Fairness Doctrine, here we come.
The media has been in a tizzy of late over Rush Limbaugh describing Obama as a “Chicago thug.” News stories abound of “right wing anger” and anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with Obama’s purported policies are deemed “un-bipartisan” or even as people engaged in “hate speech.”
Where was this flurry of news stories after Bush’s re-election?
I suppose we can’t expect any major media outlet to actually check their facts before spouting off at the mouth, so let me set them straight: The origin of the “Chicago thug” term to describe Obama came from none other than Bill Clinton himself. Here is the link to the article by John Harris at the Politico on August 26 of this year:
“Bill Clinton believes the Democratic nominee, far from practicing a unifying, transformational brand of politics, has the political instincts of ‘a Chicago thug,’ one longtime associate said.”
But facts matter little when the goal is to eradicate largely conservative talk radio from the airwaves. If Limbaugh repeated it, then no amount of media objectivity or integrity will prevent them from re-framing it and packaging it as “right wing anger” to the unsuspecting populace. The so-called Fairness Doctrine is a prime example of the suppression of free speech that will ensue—is indeed already happening—once Obama is inaugerated.
Should it somehow come to pass that the Fairness Doctrine will rear its ugly head, I fully expect NBC to comply. And Oprah? Remember her open advocacy of Obama for president, and her refusal to have Sarah Palin on her show during the campaign? No more of that for her should the Fairness Doctrine be reinstituted.
Don’t misunderstand. Oprah has every right to have whoever she wants on her show; it’s her show. Sure, she took a major business risk, potentially alienating a large portion of her audience by shunning Palin during the campaign, but it was hers to take. And that’s the whole point, isn’t it? It’s the beauty of free enterprise, and risks and rewards. I don’t think Oprah would appreciate the government pushing in on her and dictating what she can and can’t talk about on her show. But interestingly enough, conservative talk radio is fair game for this type of censorship. Chuck Schumer even went so far as to compare pornography and talk radio.
But please don’t give me any of this “hater” stuff. People call Rush Limbaugh (and any conservative talker, for that matter) bigoted, intolerant, or hateful. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, and it showcases that fact that many of these accusers have never bothered to listen for themselves and find out if their accusactions are actually warranted. (They’re NOT.)
But, is it just some human, visceral reaction to see someone as “hateful” if they express a different viewpoint? Interesting question. Someone should do a study on it.
Funny, but when George W. Bush was elected (and re-elected) there weren’t collective media crap-fits about the liberals’ dis-unity. How about all those people driving around with the “He’s not my president” bumper stickers? Burning Bush in effigy, beheading him, calling him every name in the book…call me crazy, but doesn’t any of that qualify as “hate”? Now that Obama’s elected, one can’t even criticize his suit without the media coming down on them as being hateful, or “difficult” and unwilling to “unify.” (See Too Good page, David Harsanyi, for an excellent column about unity.)
And here I thought America had room for differing viewpoints. Not anymore, apparently.