The Phoenix Network:
About | Advertise
 
Letters  |  Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  The Editorial Page  |  This Just In

Why ‘fairness’ fails

The excesses of right-wing talk radio have sparked a move to re-impose an equal-time doctrine. It’s a bad idea.
By EDITORIAL  |  July 25, 2007

070727_rush_main

Anyone who has ever sampled the auditory sewer that is right-wing talk radio can understand the impulse to reinstate the so-called “fairness doctrine,” which, for 38 years, gave the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) the power to regulate broadcast speech, under the guise of balancing public debate. That is just what an improbable coalition of congressional lefties and right wingers is again threatening to do.

It would indeed be satisfying to symbolically rip the tonsils out of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Bill O’Reilly, the slime masters who dominate national syndication. And it would be equally satisfying to neuter the host of second-rate imitators who plague local radio. But that would be silly and wrong-headed. Here’s why.

Born in 1949, the fairness doctrine was the child of a primitive day, when radio bandwidth was limited and television was still developing. Cable TV, satellite radio, and the Internet — and all that it has spawned: e-mail, search engines, blogs, podcasts, YouTube — were beyond conception. Better known as the equal-time provision, the fairness doctrine called for “ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views.” That sounds reasonable enough, but in both theory and in practice, the fairness doctrine was a bad idea.

Under its guise, political appointees had the right to act as policemen of sorts, regulating broadcasters in a way that would be unthinkable for newspapers and magazines. The government was called upon to regulate political discussion; that discussion might ultimately affect government action. There was a circularity to this that was so contradictory as to be ridiculous.

Thankfully, the doctrine died in 1987, when the Regan-era FCC rightly concluded that cable and other communication innovations would revolutionize how we generate and consume entertainment and information. Since then, at least three congressional attempts to revive the doctrine have failed. We hope this one, spurned by the failure of the compromise-laden immigration-reform bill, will as well.

While certainly far from perfect, that bill was a rare instance of right-left cooperation, led by Democratic senator Edward Kennedy, of Massachusetts, and Republican senator and presidential candidate John McCain, of Arizona. And yet the talk-show venom directed at the immigration bill by Limbaugh and company was so toxic that it prompted their fellow reptile, Mississippi Republican senator Trent Lott, to wonder if “talk radio is running America.”

Massachusetts senator John Kerry, who himself suffered outrageous and unfair treatment at the hands of the talk masters during his presidential campaign, favors reinstating equal-time protections. But while he has our sympathy, Kerry, on this issue, is still wrong.

There are a staggering 14,000 radio stations now broadcasting throughout the nation. Talk radio, approximately 90 percent of which has a conservative bent, accounts for not quite four percent of that audience. Limbaugh may command approximately 13 million listeners, but the more-balanced-yet-still-left-sympathetic National Public Radio (NPR) weighs in at 20 million. This analogy isn’t perfect, but it suggests that diversity of opinion in media is not an endangered species.

Moreover, media audiences are not monolithic. There are plenty of lefties and moderates with a taste for the bizarre who tune into Limbaugh to get some kicks from the dark side; and there are scores of hemorrhoid-addled geezers who get their rocks off by ranting to themselves as they tune into NPR while driving to their NRA meeting.

This is not a Whitmanesque ode to diversity. But there is also no shortage of debate and no deficit of conflicting opinions in the current media landscape. Cable, satellite, and the Internet have not only spawned it, they guarantee it. And as powerful as talk radio is, radio itself is a much smaller and less significant piece of the media constellation today than it was in 1949.

The fairness doctrine is an old idea for a time now past. And despite the good intentions that prompted it, it was never a very good idea, anyway. It is best left dead and buried.

Congress should more fruitfully spend its time coming to grips with the massive concentration of communication power in an ever-shrinking bucket. Private companies pay a pittance to use public airwaves. What price are they really worth? The president and Congress are unwilling to dissolve or downsize media giants; perhaps they will be willing to require a better price for the airwaves if coupled with creative requirements for community broadcasting.

The public has benefited from communication revolution in a broad way. But monopoly ownership has lead to a one-size-fits-all conception of broadcasting that ill serves the grassroots. It’s time to think about broadcast audiences as communities to be served, not audiences to be exploited. That — not the fairness doctrine — is the real issue.

Related:
  Topics: The Editorial Page , Rush Limbaugh , FCC , Fairness Doctrine ,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Comments
Why ‘fairness’ fails
At least the author is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge this particular bad idea from our lame-duck, trapdoor-spider congress. The laughably liberal language and phraseology, however, reveals that this intellectual honesty is an uncommon aberration, not a healthy norm. Thanks for the laughs, though, author. :)
By pxpdoo on 07/26/2007 at 7:19:56
Why ‘fairness’ fails
Notice how the scumbag who wrote this is too wimpy to attach his name to the article. What a bitter, angry, pathetic communist. I guarantee the writer of this article is a broke, angry LOSER. LOL @ him
By Just a Guy on 07/27/2007 at 3:54:41
Why ‘fairness’ fails
There was a good Letter to the Editor in the print version of the Phoenix pointing out that the equal time provision and the Fairness Doctrine are not the same thing. Also note that a Fairness Doctrine would basically guy freedom of the press. Do you want Ann Coulter to be forced to co-host with Olby? How about having the Phoenix run 50 per cent conservative commentary? So much for "fairness". If people don't want to hear Al Franken's molasses voice, then so be it. If liberal radio succeeds, fine with me. Let it compete in the free marketplace of ideas, not get forced upon us by gutting freedom of the press.
By raccoonradio on 08/11/2007 at 12:37:40

Today's Event Picks
ARTICLES BY EDITORIAL
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   SHE'S BACK - ALMOST  |  November 21, 2008
    Why Clinton's appointment is good for Obama. Plus, better Boston graduates.
  •   CALIFORNIA’S SHAME  |  November 17, 2008
    Equal marriage rights suffers a setback, but there is hope. Plus, young voters.
  •   HOPE RESTORED  |  November 06, 2008
    Barack Obama's election has sparked international wonder. His task, however, is great.
  •   OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT  |  November 06, 2008
    Vote for ‘that one.’ Also, approve pot reform.
  •   DICTATOR MCCAIN?  |  October 27, 2008
    Don’t laugh: if the Arizona ‘maverick’ is elected, he’ll complete the job Bush started

 See all articles by: EDITORIAL

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



Featured Articles in Museum And Gallery:
Saturday, November 22, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group