Radio choice belongs to listeners

Let’s start where everyone agrees. There are far more conservative voices on the radio than liberal voices. Most people digest this morsel of information with a shoulder shrug.



Let’s start where everyone agrees. There are far more conservative voices on the radio than liberal voices. Most people digest this morsel of information with a shoulder shrug.

There are, after all, more than 30 other stations on the dial, along with hundreds of choices on satellite radio, and of course limitless options for what you play on your iPod or the CD player in your car.

But in the nation’s capitol, a debate is rising about whether this rightward tilt of talk radio justifies a return of the Fairness Doctrine to get more liberal voices on the radio airwaves.

The Fairness Doctrine actually dates back to the late 1940s and the advent of television. At the time, there were far fewer stations on the radio dial and the Federal Communications Commission developed the doctrine to require stations that used the public airwaves to “afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of views on controversial matters…”

The vagueness of the doctrine’s language, the propensity of both Republican and Democratic administrations to use the doctrine to harass stations that opposed them, and the reality that broadcast licenses had to be renewed by the FCC made most broadcasters cautious. Not in terms of balance, but in terms of content.

They simply shied away from controversy in general and talk radio in particular.

In the Reagan era, the FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that “the role of the electronic press in our society is the same as that of the printed press. Both are sources of information and viewpoint.” At that time, there were about 400 talk stations in America. In less than 20 years, there would be 1,400.

In other words, more voices everywhere. In the Seattle market, there is far more political content than there was in the 1970s or ‘80s. There are two stations, 570 KVI and KTTH; there’s KIRO, which offers both liberal and more conservative programming, Air America, which is distinctly liberal, and the mostly liberal NPR stations, KUOW and KPLU.

Then there’s my station, KOMO 1000 Newsradio, which is primarily a news station with one talk show, The Commentators, Where Ken Schram and I duke it out daily from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

I’m not even counting the stations that feature popular talk shows that mostly keep their distance from politics (such as Bob Rivers on KZOK or The T-Man on KUBE).

Progressives complain that they are outgunned. One liberal think tank says that nationally, conservatives outnumber liberals 9-1. Prominent Democrats, from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Tom Harkin to Bill Clinton to Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow (whose husband has been an executive at several liberal talk companies) say that the Fairness Doctrine would level things out. Bill Clinton spoke for most of them when he said that “We either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side.”

But what if people simply aren’t choosing to listen to it? We have two daily newspapers in Seattle, the liberal Seattle P-I and the more moderate Seattle Times.

There is no conservative newspaper. Should the government require one?

Calls for the renewal of the Fairness Doctrine are really demands for the government to use its power to bail out liberal talk radio hosts who in most markets just can’t draw a crowd.

Quashing the right of consumers to choose the programming they want isn’t about fairness, it’s about infringing on their freedom. Which strikes me as, well, very illiberal.

More in Opinion

America is denying three hard truths

There are three major hard truths that our current government has been denying with great vigor: The Mueller Russia-U.S. Presidential election connection investigation, the war in Afghanistan, and the growing national deficit.

Promote the common good by ensuring individual liberty

Citizens following their passions and dreams improve the lot for all.

The three personas of President Trump

There’s Teleprompter Trump, Raw Meat Trump and Twitter Trump.

Carbon pricing won’t help environment, but will hurt taxpayers

How would a Washington carbon tax make a difference in the world “climate?”

It’s never enough

Based on numbers from the legislature, Enumclaw School District will be receiving huge funding increases from the state. Yet here we are with Enumclaw and a bunch of other districts telling the taxpayers, give us more, we need more.

Why are trailers allowed at Expo Center?

When my husband and I moved to our home in 2001 and for every year after the Expo Center grounds have always been pleasant to look at on your way to our home. No longer is this true.

Columnist sheds light on Koch brothers

Our economy, along with our political system, is broken and indeed destroying our democracy.

Letter writer cites no evidence for claims

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Attitudes change on farming non-native salmon

Their warnings fell on deaf ears, but the tables have turned on the fish farming industry in Washington.

Humility allows for tolerance of other’s opinions

Each of us has grown up in different circumstances. Each has been shaped by our life experiences. Each of us sees the world around us differently as a result. Why, then, should it be so difficult to understand that no two people will agree on every issue?

President Trump working toward the vision of our Founders

President Trump is working to return power and liberty to the people.

Culture, politics have and continue to shape race relations

“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”