Equal time
Add this linked editorial to the list of reasons why the editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal have no clue when it comes to reality, with or without Rupert Murdoch owning the newspaper.
This morning, they suggested that equal time requirements and provisions on television and radio stations for political candidates be eliminated: ["Mr. Thompson in Repeat"].
While the Web is grand and exciting, it doesn't make up for television and to a lesser extent, radio, especially when trying to connect with voters. Especially good voters - older ones who tend to still watch television and listen to radio.
Since television and radio licenses are still regulated by the federal government and are exempt from entrepreneurial competition, fairness standards need to be reimplemented and equal time provisions need to remain in place. In fact, having seen and experienced this form of political discrimination myself, I would suggest that the FCC needs to vigorously investigate whether or not licensed television and radio stations are adhering to the equal time provision now, not eliminate the provisions. They should also fine or even deny license renewals to broadcasters who refuse to adhere to the rules. This would seem to weigh heavier on talk radio stations and television stations, which actually perform debates. But so be it. Instead, the FCC seems completely preoccupied with things like Janet Jackson's bare breasts flipping out by accident during the Super Bowl halftime show instead of real and true violations of the public trust. That should change.
The WSJ is correct about cable. Cable is not a broadcast frequency or license. And, technically, anyone can start a cable station to compete against the others, if they have the money. So, they can do what they want. If they are a cable news station then they obviously would want to adhere to standard journalistic practices and fairness. That isn't always the case but one can hope.
If the provision were to be eliminated, there would be no rule. That would mean that television and radio stations can make their own rules. Viewers/listeners and candidates would have no way of objecting to their biased or uneven coverage. For example, elimination of this rule would allow a station to have a debate and then not allow all the candidates who are on the ballot a seat at the debate, for whatever reason. This goes against the public trust and responsibility of owning those licenses. Again, as I've said before, you can't just go out and create a television or radio station. Well, you can but you will quickly find yourself in jail. You can create new newspapers, magazines, or Web sites if you don't like the coverage of the ones who serve you. But the public owns the airwaves and the government regulates them - or supposedly regulates them. The public should not be denied the opportunity to see every candidate who is on the ballot in whatever race. This change would allow that to take place.
It should be noted that even with the protections which are currently the law, television and radio stations have kept candidates who are on the ballot off the air and denied them fair access to the airwaves, over and over again. I have a litany of examples which I could rattle off but won't at this time. So, the current system isn't perfect. But strengthening the rules, not weakening them, is the answer.
Declarations
Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, however, has this pretty good column about the recent Republican debate at UNH, in her weekly "Declarations" column: ["Off to the Races"]. I don't normally agree with her on most things but I read her every week [well, when I actually get the WSJ delivered]. And this week, she has dead ringer after dead ringer. See if you don't disagree.
On Paul being against the war:
"After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on."
On why Huckabee isn't considered in the top tier:
"Maybe he is and we don't know it."
On Rudy and the dredging up of 9-11 and leading NYC:
"Enough already, we heard you, move on."
On Romney:
"Mitt Romney is -- well, he continues to seem like someone who's stepped from the shower and been handed a dress shirt by his manservant George. ... he should get shirt-sleeved, dig deeper, get to his purpose."
That's the great thing about New Hampshire. We have the ability to really take a look at these people and get to know them. We wouldn't really have that if they had a national primary or probably even a regional primary scheme.
Add this linked editorial to the list of reasons why the editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal have no clue when it comes to reality, with or without Rupert Murdoch owning the newspaper.
This morning, they suggested that equal time requirements and provisions on television and radio stations for political candidates be eliminated: ["Mr. Thompson in Repeat"].
While the Web is grand and exciting, it doesn't make up for television and to a lesser extent, radio, especially when trying to connect with voters. Especially good voters - older ones who tend to still watch television and listen to radio.
Since television and radio licenses are still regulated by the federal government and are exempt from entrepreneurial competition, fairness standards need to be reimplemented and equal time provisions need to remain in place. In fact, having seen and experienced this form of political discrimination myself, I would suggest that the FCC needs to vigorously investigate whether or not licensed television and radio stations are adhering to the equal time provision now, not eliminate the provisions. They should also fine or even deny license renewals to broadcasters who refuse to adhere to the rules. This would seem to weigh heavier on talk radio stations and television stations, which actually perform debates. But so be it. Instead, the FCC seems completely preoccupied with things like Janet Jackson's bare breasts flipping out by accident during the Super Bowl halftime show instead of real and true violations of the public trust. That should change.
The WSJ is correct about cable. Cable is not a broadcast frequency or license. And, technically, anyone can start a cable station to compete against the others, if they have the money. So, they can do what they want. If they are a cable news station then they obviously would want to adhere to standard journalistic practices and fairness. That isn't always the case but one can hope.
If the provision were to be eliminated, there would be no rule. That would mean that television and radio stations can make their own rules. Viewers/listeners and candidates would have no way of objecting to their biased or uneven coverage. For example, elimination of this rule would allow a station to have a debate and then not allow all the candidates who are on the ballot a seat at the debate, for whatever reason. This goes against the public trust and responsibility of owning those licenses. Again, as I've said before, you can't just go out and create a television or radio station. Well, you can but you will quickly find yourself in jail. You can create new newspapers, magazines, or Web sites if you don't like the coverage of the ones who serve you. But the public owns the airwaves and the government regulates them - or supposedly regulates them. The public should not be denied the opportunity to see every candidate who is on the ballot in whatever race. This change would allow that to take place.
It should be noted that even with the protections which are currently the law, television and radio stations have kept candidates who are on the ballot off the air and denied them fair access to the airwaves, over and over again. I have a litany of examples which I could rattle off but won't at this time. So, the current system isn't perfect. But strengthening the rules, not weakening them, is the answer.
Declarations
Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, however, has this pretty good column about the recent Republican debate at UNH, in her weekly "Declarations" column: ["Off to the Races"]. I don't normally agree with her on most things but I read her every week [well, when I actually get the WSJ delivered]. And this week, she has dead ringer after dead ringer. See if you don't disagree.
On Paul being against the war:
"After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on."
On why Huckabee isn't considered in the top tier:
"Maybe he is and we don't know it."
On Rudy and the dredging up of 9-11 and leading NYC:
"Enough already, we heard you, move on."
On Romney:
"Mitt Romney is -- well, he continues to seem like someone who's stepped from the shower and been handed a dress shirt by his manservant George. ... he should get shirt-sleeved, dig deeper, get to his purpose."
That's the great thing about New Hampshire. We have the ability to really take a look at these people and get to know them. We wouldn't really have that if they had a national primary or probably even a regional primary scheme.
No comments:
Post a Comment