Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Fairness

There's been a lot of talk on the radio and in the blogosphere lately about the so-called “fairness doctrine”. Quite naturally liberals appear to be in favor of reinstating the fairness doctrine, while conservatives are opposed to it. Supposedly this issue revolves around the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

From a conservative point of view the problem with the fairness doctrine is that it imposes a requirement that certain speech must be “balanced” by other speech. Aside from the notion of compulsory speech, which certainly isn't free, conservatives see this “balancing requirement” as an attempt, not to provide balancing viewpoints on radio stations carrying the talk format, but to suppress conservative speech through economic blackmail.

The argument goes that “liberal” talk radio programs simply cannot compete with talk radio programs hosted by conservatives. Because of this, radio stations that choose to carry the talk radio format tend to air conservative programs to the exclusion of liberal programs, in an attempt to attract more listeners, and thereby to attract more advertising revenue. If a radio station is forced, due to liberal complaints, to carry a liberal program so as to give equal time to a conservative program the presumption is that the liberal program's lower rating share will result in less advertising revenue for the station, and so, rather than carrying both programs the station will carry neither and change its format. This ultimately will spell the end of conservative talk radio.

Many a pundit, and I myself (and I don't consider myself a pundit, just an opinionated person with a website) have argued that this is the real motivation behind the liberal drive to resurrect the fairness doctrine. We have after all watched as Air America apparently demonstrated that there is no real market for liberal talk radio. Conservatives in general appear to believe that liberals simply cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints, and so they've “got it in for” conservative talk radio.

On the other hand, many liberals appear to believe that talk radio is biased almost exclusively toward conservatism, and that the people that listen to it are mindless, ill informed drones. These same people (liberals) also appear to believe that the “mainstream” media is also conservatively biased, and that Fox News is grossly right-wing. Without going into the merits of these arguments it should be easy to see that, at least from the viewpoint of some liberals, there's a need for something to balance conservative talk radio.

So it's quite possible that liberals have at least two possible motives behind their desire to see a return of the fairness doctrine. Conservatives have at least two solid motives behind wanting to see the fairness doctrine ended permanently as well.

I've already covered the first of these (the economic argument that the fairness doctrine would spell the death knell of conservative talk radio). Conservatives already believe that the mainstream media is heavily biased in favor of liberal viewpoints. We already suspect that many of the major news outlets are “in the tank” for liberalism and the Democrats. I don't want to rehash these arguments again here.

Instead, I want to address the nature of “free” speech. The first amendment to the United States Constitution states…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, Congress cannot make any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Freedom of speech means that you have the right to speak freely. You cannot be compelled by Congress not to speak, nor can you be compelled by Congress to speak in a certain way. Freedom of the press means that someone operating a printing press cannot be compelled by Congress to print a certain article, nor can they be compelled by Congress not to print a certain article.

After the Civil War (yes, Walter Williams was right, it wasn't truly a civil war, but a failed war for southern independence. That isn't the point right now though.), the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was interpreted by our federal courts as incorporating the restrictions in the first amendment on Congress as restrictions upon the State governments as well (“… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …”). This has been carried even further to an injunction against any government body within the United States abridging these freedoms. Taken this way, having the freedom of speech means that you cannot legally be compelled by any governmental body within the United States to either speak or to not speak in a certain way. The same applies to the freedom of the press.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are guaranteed a forum in which to speak. It simply means that you can speak. No-one is required to listen. Freedom of the press does not guarantee that you have access to a printing press to print your ideas. Printing presses cost money after all. The constitution isn't guaranteeing you a free printing press, only that government cannot prevent you from using one if you have the means to acquire it.

The fairness doctrine turns that notion on its head. It essentially says that if you don't like the opinions and ideas that somebody is promulgating on the radio (or in other media, but I'm sure we can all agree that the target is radio), that you are guaranteed a forum for your opposing viewpoint on the same radio station as the one promoting the ideas you object to. Essentially, people that object to a particular viewpoint can force the owner of the radio station to promote viewpoints that the owner does not agree to. This is compelled speech, and that's an abridgment of the freedom of speech.

That's what's wrong with the fairness doctrine. The first amendment doesn't guarantee that all ideas can share the same forum. The first amendment doesn't allow government or government agencies to censor speech. Neither does the first amendment allow government or government agencies to compel speech. That should be more than enough reason for any conservative, or liberal for that matter, to reject the fairness doctrine.

After all, talk radio today does indeed lean heavily toward conservative viewpoints, although there are a good many liberal talk shows on the air (at least there are where I live). Liberals may be using the fairness doctrine as a weapon against conservative viewpoints today, but they should look to the future. If, as so many liberals are fond of saying, it's true that conservatives are evil minded people what is there to stop them from using the fairness doctrine or its equivalent as a weapon against liberal viewpoints?

While I'm on the subject… I've heard and read quite a few complaints about the New York Times' refusal to run Senator McCain's op ed piece in rebuttal to Barack Obama's piece, which the Times chose to run. I think it's a bit ironic that the very same people that are arguing against the fairness doctrine because of the danger it poses to conservative talk radio (based upon the compelled speech squelching the economic viability of the talk format) are arguing that “it's only fair” that the New York Times should run the opposing argument (I most recently heard Sean Hannity making this argument, much to my dismay).

I think that's a bit hypocritical. The New York Times should not be compelled to print an editorial with which they disagree, even in the interest of “fairness”. They should be free to print the editorials that they choose without regard to fairness. The more they do so, the more obvious which way their political leanings trend will be to the general public. There's a reason why their circulation numbers are where they are. Let them make their own economic decisions with regard to objectivity, fairness and the like.

To argue that the Times should be compelled to print opposing viewpoints while at the same time arguing that radio stations should not is nothing less than hypocrisy. As conservatives we're either for the freedom of speech and of the press or we're not.

Me, I'm all for the first amendment. The fairness doctrine has got to go… in all of its forms.