Rush Limbaugh: Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

[wyldwolf]

In an editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh (jokingly?) asks the president to "keep the airwaves free." What he is referring to, of course, is the drive to restore the "Fairness Doctrine" by some on the left. For those who aren't sure what that is, wiki defines it as a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced. This isn't a defense or condemnation of that policy, nor is it a call for it to be restored. That argument is being waged in a number of threads already here.

Although Limbaugh is using "free" in a First Amendment sense, I just want to point out the irony of Limbaugh's belief that the airwaves are actually "free."

I had a friend in college who won the right from the FCC to build a radio station. Aside from the considerable cost and red tape of securing a Construction Permit (CP), my friend was also saddled with legal fees, the engineer fees, the equipment costs, studios, tower, lines, satellite rental, salaries, supplies, etc. It became obvious that a middle class worker could not possibly put a radio station on the air without considerable financial backing. He eventually sold the rights for less than they were worth.

So, in effect, the airwaves are not "free." The public may technically own them, but the public cannot participate in utilizing them. That priviledge is reserved for those who have the financial means to do so. In the past, ordinary citizens have done an end-around of this process and used the airwaves that are supposed to be theirs by putting on pirate stations - only to be shut down and fined large amounts of money.

I don't believe Limbaugh can honestly dispute any of this. So why would he claim the airwaves are "free?" People pay millions of dollars to control something that is supposedly publically owned. Why should only a select few have that opportunity?

So this is my alternate plan for freeing the airwaves - term limits! That's right, Rush. Republicans have really been big on term limits over the years (at least rhetorically) so you should have no problem with companies not being able to sit on a frequency for years and years. Booting Clear Channel (for example) off frequencies after their FCC liscens expires (say every 8 years?), allowing others the opportunity to utilize the publically owned airwaves, should be welcomed by you. It might mean your show would disappear from major cities and rural areas or it might mean the new leasers of the frequency would retain your services. But at least more people would be involved in utilizing the public airwaves.

Either that or each station allow rebuttals of your often factually challenged shows. Which would you prefer?

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. I find it amazing

that scum like Limbaugh mock and ridicule average working stiffs when they're being laid off by the tens of thousands, yet he wails like a banshee when he thinks his job is threatened. Even the little-league local talkers are crying like babies.

Let him go to satellite if he wants to spew hatred and racism to his drone-like fans.

Personally I hope they find him slumped over the golden EIB microphone choking on a mouthful of OxyContin.

[fasttense]

2. Limpballs is afraid that the "Fairness" doctrine will force him to be fair.

Fairness had never been one of his talking points. If he can't be unfair, he will have nothing to say.