THE CALL TO REVIVE THE “FAIRNESS DOCTRINE”
THE CALL TO REVIVE THE “FAIRNESS DOCTRINE” - AN ADMISSION THAT THE LEFT CANNOT COMPETE IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS
by
Ken Eliasberg
The Fairness Doctrine for those of you who are not familiar with it (its having been removed from the scene by Ronald Reagan in 1987) is nothing more than an exercise in censorship. Let me correct that, it is a great deal more than an act of censorship; it is an admission on the part of the left that they need to suppress conservative speech because they can’t respond to it. If I thought I was right (and I do) then I would welcome the other side to express their view if only to demonstrate the compelling accuracy of my position (and, again, I do). Every time some lefty states his case, he makes mine (again, you need only look at the 2 letters to the editor in the June 27th issue of the Examiner responding to my commentary on the left and liberalism - if they don’t confirm the intellectual bankruptcy of the left then I don’t know what it will take to convince you). The obvious point here is that if your argument has merit, you should welcome the opportunity to expose the inferiority of the other side to the light of day. But liberal arguments (such as they are) offer no such challenge, and that’s why they resort to censorship.
There are a number of excellent articles on this subject, but one of the best is a piece done by Nat Hentoff (of the Village Voice and formerly a liberal) for Imprimis entitled The History and Possible Revival of the Fairness Doctrine (January, 2006). For openers Mr. Hentoff observes:
“The term ‘Fairness Doctrine’ exemplifies what George Orwell called ‘Newspeak’: it uses language to mask the deleterious effects of its purported meaning. The Fairness Doctrine itself was in effect from 1949 until 1987. It required that radio broadcasts devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance, and that the broadcaster do that fairly by offering reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard. If the Federal Communications Commission found a radio station in repeated violation of this Doctrine, it could take away the station’s license - a business form of capital punishment.”
The concern for fairness or balance was occasioned by the fact that there were a fairly limited number of radio stations then licensed, and, as licensing was a public privilege granted by the Federal Government, it could condition the privilege in this manner. Because of the limited number of stations, the doctrine was also known as the “scarcity” doctrine. Of course it was an abridgment of free speech, and, more to the point, was an incredible burden to station owners who had to flesh out programs with material that the “public” did not want to hear, and consequently , it would be difficult to secure sponsors for such programming. As indeed it was, resulting in stations canceling such controversial talk shows, politics being the key area of controversy.
In 1987 Reagan’s FCC terminated this approach, arguing, quite correctly, that since there was no longer any scarcity, there was no reason for the doctrine’s continues application (even if its applicaton could be squared with notions of free speech). Immediately, Talk Radio took off, and conservative talk radio flourished. Why? Simple - conservatives were starved for access to news, information, and opinion compatible with their own views. There was no other media vehicle for such information; all other forms of media were dominated by liberals ((and, of course, liberals didn’t object to this form of imbalance: indeed, your average media liberal won’t even acknowledge that such an imbalance exists because he won’t even acknowledge that he’s a liberal (although his voting habits, not to mention his journalistic habits are a dead give away). You see, to the average mainstream media journalist or commentator, Ted Kennedy is moderate, and anything right of him is a right-winger, if not an outright nazi)).
Thus, talk radio is a creature of the free market, something that liberals either don’t understand or are quite ready to reject when it suits their purpose, even if it means, as in this case, stifling free speech.
The liberal’s approach to this area is both revealing and frightening. It is revealing in that it demonstrates quite clearly that they cannot compete on a level playing field of ideas. If they could compete, and, indeed, if their ideas were as superior to conservative thinking as they would like us to believe, then I would think that they would want the opportunity to demonstrate that superiority (as Congressman David Obey disingenuously suggested on the floor of Congress when he observed how much he wanted Rush Limbaugh to continue on). Why are they so afraid of talk radio? Because they think that you - the public - are just too stupid to make an enlightened choice. What might that be? Well one that agreed with the liberal viewpoint, of course. The frightening aspect of their view is the length to which they will go to suppress yours.
Think about that - they need to suppress access to conservative thinking? Why? They can have their own liberal talk show, but the problem is that they have had their own liberal radio talk show people, and no one was listening. They failed continuously - Hightower, mellifluous Mario, and, finally, Air America (the most recent and most colossal failure - after all, how much can anyone with an I.Q. over room temperature take of Al Franken, Randy Rhoades, and Janeanne Garofola, a bunch of nut cases screaming that Bush is stupid and evil and Rush is a liar).
By the way, it is important to note that Talk Radio’s audience is one of the more intelligent of audiences. A recent Pew poll confirms this finding. But even were this not the case - even if, as they would like to think (no, as they seem to need to think) we were all dummies, why, given the free market and the first amendment, should we need the government to tell us what we can or cannot listen to. Is this America or Iran? The bottom line is that the “Fairness Doctrine” is anything but fair, and, the only reason for the left to try to revive it is that there is no market for their ideas. Thus, they need to suppress all others. (to be continued).