talk show really). Just as day time talk was coming into its' own, she was hitting her professional stride. In both cases what was evident is that the perfect person came along at the ground floor, at the perfect time, and things meshed in a wat that produced unparalleled success in these new mediums, respectively. Now, because of that success, America has seen attempts to duplicate it. Precious few with any success, and never on the level of the two afore mentioned names. The list is long: Magic Johnson had a show. Roseanne. Keenan Ivory Wayans had a talk show, Damon too. Charles Grodin did, wasn't too, too bad. Arsenio of course, he lasted a while. If I remember correctly, even Sly Stallone attempted to get in that game. Oh, and the infamous Chevy Chase show, boy did that stink on ice. Now, were these people untalented individuals in their own right? Not at all. The problem is that in each of these knock offs building the program occurred from the top down. They took a known celebrity and threw them at a sofa couch, and attempted to turn them into a comedic or investigative/discussion based talk show host. Whereas in the more successful cases, such as Lettermen and Jay Leno where you had long time professionals in the comedy club circuit, and Geraldo, who was a beat reporter/investigative journalist for years in New York, you had at the very least professionals experienced on some level in the medium they were entering. The same is true of talk radio ...

And this is how that station manager put it to me - Limbaugh (just him at the time), Beck, and Hannity are all professional radio people. They were for years prior to the entire national talk radio game. Limbaugh was a Top 40 DJ, Beck had a similar gig, and did morning drive antics and comedy (which makes perfect sense). Hannity too. For years they toiled in anonymity, learning the craft of radio broadcasting. They learned how to artfully come in and out of commercial break. Of using bumper music to set the mood after a commercial about wills, or diabetic supplies. How to take a caller, screen a caller. How to ensure the caller makes the host look good, or sets him up for the discussion he most wants to have. Timing. Transition. The entire art of the medium of radio was part of what they did for a living before they EVER went into political talk, let alone took their name and show national (there are very few exceptions like Levine, but he is after all a second tier quantity). And what the Left fundamentally has not "gotten" about this is they have been doing it the top down way. The Chevy Chase show way. I remember Mario Cuomo had a show for a while (seriously). It made you want to put a gun to your head (also, seriously). They've been taking known quantities, and/or people whom were politically active leftists first and radio professionals second (if at all), and putting them on the air.

Now that's part 1 of why they fail. Part 2? Pure numbers:

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, Good Morning America, TIME, NEWSWEEK, The NY Times, The Washington Post, The San Fransisco Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, The Las Vegas Sun, The Seattle Times, NPR's 900 stations (to Limbaugh's 600 I might add) ... et al, and on and on and on. What do they all have in common? A Center-Left to hard Left slant, we can all agree on that I think. Well, I don't have the hyper link (you can google it in a matter of seconds if you'd like, I believe it was Gallop), but I think we're all here at least vaguely familiar with the recent (within the last few months) polling data which shows that roughly 19% of Americans identify themselves as "Liberal." Whereas 42% are self-identified "Conservatives." Think about that for a second. Over twice as many Americans consider themselves "conservative" versus "liberal." Can you think of how many outlets are clearly "conservative" in orientation? Because I can think of only two big ones. AM talk radio, and FOX. And even then there are only a handful of names - O'Reilly & Hannity at FOX, and Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck on radio, that constitute the lion's share of name recognition and ratings. So do the math. There exists this multitude of left leaning news and information sources, who's core audience is twice as small as just those few sources on the Right. All of those Left leaning outlets are fighting over just 20% of the population, when it comes to core constituency. While just those few names I mentioned on the right divide up over twice as many core consumers. Is there any wonder why Rush's ratings (and salary) are more then all three major news broadcasts (and anchors) combined? And that's what advocates of the Fairness Doctrine don't get from a consumer research standpoint - Rush and the boys ARE equal time. And they are servicing twice as many people, people whom felt alienated as the media complex titled further and further Left.

The "secret" of their success isn't like finding a woman's G-spot, there's no mystery there. They are radio broadcast professionals whom happen to be conservative, rather then Liberals whom happen to be radio broadcasters; and they have a core audience twice as large being split amongst 1/100th as many outlets as the Left controls (even if you count periodicals like National review or The Weekly Standard). And Rush was the right guy, with the right background and talent, who got in on the ground floor, who was able to convince enough investors to back him when the Fairness Doctrine was lifted, and he became the Carson of talk radio. Trying to manufacture that "magic" if, you will, on the Left has failed repeatedly.

