Media Criticism

It is time to look at John McCain as the Republican nominee, no offense to Mike Huckabee and his valiant efforts on Super Tuesday. McCain was able to beat Mitt Romney and Huckabee in a diverse range of states from California to New Hampshire with the help of Republican voters. The fact that some independents voted for him is overblown considering the largesse of independents voting on the Democratic side of the ballot. Mitt Romney’s victories in places like Montana and Alaska along with Huckabee’s victories in Dixie don’t give the Republicans anything they don’t already have.

It is time for conservative pundits and commentators to realize that they have no value in helping the Republican Party. I will extend this beyond talking heads of the right to people on television who are dogmatic in their political beliefs. Ann Coulter saying that she would stump for Clinton instead of voting for McCain and Rush Limbaugh bloviating on about the destruction of the Republican Party show the ridiculous vacuum these “analysts�? live within.

Imagine Ann Coulter running for Senate in whatever state she was spawned. It is difficult, isn’t it? Coulter emerging from the conservative coterie to debate a living, breathing Democrat who is experienced in dealing logically with alternative view points is unlikely in this lifetime. I cannot imagine Ann Coulter trying to glad-hand people for donations. I won’t even get into Rush Limbaugh’s limited potential as a candidate given his inability to stay on ESPN after comments about Donovan McNabb. These well-fed commentators know nothing of the challenges of the real world. They only know challenges to their narrow and previously untouched viewpoints that are as ridiculous as the platform of Lyndon Larouche.

The purpose of parties (and their advocates) is to represent a viewpoint unrepresented in the current political dialogue. The purpose of political leaders is to bring together multiple parties when possible to fix problems in an ad hoc manner. The reality is that political leaders ride parties until the realities of national politics make kowtowing unnecessary. Americans say they are sick of the two-party system but they are really sick of dogmatic party leaders. I think that the nominee for the Democrats and John McCain need to demonstrate that they are political leaders and not party leaders to amass any semblance of a mandate after January 2009.

I spent a large part of my work day reading the Economist, and I found a fascinating article regarding the reinstitution of the “fairness doctrine” in the media. Key Democrats (and a few Republicans) are advocating a reinstatement of a federal law that provides “ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views.” Basically, it requires radio, TV, and print media to give equal time to blue people and red people. The Economist takes a strong stance against the reenactment of this law, and I agree for the following reasons:

1) Just like the article says, the current system (with fewer restrictions) already provides for free and fair competition; in fact, our current system does so better. With the multitude of resources available–newspapers, radio, television, and the vast number of sources online (including blogs like this one)–people have the ability to choose their sources. Since the media is ultimately a business, what best serves the desire of the people is what will be successful. If we limit what sources can print, we limit the freedom of choice people have in their sources. I don’t have to listen to Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter doesn’t have to listen to Al Franken or NPR. Opinions have their proper place, and they shouldn’t be watered down by politicians looking to quiet negative media.

2) The effects of a law like this don’t take into consideration third-party ideas. Democrats and Republicans would be granted equal time, and as long as these two catch-all parties had their extremely generalized views on the air for the same amount of time, then the provisions of the law would be fulfilled. It is unreasonable to expect that the media will (or can) give airtime to every solution to every problem. For example, there are more than two solutions to the health care crisis facing the United States right now; in the name of efficiency, this doctrine would emphasize two solutions, at best. Therefore, while attempting to expand debate, the law has the potential to do the opposite; our news would (technically) be “fair and balanced”, but it would be limited.

3) Limiting the free press is generally a bad idea. When the government gets to censor the content of the press in any way, we’re a (very) short walk from losing a key right promised in the First Amendment. The right to free press should not be placed on this slippery slope.

Ultimately, we have the right to decide our sources of information. If you want Rush Limbaugh off the air, don’t legislate him into a corner; just don’t listen.

fairness doctrine, media, debate, discussion, Rush Limbaugh, talk radio