When asked what makes for a good talkback host, Fairfax Radio chief, Graham Mott told a radio conference, “They should be right wing.” Mott should know what he’s talking about. His network employs more talkers than any other. Meanwhile at WTKK-FM Boston Jay Severin played a clip of Barrack Obama’s acceptance speech, then told the president-elect to “go screw yourself.” U.S> station managers fend off complaints from moderates about such outrageous behaviour by pointing out that it’s not politics, just money. It’s just entertainment. But who’s being entertained and at what cost?

In fact, Obama’s election spells a new boom for America’s army of shock jocks as having the “enemy” in the Whitehouse allows them to foment naked hatred fuelled by all sorts of conspiracy theories eagerly embraced by the extreme right. It’s these nutters that pose a clear and present danger to the presidency itself.

What could stop the growing creep of this format that appeals so much to the guns and bibles crowd – and even more to shareholders of any persuasion?

Many right-wing gabsters are voicing fears that the Democrats will put them out of business by reviving the “Fairness Doctrine”, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1967 that required broadcasters to give equal time to opposing views. What would be fair and balanced about that?

So, gentle reader, the dilemma of the week is: should the excesses of the shock jockocracy be checked by the Fairness Doctrine (or something like it) or would forcing stations to give listeners both the right and left point of view, in effect curtail their right to freedom of speech?

As usual, you are under no obligation to stick to this topic. You may use this forum to express any view you like, provided it has something to do with radio and provides no grounds for litigation.

To read or post, just click the blue title link above. If you’re a non-subscriber, or you would like to post anonymously, you can send your post in an email to [email protected].