Fairly accurate - Updated Again


Remember the Fairness Doctrine? Some members of Congress want it back

Here's one of the better explanations of what the Fairness Doctrine really is. Emphasis added.

The Fairness Doctrine is an old Federal Communications Commission regulation that required all political opinion broadcast on the public airwaves to be balanced with equal time for the opposing viewpoint. Originating in the 1940s, when radio and television stations were few and far between, it may have made sense to require balance, lest a region be inundated with unchallenged opinion presented as fact.

But as time passed, more stations came along, offering consumers what they longed for: choice. Radio and television stations popped up by the thousands, offering a microphone to anyone. Opinions of all types were abundant, making the Fairness Doctrine obsolete. But it was still on the books and therefore had to be adhered to.

Until, that is, President Ronald Reagan threw it on the ash pile of history, overturning it in 1987.

The move marked the birth of modern talk radio. Once the muzzle of equal time was off, hosts were free to say what they thought without fear of fine or firing. This allowed the market to work. Stations flourished, talk radio gained influence and created stars.

But a funny thing happened on the way to freedom; the market was clearly one-sided and growing in influence. Conservative voices dominated the AM dial, while liberals were few and far between. And the liberals who were able to survive had audiences only a fraction of the size of those of their conservative counterparts.

<snip>

The much-heralded launch of Air America was supposed to be the balance liberals sought. But despite free publicity from every media outlet and several influxes of cash (including from a charity), Air America's management made Enron look like a successful business model. The market has spoken, and they're failing. Left-wing radio doesn't work (unless it is subsidized by taxpayers, in the case of NPR).

What would be the practical effect of the return of the Fairness Doctrine? Simple -- the end of talk radio as we know it. No station could afford to carry a successful conservative show if it had to balance it with a liberal show. Stations would lose their identity and autonomy, and we would return to what radio was like before 1987, when there were about 100 talk shows, not the thousands that exist now.

The return of the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with shutting down opposing viewpoints. When Republicans were in charge, they didn't move to regulate into silence voices that spoke out against them. The power of government should not be used to silence opposition. That, by any reading of the First Amendment, is un-American and unfair.

That's the point. It's not about fairness, it's about silencing dissent.

For everything I dislike about conservative politics in the United States, very few conservatives want to keep their opponents from talking.

That's not true with many modern liberals and progressives.

It's another reason I find conservatives marginally preferable.

Global warming, abortion, animal rights, anti-globalism, it's extremely hard to find a liberal cause that doesn't try to force the other guy into silence.

I have a simple rule. If you can't make your point without resorting to force to quiet any dissent, your point is probably not worth very much.

What's more, if you can't debate your points on their own merits, you do your arguments absolutely no good.

The reason why conservatives won their arguments in the 1990s wasn't because they were right (pun intended), but because they had spent decades vigorously defending them.

The reason why conservatives lost political power in the 2000s was because the leadership forgot to walk the walk along with talking the talk.

UPDATE - As if by (stage) magic, Warren Meyer at Coyote Blog about silencing dissent.

Today, Greenpeace attacked ExxonMobil for exercising its free speech rights.  In particular, it criticized Exxon-Mobil for spending $2 million funding about 40 groups it calls "global warming skeptics."  For perspective (missing from this article), pro-anthropomorphic global warming research receives over $2 billion in the US alone (and that is just government money, it does not include private money), making Exxon's funding less than 0.1% of that provided to groups with opposing viewpoints. 

Be sure to read the comments, they are about as informative as the original post.

_____
Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic. Somewhere I changed it in my notes and didn't catch it. It's not my quote here but I should have caught it.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sat - May 19, 2007 at 05:21 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2010 All Rights Reserved