II.) The Nuts and Bolts

I added this aspect to address what I think was an honest desire on your part to see/hear honest, informed, hotly contested debate. To be more specific you mentioned relishing the idea of seeing Oberhman get his clock cleaned by Mark Levine. Even with a full implementation of the Fairness Doctrine (as you see it, including cable news and the rest), this would never happen. And I know this because it isn't happening now. We both know that Levine would have Keith on his show in a millisecond. He'd love a crack at that demagogueing MSNBC poster boy imbecile. But Oberhman has too much to lose. He would never do it. In fact, none of the big names you'd like to see go "mano a mano" would ever get within 100 feet of each other's show, one or both have too much to lose if they get cornered on a topic, get hammered by a clever line or don't seem in possession of all the facts. Which means Levine et al, in order to satisfy the "equal time" requirement, would be forced to go with an "also ran" offer contrary views. Are you going to listen to that, for very long anyway? I'm not.

Let's put it another way. Lets say the big name/mouthed Leftists agreed to do conservative shows, or we were beset by no names, either way. This last Friday Beck did a full hour on China. Starting with the history of "state capitalism", trade policy, culture. He brought on two experts, one an international investment baker living in Asia, the other an adjunct professor at Columbia. It was an in depth, analytical look at how China may overtake us as the world's leading economy within as little as 9 years. I ended up watching th entire hour (unplanned, I had a wagon load of to-do's that day). And the idea that Beck, under your plan, would be forced to surrender 20 to 30 minutes to Oberhman, so he could tell me once again that Dick Cheney is the source of all evil in the world, is enough to make me nauseous. It would have destroyed that episode. And I would have most assuredly tuned OUT. Think about it Titus. Perhaps you'd tune in the first few days to hear Levine mop up Oberhman, or some stand in. But would you on the fourth day? I wouldn't. I know what Oberhman's going to say before it comes out of his mouth, and honestly I find him mentally unstable and intellectually bereft. Some people don't, that's fine. He IS on the air, easily accessible. But to force a Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levine, or Savage into relinquishing control of the content and format of their program (to provide an outlet for a guy who already has his own show no less) is tanamount to telling Carson he must have one minute of serious introspection for every one minute skit. It would destroy the show, people aren't tuning in to see Carson do quiet introspection. And I'm not tuning in to hear Oberhman's (or a version thereof) rantings.

In addition, ironically enough, the only reason Limbaugh Beck and the rest are household names in 2011 is because the Fairness Doctrine was lifted in 1980's. There were ZERO national conservative political radio programs prior (or national political programs outside of NPR of any stripe). And yet the idea still survives that FCC bureaucrats or dare I say, bloggers in NEPA, have a better idea on how to improve Rush's show then Rush does. That format, of equal time for all sides, simply does not work. If it had it wouldn't of taken it's lifting
for talk radio to become a billion dollar enterprise.

Furthermore, and you can check with Arbitron Research Group (the Nielsen ratings of radio), or Talkers Magazine, but they all concluded the reason the Fairness Doctrine limited all political talk to what was the industry motto prior to the Doctrine's lift "local, local, local" was these independent (and even larger regional conglomerates) couldn't chance getting the Fairness Doctrine implementation "wrong." For instance, let's say you have a liberal on for 3 hours, then a conservative on for another three, or even within the same show, and by chance they both agree on some piece of legislation or policy. Technically, according to the "topics" clause, the radio station would then be required to bring on yet a third person whom disagrees with referendum A, B or C. You can't arrange a consistent format that way, and without setting up a consistent format, you can't effectively sell advertising, believe me. Either way I've turned the radio off 45 minutes ago. Because of the constant intrusion of armatures offering their "opposing view" makes the show suck, and more so because none of these hosts have the artistic license to use their individual talents to make the show what they will, squashing any chance that it be entertaining or just plain good.

Which reminds me. I do listen to NPR routinely. They're boring as snot, but it's the only news on at 4 am when I drive home, as I don't have my satellite radio active. So I've relied on you to describe how "liberal talk" comes across to a Bund alum. And to hear you tell it, much like MSNBC (only worse), it is chalked full of malicious personal attacks, juvenile observations, and bad jokes. In those same posts you've routinely mentioned that agree with them or not, at least conservative talk is having a grown up conversation. So why on earth pull up kiddie chairs to the adult table table? That won't enhance the experience, nor the conversation.

