June 22, 2007

Talk Radio & The CAP Report

Since talk radio has become a hot topic in and of itself, Wednesday's report from the Center for American Progress has become the center of the debate. I actually agree with the what looks to be the central argument of the report -- liberal ideas require government intervention to force more than a few people to listen to them. At Heading Right, I look at the underlying assumptions the report makes in its attempt to impose government rationing of political speech in open markets, and why the demand for a new Fairness Doctrine is just another stalking horse to kill a market in which liberals have proven, thus far, uncompetitive.

UPDATE: Mark Levin notes that the author of CAP's study, Paul "Woody" Woodhull, failed to disclose his professional and financial connections to two liberal syndicated radio show hosts, Bill Press and Ed Schultz. Can you say "conflict of interest"? I knew you could!


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (8)

Posted by RBMN | June 22, 2007 9:07 AM

The whole thing is so ridiculous. In terms of ALL media, it's like Tyson Foods and Hormel complaining that duck hunting and deer hunting are allowed without the hunter having to buy an equal amount from them.

Posted by bulbasaur | June 22, 2007 9:17 AM

I dislike that libs want to use the coercive force of government to gain an audience for their failed and disgraced ideas.

However, whereas in the 80s liberalism was fluffy, sensitive and palatable to ordinary Americans, liberalism today is spitting mad - it's like a possessed Linda Blair spinning its head in complete circles spewing green vomit.

Therefore, I should think broader exposure of liberalism would be a very good thing for us. They'd have to stay mean and filthy to retain their base, but doing so would repel a great many more Americans.

I say, bring on the leftist-hate machine and let nature take its course.

Posted by Bambi | June 22, 2007 9:41 AM

Exactly how different is this from chavez?

Posted by Dub Dublin | June 22, 2007 9:42 AM

We already involuntarily subsidize the liberal pro-big-government viewpoint through government tax subsidies for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting System, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting - and they are understandably loathe to bite the hand that feeds them so well.

Kill all government funding for public broadcasting now - the original rationale of ensuring access by the people to scarce broadcast capability is a joke in today's broadband world. (Note I'm not saying public broadcasting should go away, just that the government shouldn't subsidize it.)

Posted by UnrepentantRedneck | June 22, 2007 10:08 AM

I grew up during the time the first UnFairness Doctrine was passed by the libs. If you're too young to remember, Google "Dan Smoot" - a major target, now long gone and forgotten.
If they pass this odious attack on free speech, we should stick it to them by using the courts to force fairness on the Big Three, the little cable two (CNN, MSN), and the hyperliberal print media.

Posted by Goeffrey de Boullion | June 22, 2007 10:15 AM

This stinks of totalitarianism; Lott on the right and Clinton, Feinstein on the left.

These people want to control the conversation. But more importantly, they want to control access to information. They attempted to regulate bloggers last year.

What's next?

Posted by NoDonkey | June 22, 2007 12:53 PM

"force fairness on the Big Three, the little cable two (CNN, MSN), and the hyperliberal print media."

But they are fair! Just ask them. And the people who agree with them.

And the exact same people can also be relied upon to tell us who isn't fair - Those who disagree with them.

Isn't that simple and easy?

Democrats 2008 - Because they're more equal than you are!

Posted by docjim505 | June 22, 2007 8:10 PM

"force fairness on the Big Three, the little cable two (CNN, MSN), and the hyperliberal print media."

Oh, but they already ARE fair! Why, they routinely feature noted conservatives such as Arlen Specter, Michael Bloomberg, John McCain, and Chuck Hagel. What more do you want????