Fairness
Published Thu, Jul 24 2008 5:14 PM
Technorati Tags: Liberals, Conservatives, Media, Politics, Constitution
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.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1210
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/7/24/1210.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Layla responded with:
 | Perri I agree with you, but this issue is a moral issue in my humble opinion. It is a matter of liberals calling wrong-right. They want to say what they want to say, decide what is okay and fair to print, what is inappropriate but slanted with liberal fingerprints all over it.
We are not just having states become nanny states telling us how to eat [just one example out of dozens more] - but now our elected officials want to dictate our speech.
Even pornography of innocent children was deemed by the Supreme Court as allowable under the First Amendment. I did not know that it was okay to exploit children according to the Supreme Court - yet in the same breath these people are to be prosecuted? This is the problem - the dual messages from a state of declining morals and values.
For this countries so called intelligent thinkers - they lack common sense, and without G-d and without common sense we have these stupid acts, one after another that bring nothing but division.
This whole issue is sickening. It should not even be up for discussion because it should not have gone this far to begin with.
Idiots - the whole lot! |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | Layla, I disagree that this is a moral issue, it's a fundamental question of our God given rights and upon the limitations placed on our government to infringe upon them. Freedom of speech is just that, freedom of speech. God Himself gave us the right to speak our minds freely. The Constitution, particularly the first amendment merely codifies that right and prevents government from infringing upon it. The fact that some people call wrong right isn't really the issue. Of course liberals want to say what they want to say, and so do conservatives. The first amendment protects that right, but it doesn't grant it to us. It's also true that liberals want to decide what is okay and fair to print, but can you honestly say anything different about yourself? You would censor some “speech” based upon your moral beliefs. That is still censorship. Either we believe in the freedom of speech and of the press or we don't. We cannot decry the censorship of conservative viewpoints while advocating the censorship of viewpoints that we don't care for ourselves. Please don't misunderstand me here. First of all, I don't believe that child pornography, or pornography of any kind is, or should be considered to be “protected” speech. I think that in the case of child pornography especially that it's reprehensible, damaging to children, demeaning to both men and women, and that it appeals to the absolute basest part of our fallen natures. Obviously at least five people wearing black robes disagree with me, but that doesn't make them right, and it's not really central to the point of my article. The thing is, we attack pornography and other vile forms of expression using the wrong weapons. Censorship isn't the answer to the problem, and in fact attempting to censor pornography distracts us from the proper solution, and the real problem. In the case of child pornography, isn't the real crime not the photographing of formerly innocent children engaged in sexual activities with adults, but the actions of the adults exploiting those children? Isn't the real crime in this case the statutory rape of innocent children? The persons who raped the children should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and States should have laws that make such vile behavior a capital crime, and at the very least a felony. Further, we should prosecute the publishers of child pornography for aiding and abetting a felony. There is nothing in the first amendment that prevents the States from making the penalty for that as strict as necessary to deter the criminal behavior. In fact, the very publications that these vile criminals produce and claim to be “protected speech” could be used as evidence in the criminal trials for child rape and aiding and abetting the commission of child rape. There is plenty of evidence available that pornography has a detrimental effect on a civilized society. Attacking it with the intent to censor it is, I think, the wrong way to combat it. One reason I hold this view is that we do have a society that has fallen so far as to accept pornography as normal and desirable. Community standards (one of the measures of what is and isn't considered legally obscene) have fallen so far that any attempt at censoring pornography is almost certainly doomed to fail upon first amendment grounds. Of course the first amendment still protects the free speech of people like you and me that object to pornography. We can still speak out about the exploitation and degradation of women. We can still speak out against the sex trade in general. We can still demand that our legislators make rape a felony if not a capital crime. We can still demand that the civil rights of serial rapists be rescinded (removing their “legal” access to their perverse inspiration) and that they be put away for life. We can use our own freedom of speech, our freedom of the press, and our right to petition our government to fight evils like this in our society. Our founders recognized these rights, and their source. We are granted the freedom of speech not by any man or government, but by God who created us. The framers in all likelihood weren't even thinking about pornography when they drafted the Bill of Rights. They wanted to protect political expression. The fairness doctrine and attempts to censor or compel the speech of those we disagree with all run counter to the framer's intent, and counter to our God who gave us our rights in the first place. That's why we must resist them. Simply because men who have yielded to their base nature try to justify their actions using the first amendment shouldn't change that. The first amendment doesn't excuse evil and vile behaviors, and there are other ways to fight such evil. |
