Could They Be Serious?
Bringing Back the Fairness Doctrine
In Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the media and oil industries have been taken over by Putin’s government, creating a monopoly not only of oil, but also the flow of information to the public. And now, with the media giant under his thumb, Putin is able to push his political agenda; the United States must now be treated as the enemy in all news stories, and news reported must be at least 50% ‘positive’ stories. As dictatorial and dangerous as this may sound, it is not much different from a bill being pushed forward in the United States Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) intends to "aggressively pursue" a bill that effectively governs what must be said over radio. This is the Fairness Doctrine, put forward by Congressman and former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and no matter how one spins the issue, it is clearly no less than government censorship of the media. The Fairness Doctrine simply states that, on radio shows, equal time should be allotted for discussing all sides of controversial issues. As great as this may sound, it is essentially censoring radio and interfering with free market of ideas.
There is some history behind the doctrine, and it hints at what would come of it should it be put back in place. The Fairness Doctrine was developed in 1949 at the birth of television and radio. Its intent was to "afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance," yet it was used in a malicious manner by politicians against the opposition. Johnson, Nixon, and Kennedy all used the doctrine in this manner. Bill Ruder, Democratic campaign consultant and Assistant Secretary of Commerce of the Kennedy Administration said this about the Kennedy administration’s use of the doctrine: "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue," a perfect articulation of how the doctrine gives politicians the ability to push their own agendas.
Finally, in 1987, the FCC rescinded the Fairness doctrine, citing its violation of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech, or of the press." Congressional power to sanction what is discussed over radio blatantly abridges freedom of the press, and although it was upheld by the Supreme Court decades ago, the expansiveness of the media has increased greatly, and such a doctrine would now be found unconstitutional. The original reasoning for this bill was that because there were a limited number of frequencies and very few radio stations, it was not an efficient marketplace and government intervention was needed. Yet now, in the age of information, the number of radio stations has sky-rocketed, and all opinions can be heard over the radio, the exact numbers of which are determined by the free market. For this reason, the doctrine was shut down in 1987, for it was no longer needed and it merely discouraged debate.
Since the end of the Fairness Doctrine, radio commentary shows have grown tremendously successful, most notably conservative talk radio, such as the highly controversial Rush Limbaugh. Most liberal radio has failed, such as Air America, founded by Al Franken, which filed for bankruptcy in 2006. With the Fairness Doctrine in effect, right-wing radio dominance would certainly be challenged. Rush Limbaugh would be forced off the air, unless he completely changed the format of his show, and conservative talk radio would essentially be gagged. Suppose one radio station airs seven hours of conservative talk show; with the doctrine it would need to then air seven hours of liberal talk show, which has been proven to be unsuccessful and unprofitable. As it did before 1987, radio would just devolve into music, for the expense of changing schedules and paying for un-popular liberal hosts would be much too great.
Yet, more importantly, this issue is not one of political ideology or whether or not one agrees with Rush Limbaugh; instead, it’s an issue of interference in the free market of ideas to influence what the public hears; it is government censorship of the media. This horrendous assault on the free media is no better than Putin’s takeover of Russian media, Hugo Chavez’s crackdown on opposition Venezuelan media, or Chinese censorship of Western media, for this bill is not only an open attack on not only conservative ideology, but on free media, and the second we give government the power to control the media as it sees fit, we lose our independence.
It seems odd that this bill is actually being considered; even Al Gore has jumped on the bandwagon. If what is being said over conservative talk radio is hurting America, then let the Democrats debate it. The open market of ideas will decide who is right, not legislation. Just because the Democrats are in control of Congress does not give them the power to shut down debate; it gives them the upper hand in making their case, and that is the technique to be employed, not this subtle censorship.
I would like to end with a quote by Larry King: "If we agree fairness is a goal, then we have to agree the industry will be fairer with a doctrine than without." Here, Larry King is dead wrong. Fairness should never be a reason for government to intervene in the free market of ideas. In fact, it would be fairer if government did not regulate opinions, and instead remained uninvolved in the media. When government is given the power to legislate "fairness," the American people have a real problem.
---As printed in The General
