http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124157612583390463.html

As liberals are so fond of saying “If you don’t like it, turn it off or change the channel!”.
The overwhealming liberal slant expressed in the mainstream network/cable TV media should satisfy liberals just fine but the more radical amongst them seem to want ALL opposing viewpoints silenced.

Why certain media environs seem to enrich certain political viewpoints is interesting. Savage bombed miserably on TV while thriving on the radio. Fox news is a bit of a minority right leaning approach in the liberal mainstream media whilst Airhead America is a minority counterpoint struggling in the conservative bastion of AM talk. Newspaper is dying in part because of the internet/blogosphere do-it-yourself news media, and shrinking subscribership (due in part locally), to the mainly conservative readership being turned off by the thinly veiled one sided liberal slant that is print media. Any more it seems like in your face editorializing being passed off as hard news. They aren’t even trying to be coy about it anymore.

We subrscribe to the weekend Mis-Statesman for the comics, TV guide, and Sunday coupon clippings.

To be fair, even if we did have an Air America affiliate here, I probably wouldn’t listen to it any ways. Even though I might agree with there politics, I would rather listen to Zeppelin or Aerosmith than any type of talk radio, be it conservative (Limbaugh), liberal (Uhh… Maddow I Guess?), or even comedy (Bob And Tom, Todd And Tyler). I just like the music better than the talk.

Like him or disdain him (used to like him, but now can’t stand him), Rush Limbaugh has been the savior of AM radio, thanks to the repeal of the “Fairness Doctrine.” Had personality-based talk not been permitted to flourish, many AM stations likely would have died years ago due to lack of ratings. He paved the way for others, including Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and even Randi Rhodes to follow.

On the unfortunate side, most talk stations have become nothing more than conservative beacons. I am not trying to throw a bomb here, just making an observation. I also understand why stations would do so. I programmed 2 conservative stations in the state with such line-ups. It is too bad that the American populace has become so polarized that it could not accept Rush in the morning and Ed Schultz in the afternoon. In my opinion, while perhaps impractical for fear of loosing ratings points, in theory would make GREAT radio. Having a host who throws an ideological cherry bomb at his audience stirs things up and produces calls, instead of just playing cheer leader.

For some time, since becoming a self-professed liberal, I have been on the fence regarding the potential return of the “Fairness Doctrine.” At moments, I was in favor of it, and at other moments against it. After having lived in Mexico for the past 7 months, I can tell you I am flatly against its return. Why? I have seen what happens when you let government control media content.

Following the 2006 loss of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador by less than .05% (insert Bush vs. Gore here), Mexico’s Congress got on the bandwagon of Constitutional media and election reform. They granted unprecedented powers to an independent monitoring body called IFE (Instituo Federal Electoral). IFE has absolute power to monitor, sanction and fine media operations in the country via its board of directors. Congressional and municipal elections are coming up in July and this organization has become a literal pain in the hind quarters. Radio and TV stations are required (since January) to air 23 minutes a day of electoral ads for free, promoting the role of IFE and generalized ads for the nation’s 3 main political parties, and occasionally for 5 others. The content factor? ZIP! They are self-congratulatory cheer-leading feel good ads for each party that serve no purpose at all. Attack ads are not permitted at all, and all local radio stations are monitored 24/7 to make sure they air the content. Local hosts are also at their wits end now, trying to avoid direct criticism of any candidate for fear of being hit with fines worth thousands of dollars. Interviews from opposing sides have to be timed down to the second. And what’s worse? Upon request of one of Mexico’s governors, Youtube was asked to take down a parody song/video which accused the leader of stealing from his state’s treasury.

I also considered my own radio program. I broadcast my political talk show every day in Spanish and share some very unpopular viewpoints in my community. Not to MY audience, but to some ultra-conservatives in my community. I talk freely about amnesty, immigration reform and even perceived American imperialism. Very popular with my listeners, but under a potential return of the “Fairness Doctrine,” I would have to share an hour with a representative of the Minuteman! I’d be plastered with tomatoes in a matter of minutes!

Fortunately, the Obama Administration (contrary to what some alarmists might try to tell you), has opposed restoring this policy. It is in the best interest of free speech that we keep the airwaves free from content intervention. But free speech also has a price that accompanies it: responsibility! While going for broke on our programs from time to time is “o.k.” we need to present other viewpoints, even if we have to play devil’s advocate. It all boils down on us making some effort to include the other side. Doing so will preserve our ability as communicators to present cogent arguments and good radio for years to come.

Russia tried all this and China still does it. But, how quickly we forget…

….seems like the TV networks and and newspapers in this country are doing a pretty good job on this already.