Marshall Art responded with:
 | I agree with your comments regarding the unFairness Doctrine. I do have a point to make regarding the 1st. It is my belief, and I've recently begun studying these things after picking up a copy of the Federalist so I'm still working on it, that the 1st protects speech that is critical of the government primarily. The founders wanted people to be free to voice their concerns about how the government operates without fear of governmental reprisals. This is also why the press needed protection. Now, I think protecting the public expression of opinion is something worthy of protection and a natural progression from political speech and criticism. But porn of any kind is not something that was meant to be protected at all, and it's manufacture and availability should rightly be at the discretion of public standards. If the majority wants all porn banned, it should be and the same goes for regulating television. I don't see regulating porn as being in conflict with the spirit of the 1st anymore than would be the perenial example of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. What say you? |
Layla responded with:
| Perri,
I agree with what you are saying, all of it - including the comment by Marshall Art. My views may not have all been 100% in line with how you view this, and rightly so - at times I do get over passionate about various subjects. Ultimately, I believe in free speech for all. I do not believe in censorship unless the language is such that it is vile, offensive, and or bigoted. Regarding porn, we all agree on that one. I too do not believe that should have ever come under the First Amendment.
Thanks for the update Perri. I appreciate it! :) |
Perri Nelson responded with:
| Marshal, You are of course correct that the founders intended to protect political speech of all kinds. I also agree that they never intended to protect the expression of obscenity. It's activist judges that have done that, something that has been inevitable ever since the court overstepped its authority in Marbury v. Madison and the political branches did nothing about it. Oh, and Layla -- This ought to do your heart good... The court has never said that child pornography is protected “speech”, although to all intents and purposes they might as well have done. What they did say was protected was computer animated simulations of child pornography. It's still reprehensible, and a short slide to protecting the real (vile) thing though. Believe me, I understand and fully support your passion. The only way we're ever going to take back our government and our true liberties is to continue to exercise our right to free speech, and to demand decency, morality, and strict adherence to the original intent of the Constitution from our politicians. Unfortunately I think we're outnumbered. Even so, an active, vocal minority can still effect change. Just look at what the Democrats in the Senate were able to do with the filibuster... |
Layla responded with:
| Well that does warm my heart Perri and I am happy to humbly stand corrected.
I agree, we are outnumbered - ad least for now.
sigh...... |
Ron responded with:
 | Perri
Great commentary on this ridiculous, so-called "Fairness Doctrine".
Here in New Orleans an FM rock station has recently switched from a rock music format to a totally "conservative" talk show format. It's actually called RUSH radio, WRNO. The format includes local conservative talkers as well as Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and of course Rush Limbaugh. Why? Economics. People want it, they agree with it, and like you stated, the liberal talk shows can't compete with it and it's driving them nuts!
I may be wrong, but I think that this whole "Fairness Doctrine" philosophy is what has contributed to the demise of the public school system...emphasizing fairness instead of excellence. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
| Quite possibly the biggest single contributor to the demise of our public school system has been the federal government's involvement in it. The federal government has no constitutional authority whatsoever to be involved in education. Simply by providing money they shape the curricula and agenda in the schools. This wouldn't be so bad except that bureaucracy tends toward socialism in the first place. I think that the next biggest contributor is the existence of teachers unions. While individual teachers may have the education of their students foremost in mind, teachers unions have the unions foremost in mind, and teachers next in mind. Students come a distant third, if they even come that high on the agenda. With this sort of focus, it's easy for the emphasis to be on the equality of outcomes rather than opportunity, on appeasement rather than instruction and on docility rather than individuality. |