FAIR DISCUSSIONS

Reader points to changes in broadcasting

Uncompromising intransigence began to seep through the thick stone walls of Congress when in 1987 the FCC repealed the rule which since 1949 had required broadcast stations to raise issues of interest to their communities, and, more importantly, to present contrasting points of view.

 The Fairness Doctrine, the rule was called, ensured the audience a balanced expression of free speech by keeping a station from broadcasting its owner's point of view without critical discussion afterward.

 A testimony to the one-sidedness allowed by the repeal occurred when Rush Limbaugh, who began his program in 1988, received an honorary membership in the Republican House Caucus as a thank-you for being the single most important contributor to the Republican 1994 victory, the first in 40 years.

 Limbaugh's influence prevails today. No surprise, then, that most Democrats want The Fairness Doctrine reinstituted.

 Opponents say that unlike in 1949, if the listener doesn't like what they're hearing, there's a plethora of stations to switch to.

 Two facts argue against this assertion. First, media consolidation. The company that pays Limbaugh his $50 million dollars a year salary owns nearly 900 stations, most of which are clustered in locations that getting away from today's talking points is nigh-on impossible. Chances are the station being switched to belongs to the same owner.

 Second, Limbaugh, and his closest rival, Ed Schultz, have developed to an art the denigrating of their opposition's stations. Capitalism champion, Limbaugh and labor unions' proponent Schultz have their listeners convinced they can avoid poison poured into their ears only by not switching.

 Intransigence currently runs down the walls and onto the floors forming a flood of extreme partisanship in both houses of Congress. And the people's work goes daunting. Disgustingly!

Darrell Moss

Moses Lake