After giving a dubious account of the causes of the Democrats’ 1994 electoral disaster, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson (11/14/08) provides an inaccurate description of the Fairness Doctrine, which he calls
a federal regulation (overturned by the Reagan administration in 1987) requiring broadcast outlets to give equal time to opposing political viewpoints. Under this doctrine, three hours of Rush Limbaugh on a radio station would have to be balanced by three hours of his liberal equivalent. This may sound fair and balanced. But it is a classic case where the “unintended consequences” are so obvious that those consequences must be intended. It would destroy the profitability of conservative talk radio and lead other outlets to avoid political issues entirely—actually reducing the public discussion of controversial issues.
I have to say—if that’s what the Fairness Doctrine was, then I would be against it. But it was never an equal-time rule; instead, it required broadcasters to provide some coverage of controversial issues and to make some provision for opposing views. In practice, the FCC would accept roughly a 5-to-1 ratio as providing adequate balance. Far from making conservative talk radio impossible, a talkshow format in which the host occasionally takes calls from listeners who disagree was an easy way for stations to fulfill their Fairness Doctrine obligations.
The genius of the Fairness Doctrine was that it balanced the broadcasters’ First Amendment right to express their point of view with the reality that the government is granting a monopoly to license-holders to broadcast on a particular frequency—in effect saying that they and no one else has a right to express themselves on that particular street corner. The Fairness Doctrine says that every once in a while, you have to let someone else share the soapbox. I wonder why right-wing pundits find that so threatening?
Why do they find it threatening?
A rhetorical question, I assume … like vampires, these bloodsuckers can’t stand even a sliver of light. Their message must be delivered in a vacuum, safe from any exposure to contradictory reality.
But the larger question is why corps have such a monopoly on the airwaves, isn’t it? If many more alternative outlets existed, that would counter the reactionaries much more effectively than the crumbs provided by the Fairness Doctrine, wouldn’t it?
Freedom of the Press was limited to those that had one as well. If you want equal time, pay for it.
The fairness doctrine is probably the only way most left wing talkers can get on the radio. In a market driven media, their drivel does not sell. How many lefties have gone on radio only to find that no one wanted to hear what they had to say and no one wanted sponsorship spots or commercial time? Liberalism cannot survive on the airwaves on it’s own merit, so the left has to try to make successful conservative talk shows give the liberals a boost up. Kinda sad, really.