And we should all take note that to the man, the big name conservatives on radio have stated that were it to be reimposed, rather then simulcast on Sirius or XM, they would go exclusively to the satellite medium. Rush even intimated setting up his own satellite forum. And why wouldn't they? As-is their shows are raking in millions. Why let some FCC bureaucrat come in, with zero radio credentials or experience, and muck up a clearly successful formula? So shall we regulate satellite the same way? Because that's where the big names, and all the millions in advertising revenue, will go. And all those now successful, independently owned AM talk stations from Biloxi to Temecula will see their revenues dry up over night. They'll shut down, or sell, resort to sports and weather, or go local political talk so as to adhere to the Fairness Doctrine because they can mandate content to local hosts. Tell me how that scenario increases the public's access to information. Once free Beck, Limbaugh et al, whom you readily admit are having the adult conversations, are now $15, or $20, or $25 a moth to hear. And I assure you friend, that is exactly what will happen.

Bottom line, the nuts and bolts implementation of the Fairness Doctrine just does not work. Success, especially of the variety currently enjoyed, could not be maintained. It will drive the successful programs to satellite. The big names will never face off. The mom and pop radio station owners whom are cashing in on Limbaugh et al's success, will cease to exist, and information access will plumit.

III.) The Philosophical

By the way, before I get started on this, regulating things such as porn, explicit language etc is apples and oranges - political speech is held to a different standard of protection, and the courts have consistently held that even the most bombastic political speech isn't a violation of society's norms on values and standards, as is porn on the public air waves, vulgar language, etc. That being said ...

I must assume that anyone willing to regulate political speech via the Fairness Doctrine in order to correct what he "does not like" - that being severe bias in news coverage - would also be in favor of legislation banning flag burning. Or banning KKK rallies. Or Black Panther marches. Or any other vile act or speech any inbred nimrod with a a dual lightning bolt tattoo on his neckline or second hand beret on his head would care to espouse. I mean, if regulation is the answer to "slanted" speech, then why would it not be the answer to out and out hate speech? I though we were all in agreement here that the answer to hate speech isn't regulation, it's more speech. And "more" is the unfettered practice of news and information speech, regardless of perceived or real slants, not government mandated speech dressed in specific time slots of shows they don't own. That is more regulation, not more speech.

To date there has been a complete lack of regulation of the Internet, including online news and information sites. Parallel to that hands off approach there has been a fundamental deregulation of radio and cable. And what has been the result? An information source EXPLOSION. Thousands of sources, shows, line ups, and hosts. The joke of the FCC argument for the fairness doctrine and Net Neutrality is their claim that they"re "protecting the public's access" to get news and information. Let me ask, do you have any trouble getting access to news and information online? Does anyone? On Radio? Satellite? Cable? Who are they kidding? There is no access problem to "protect" against. I fear that those government officials currently heading such advocacy have the same agenda as the Limbaugh/Beck hating author you noted. Plain and simple, this is about power. The power to control information. In the last 20 years we have seen the public's access to news and information sky rocket to levels unprecedented in the history of mankind, all without, or with dramatically less, government regulation. The Fairness Doctrine IS the bath water my dear friend, free speech is the baby. And the best assurance that as much of the "truth" and facts get out on any given topic is maxim liberty to relay that truth. That is the only way to ensure those slanting it, or refusing to conduct grown up conversations on the matter(s), are found out as phony, ill informed, and just plain wrong.

In short, the freedom of content and format is inexorably linked to a free press. You can not eliminate the former and claim to have maintained the latter.

IV.) The Summary

In closing I hope I have adequately laid out why the Left has failed to duplicate the Right's success in talk radio and on cable news. I hope that having digested "nuts and bolts" you get a picture of how unending the cascade of negative consequences would be under real world implementation of a Fairness Doctrine circa 2011, no matter how cleverly we write the statute, no matter how well intentioned those whom love debate may be. And finally, I hope to have hit a home run with your sense of intellectual honesty when comparing the remedy to hate speech and flag burning to the remedies for slanted news coverage.

Look, I understand that this all touched off the other day with your being bothered that someone as bright as your mother could get fed such a half truth, having no competing source for her to consume within her chosen programs. But the truth is that there is a wide array of competing view points she has access to, and has chosen not to partake. And I for one do not want the government stepping in and scolding her via the altering of the format and content of programs she opts to consume, that she likes. And to be honest, if she's anything like my Mom - whom wouldn't vote for a Democrat if he descended from the Heavens flanked by Christ and the Host of Angels - I doubt having an opposing view point forced into her regular viewing and listening schedule would have much impact on the way she sees the world ... he,he.

The Fairness Doctrine is a relic that has long out lived its usefulness. It was designed to "assure opposing view points were heard." Does any one here doubt that a cacophonly of opposing view points on any given subject is getting out now, in 2011?

Ironically, for the commercial, professional, format viability, and philospohical reasons I've laid out, any attempt at imposing the Fairness Doctrine (or Net Neutrality) wouldn't just fail to increase your Mom's news source diversity ... it would likely decrease yours.