It's rather difficult to comment unless one knows just what the J-S editorial was that Garvey is responding to.
With the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in the late 1980's, stations can do just about whatever they want to re: commenting. Right now you have Belling and (to a slightly lesser extent) Sykes, reciting the mantra "liberals/lefties bad; righties/conservatives/Bush good". If one does what Garvey wants, then one can readily predict that you'd get a different host reciting the mantra "liberals/lefties good; righties/conservatives/Bush bad".
Sadly, truly balanced reporting on commercial stations/networks seems to have disappeared. PBS' "The News Hour" is a port in the storm, which by all accounts is balanced.
Folks seem to find the right-wing talk shows entertaining, and those with the same political slant like the shows as they reinforce their beliefs. Personally, I wouldn't listen to a show that intentionally billed itself as "left", as I like to hear two or more sides, and then make up my mind. Rarely are issues so clear-cut, black-and-white. Likewise, I often find myself turning Belling/Sykes off, because of their on-air manner, the way they treat callers who disagree with them (as opposed to those who wander off-topic, or ramble), and the predictable mantra described above.
(Occasionally Belling surprises me. During the debate over the gas tax increase (I concur with his stand on principal, as automatic tax increases are wrong. However, I also agree with those who say that its impact on the average Wisconsin resident was not very big.), a caller opined on how it would be great if Governor Doyle vetoed the bill, as then it would make him more vulnerable to a Republican attack in the November election. Belling chastised the caller for taking that stand, saying that one does things because they are right, and not because of any political strategy. Bravo Mark!)
The dictionary definition of "liberal" means someone who loves individual freedom and who is open to different ideas. Applying that, as opposed to the pejorative way most right-wing folks now use it, one would assume that someone who is "liberal" would want to hear multiple sides of an issue before making up their mind. Conversely, applying the dictionary definition of a "conservative", implies that that individual is not willing to consider other points of view.
My experience has been that most folks on the right don't want to hear any other opinions, save for those they subscribe to, and would turn off their radios. Those on the EXTREME left would listen, but they aren't a very big audience. (Emphasis on "extreme" = intentional. I consider those folks to be on the extreme left politically, but anything but "liberal".)That is one of the reasons why something like "Air America" hasn't yet worked. Save for a small number of folks looking for ammunition, folks on the right won't listen, and true (dictionary) "liberals" won't do so, as it is just as one-sided as the shows from the right.
Now, there are bills pending in the state legislature which are trying to address problems with issue ads. It'll be interesting to see where they go.
The bottom line is that unless The Fairness Doctrine comes back, few are going to voluntarily give time to opposing points of view. Historically, the Doctrine was opposed in the FCC by Commr. Frieda Hennock, on the grounds that while it was a good idea , there was no way the Commission could enforce it. (She was right. How many stations lost their licenses over failing to give equal time for opposing viewpoints? It did prevent some folks from editorilialzing, and in fact those were often Republican-leaning stations who did not want to give equal time.)
Some of Garvey's proposals re: covering candidates, etc., have merit, and would seem to be good journalism. However, I don't see WTMJ giving half of Sykes time up! He's still making money for them, and unless forced to, why would they even consider doing that?
I concur that it would be nice to hold some sort of pre-election show, but an hour weekly? WPR and MPTV (WPTV as well), could and sometimes do. How many watch/listen however? (Somewhat sad, really.)
http://www.madiso> n.com/tct/opinion/column/garvey/index.php?ntid=79747&ntpid=2
>
>
> Ed Garvey: Journal Communications should put money where its
> editorial is
>
> By Ed Garvey
> The Capital Times
> Published: April 11, 2006
> Ed Garvey is a Madison lawyer, political activist and the
> editor of the fightingbob.com Web site.
> E-mail:
[email protected]
>
> TCT Article Excerpt:
>
> "... Journal Communications could and should do the
> following if its editorial board really believes in reform.
>
> • Give half of Sykes' time to a progressive talk show host
> until Election Day.
>
> • Have a weekly one-hour discussion on TV and radio with the
> candidates for governor, Congress and attorney general.
>
> • Give lots of free air time to all winners of primary races
> for 30-second spots.
>
> • Assign a Journal Sentinel reporter to the campaigns like
> it did when the Journal competed with the Sentinel.
>
> • Voluntarily adopt a reply time policy call it a Journal
> Communications Fairness Code of Conduct. If a candidate is
> attacked on Journal Communications' radio or TV stations,
> the candidate will be permitted time to respond.
>
> Do that, Journal Communications owners, and we will take
> your editorials seriously."
>
> [Click link above for the full The Capital Times newspaper
> article.]
>
