| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Who's afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine? |
| 2009-11-10 |
| OF ALL the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our biracial president hates white people, that global warming is a hoax, that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals socialism - the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech. The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check. If you don't believe me, consult the historical evidence. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Because the airwaves were both public and limited, the FCC wanted to ensure that licensees devoted "a reasonable amount of broadcast time to the discussion of controversial issues,'' and that they did so "fairly, in order to afford reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints.'' That's the whole shebang. Pretty terrifying stuff, huh? Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio's business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues. Would talk radio's bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there's nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom. The real shock is that journalists haven't supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of "mainstream media'' outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, "Does this story serve the public good?'' they ask, "Will it get ratings?'' This is how fake controversies (death panels, the birther movement, etc.) have pushed aside real issues, such as how to fix health care, or address climate change. It's quite a racket. Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage, then their "mainstream'' brethren cover this ignorant rage as news. In so doing, the Fourth Estate has allowed the public discourse to devolve into an echo chamber of grievance. The result is a body politic incapable of recognizing the true nature of its predicaments, let alone potential remedies. And herein lies a tragic irony. This is the very reason the FCC installed the Fairness Doctrine - not to silence extremists who broadcast inflammatory lies, but to force them to share their microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not childish forms of denial. Barack Obama arrived in Washington determined to lift our civic discourse above the din of the echo chamber. But he appears determined to ignore the very tool created to serve this end. Forget about bickering with Fox News, Mr. President. If you want "fair and balanced'' voices on the public airwaves, convince Congress, or the FCC, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. If Obama and his congressional counterparts don't have the guts for that fight, Americans of all political persuasions will continue to seek out "news'' and opinions that merely reinforce their biases, rather than forcing them to question those biases. America will continue to limp along as a nation of enraged dittoheads, rather than free-thinking citizens who may differ in our politics, but share an honest desire to solve our common plights. Which brings me to a final mystery: If today's conservative talkers are so sure they're right about everything (and they certainly sound sure), and if they believe so ardently in the First Amendment, why don't a few of them screw up the courage to invite me onto their programs to discuss the risks and rewards of the Fairness Doctrine? No shouting or cutting off microphones. Just good, old-fashioned freedom of speech. Actually, consider that a dare. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #12 "Reasonable opportunity for the likes of Randi Rhodes would be flipping burgers or working at WalMart." Doubtful, Ebbang. Wal-Mart has standards.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-11-10 18:25 |
| #11 To be honest cable news (except Fox) really needs the fairness doctrine. They won't provide serious alternate viewpoints and they will continue to slide into irrelevancy without it. What also cracks me up is the conceit that suddenly with lefties on Rush's show from time to time (they are invited now but most are smart enough to avoid a direct challenge) that they'll somehow gain ground. There is a reason Fox News only gets the second tier lefties, those with nothing to lose, because the lefty arguements are generally based on emotional please and stawmen and that rarely survives against logic and facts. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-11-10 18:11 |
| #10 Reasonable opportunity for the likes of Randi Rhodes would be flipping burgers or working at WalMart. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-11-10 14:24 |
| #9 I'm sure Newspapers, Movies and TV (MSM) will have an out. Likely something about exemption for 'traditional media'...... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-11-10 11:35 |
| #8 If the world were right and the Republicans smart the would allow this to pass and then HAMMER newspapers, movies and TV. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2009-11-10 11:29 |
| #7 And the internet Proc. Don't for a miniute think that Blogs such as Rantburg, Michelle Malkin, Ace of Spades, etc... are not going to be included in a 'fairness doctrine'. Both the Democrats and Traditional (MSM) media are in terror of the free Internet. And for good reason. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-11-10 09:28 |
| #6 Where where the people who were concerned about fairness when the liberals and left had a lock on broadcast media in the 60s, 70s and 80s? Why do we now need a Fairness Doctrine for diversity when we didn't need one then? What is different? The success of talk radio and Fox are the only real differences. It's all about power. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-11-10 09:25 |
| #5 Lets see what people will pay good money to hear? Let's be "fair" and see what gets the dinero from the folks. If they want it ..they will pay to hear it. NPR can compete with Limbaugh and the rest of what comes at you across the dial. Let's see who gets the most listeners, shall we? That's fair. No need to "regulate" what's "fair". Just leave it alone and see what Human Nature has in its wallet. Regulating Human Nature ? Good Luck. |
| Posted by: Angleton9 2009-11-10 09:14 |
| #4 Sounds like he's all for the 'fairness doctrine' only if it applies to conserative talk radio. Kind of a "Fairness for me, but not for thee' kind of thing. And why should conservative talk radio have a nobody like Mr Almond on? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-11-10 08:37 |
| #3 About the 'author' (from article comments section}: Mr. Almond quit his position as a professor at Boston College because Boston College invited Bush's African-American Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, to speak at Boston College. Doesn't this tell us everything we need to know about Mr. Almond? |
| Posted by: Tom- Pa 2009-11-10 08:21 |
| #2 This sounds very much like the old arguments in favor of racial segregation. That it is just more "natural" that people live and work and go to school apart based on their skin color. That the force of law was needed to insure that there wouldn't be "race mixing". That 'they' "are just happier with their own kind." Defenders of segregation could rationalize the most obvious oppression and disparity. So apparently can defenders of censorship. Instead of the "Fairness" Doctrine, why not take what the chairman of the FCC has said to heart, that what the media needs is more "diversity"? However, since the media are in huge white dominated corporations, this should mean using the antitrust laws to break up the great monoliths. Just because those great monoliths are almost entirely leftist shouldn't matter at all. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-11-10 07:40 |
| #1 Nice sleight of hand! Yeah, what could possibly be wrong with a government commission deciding on what is 'fair' and who gets to speak. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-11-10 01:40 |