Yeah but the Arkansas Project? There really isn’t a way to stop it given the crazy billionaire running it.
You can't stop it but you can limit it's appeal to the general public.
Yeah but the Arkansas Project? There really isn’t a way to stop it given the crazy billionaire running it.
That would have been stopped if the Fairness Doctrine was not repealed in 1987. It would have changed Clinton's perceived image.I think the rise of right-wing radio has had a huge effect on American politics
That would have been stopped if the Fairness Doctrine was not repealed in 1987. It would have changed Clinton's perceived image.
Local callers on the phone in bad-grammar hillbilly English can express opinion received with an evaluation of credibility. And it was local. When a professional speaker like Rush Limbaugh went national, as you said, he received attention. Had the Fairness Doctrine been in place and Limbaugh attacked Clinton as he did, the radio stations would be obligated to provide equal time to Al Franken.Well sort of? It certainly didn’t stop local radio stations and their right wing talk shows, as long as they let liberal callers through they could say whatever they wanted. That’s the 1960s on. It going national in the 1980s was more complicated than just the repeal.
Local callers on the phone in bad-grammar hillbilly English can express opinion received with an evaluation of credibility. And it was local. When a professional speaker like Rush Limbaugh went national, as you said, he received attention. Had the Fairness Doctrine been in place and Limbaugh attacked Clinton as he did, the radio stations would be obligated to provide equal time to Al Franken.
To begin with, the Fairness Doctrine was not as forceful a policy as it has subsequently been portrayed (Extra!, 1-2/05). It vaguely called on broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.” It did not require that programs be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50; talk radio featuring callers arguing with the host technically fulfilled the “conflicting views” requirement. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC ever concerned itself with talkshows.
. . . a different media landscape . . .
. . . if the Fairness Doctrine was not repealed in 1987. . .
- The Fairness Doctrine is maintained.
But I still think the Fairness Doctrine changed expectations on the part of both station management and their listeners.
Clear Channel (now "iHeart") bought out almost every single radio station that exists in America. Clear Channel/iHeart seems to be owned by right-wing nutjobs. They took liberal talk shows off the air while giving Limbaugh a nationwide audience. They also did things such as taking Britney Spears off the airwaves to retaliate against her for turning down their tour sponsorship.And I don’t quite understand how station owners thought all their local business advertisers were right-wing nut jobs?
Thank you for bringing this up, especially their new corporate moniker.Clear Channel (now "iHeart") bought out almost every single radio station that exists in America. Clear Channel/iHeart seems to be owned by right-wing nutjobs. They took liberal talk shows off the air while giving Limbaugh a nationwide audience. They also did things such as taking Britney Spears off the airwaves to retaliate against her for turning down their tour sponsorship.
Yes, this is what I would hope would happen. but @Electric Monk raises the very good point that even this may be beyond the capacity of Fairness Doctrine. My idea is that expectations of such may carry us part of the way.When Paul Harvey reported news from a conservative standpoint and when Joe Pyne entertained callers with mostly conservative viewpoints, it was civil enough to go without controversy. When Rush Limbaugh blasted out against Clinton, it would have triggered equal time for the other side had the Fairness Doctrine been in place. Yes, it was a little vague, but Limbaugh was blatant.
Maybe it is! although I have a theory that sometimes flawed art works out the best and that we should embrace our flaws. . . but I really think the OP’s premise is loaded and just a tad bit flawed in its approach. . .
The GOP never liked “Slick Willie” and weaponized the special prosecutors office in a manner similar to what we’re seeing now with the Mueller report and the aftermath. There’s no real dispute about that.
But the GOP never questioned the electoral legitimacy of Clinton, and having realized from the 1994 midterms that Clinton was “good for business” (IE, his wife and him pissed the base off like nobody else could - and frankly still do) .
Forgive me if my words seemed harsh - I didn’t read it that way, but that is a failure on my end.Maybe it is! although I have a theory that sometimes flawed art works out the best and that we should embrace our flaws
My main premise is, keep conservatives and Republicans from moving so far to the right.
I don't view it as symmetrical.. . . The GOP never liked “Slick Willie” and weaponized the special prosecutors office in a manner similar to what we’re seeing now with the Mueller report and the aftermath. . .
The part I was looking for was in 1848 and involved a fight to censure Polk for invading Mexico, but apparently not available on google books. A Whig politician said, "impeachment is almost a dead letter in the Constitution"To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment
By Laurence Tribe, Joshua Matz, 2018
https://books.google.com/books?id=g... Impeachment Clause as a dead letter"&f=false
"Moreover, from 1868 until the early 1950s, many politicians saw the Impeachment Clause as a dead letter."
Plus, Clinton was relatively young.. . . For the older generation of Republican pundits and donors, Clinton seemed to typify everything they thought had gone wrong with society since the 1960s: personal self-indulgence and a rejection of traditional mores (both in respect to his own life and his political support for gay rights) combined with a refusal to make sacrifices on behalf of the nation. . .
Plus, Clinton was relatively young.
They thought that Clintoncare would give their taxpayer dollars to aldulterers, drug users, gays, athiests, single mothers, etc. They saw the Waco Siege and the Assault Weapons Ban as indicating a plan to "take their guns" and force everyone to become atheist.I think this is what the OP really means by legitimate - The Republicans saw Clinton as a person as illegitimate and reacted to his presidency with a level of vitriol that you didn't see with Kennedy/Johnson or Jimmy Carter. The question is to what extent was this reaction related to Clinton himself or to specific decisions by Republican actors which could have easily been changed, versus being motivated by larger trends in the media and political attitudes that would have resulted in Clinton's vilification even if he'd been a saint.
My personal opinion leans towards the reaction being to Clinton as an individual. For the older generation of Republican pundits and donors, Clinton seemed to typify everything they thought had gone wrong with society since the 1960s: personal self-indulgence and a rejection of traditional mores (both in respect to his own life and his political support for gay rights) combined with a refusal to make sacrifices on behalf of the nation. That Clinton the draft-dodger beat out George HW Bush the genuine war hero probably offended many of them on a deeply personal level and made them much more willing to countenance the outlandish conspiracy theories.