The Fairness Doctrine: Why It’s Unfair
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
July 24th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Hi Joel,
I’ve been catching your blogs here and there and I’d first like to say that I’m really enjoying an intelligent discussion (albeit often one-sided, as blogs frequently are) on the state of the media.
That said, I agree with you on this fairness thing. I love (I mean, LOVE) The Economist, yet at some point over the last month or so, I let my subscription lapse so I feel sort of like a fish out of water lately…
Anyway, it just sounds like another way politicians are attempting to compartmentalize everything into neat, little packages. As you mentioned, there are actually more than two parties, there are infinite number of ways to address multiple issues (health care, education, social security, etc, etc) and to put a cap on any of it at this point would feel like the final nail in the American coffin.
Even within the parties, each candidate varies greatly and for good reason. Who would regulate how much “air time” each party gets? And who would have the final say about which candidate from each party got how much time on which issue???
I just got nauseous thinking about all the ins and outs that would need to be determined in order to have even the tiniest shred of hope that something like a “Fairness Doctrine” could be put into place, let alone work.
So I vote no.
We’ve had enough problems with the last two elections. Let’s keep it as simple as we possibly can.
August 11th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Thanks for this post and information on the fairness doctrine. It is a slap in the face of free speech, and we need to stand against it.