Democrats Rush to save talk radio

Doug Powers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 07, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

An amazing transformation from anti-corporate left-wingers into pro-business liberals has taken place. "Pro-business liberals?" I know, but it happened.

It's not often that we see the same folks who spend their days demonizing Wal-Mart, Exxon, Halliburton and many other profit-hungry corporate monstrosities suddenly care about a rich American company – especially one that's propping up a notorious conservative – but this did indeed occur. If I hadn't witnessed it myself, I might not have believed it.

Last week, dozens of media talking heads and other commentators came together to voice concern for the well-being of Clear Channel Communications. The potential threat to the health of Clear Channel's balance sheet is Rush Limbaugh. Liberal politicians may soon be taking action as well, but with a method a little craftier than the Fairness Doctrine.

After it was announced that Limbaugh signed a deal that could bring him approximately $400 million through 2016, one question was asked ad nauseam: "Is Rush Limbaugh worth the money?" Another more frightening question is being asked by some in the government: How can we stop the conservative monopoly in talk radio?

Since the left has PBS, NPR, USA Today, the New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, Time, Newsweek, the L.A. Times, 90 percent of squawking Hollywood actors and the vast majority of college professors in the palms of their hands, that their inability to find big-time success in talk radio is viewed as some sort of conservative conspiracy is comical.

Up to now, the left's foray into talk radio has been a directionless disaster, the likes of which hasn't been seen since Fred Noonan turned to Amelia Earhart and said, "I thought you brought the map!"

Why, though, do so many in the media seem borderline outraged by Limbaugh's contract? After all, it's not costing any other talking head anything. Heck, maybe it will even have a ripple effect on other salaries in the industry. But for the media, there's more to it than that.

The size of Limbaugh's audience and his dramatic influence on the debate in this country offers Rush's critics in the liberal media only stark reminders of how incredibly irrelevant they are. The criticism is really nothing more than penis envy with microphones. Freud collides with Marconi.

When it comes to government envy, Limbaugh's enormous contract might be reason enough for the Democrat controlled Congress to push even harder for the Fairness Doctrine, but I'm expecting a different approach.

I'd actually support the Fairness Doctrine, as long as the "fairness" extended across-the-board. After all, "fair" isn't fair unless everybody's forced to participate in the fairness.

For example, it's no secret that the vast majority of the mainstream media is left-of-center. In the name of fairness, we should demand our news emanate from equal sources, or at least politically balanced ones.

While we're at it, what about university faculty? We need a Fairness Doctrine for those who teach on our college campuses as well. On many campuses, liberal professors outnumber conservative professors to a degree not seen since the battle of Thermopylae – would that battle have been fought by college profs. Is this "fair"? And are profs worth the money they're paid?

Then it's on to Hollywood films and network television shows, whose lean to the left is so profound that, if it weren't counterbalanced by the overstuffed wallets and purses of their creators, they would topple. Is this "fair"? These are some of the most overpaid people I've ever seen. Are they "worth it"?

Though the Fairness Doctrine is a stated goal of Nancy Pelosi, due to the above possible complications, the speaker may be better off taking a different approach.

Given the sea of money in Limbaugh's new contract, Pelosi and company may be wiser to scrap the Fairness Doctrine and instead hop in a boat to ride the waves of cash instead of building breaker walls to prevent them.

This might be accomplished by imposing a windfall profits tax on conservative talk hosts and the corporations who own their shows. The money could be used to pay for small tax breaks to radio groups – to help cover the predictable subsequent loss in advertising revenue – so they can afford to hire more liberal hosts. Rest assured, something along these lines will be proposed.

Don't you wish D.C. Democrats scrutinized the spending habits of their own money-grubbing monopoly, and the "fairness" therein, even a fraction as much as they do talk radio?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68975