“After all, if freedom of speech means anything, it means a willingness to stand and let people say things with which we disagree, and which do weary us considerably.”
– Zechariah Chafee
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the “liberal agenda” of late, especially after the bipartisanship blow-up on the stimulus bill, and the GOP got its first real taste of what it’s like to be a minority party in near on a decade.
But now, considering the rumblings off Capitol Hill about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, I’m not so sure conservatives are really flying off the handle.
The Fairness Doctrine was a piece of legislation established in 1949to promote equal presentation of conflicting ideas in the media. Under the doctrine, broadcasters were required to present opposing opinions on any controversial issues discussed on their programs. While not required to dedicate equal time to each side, they were instructed to at least mention them.
The doctrine held until the middle of the Reagan presidency, where it was ruled by the FCC that the amount of media available no longer required that the doctrine be instated, and that in some cases it actually hindered free speech rather than enhancing it.
Recently, Republican senators took preemptive steps to stop this resurrection by attaching a bill against it in a rider to Senate Bill 160, a bill aimed at giving Washington, D.C. a representative in the House, and Utah one more, a bill they knew would pass. So far, it has passed in the Senate and House, and is awaiting President Obama’s signature. Obama, who has publicly stated he is not in favor of the doctrine, will most likely sign the bill into law, despite the blatant abuse of the rider option.
I may disapprove of the methods used, but to be honest, I’m not sorry to see the doctrine get torn down again.
It sounds good on paper, and if it were applied correctly, it could perhaps be a useful and beneficial addition to our broadcast laws. But if there’s anything history can teach us it’s that, with some notable exceptions such as the civil rights laws, government legislation into such a tenuous subject as free speech is often a too ham-fisted a solution – the political equivalent of using a buzz-saw when a scalpel would do.
While it may have been preemptive in the 1980s to say there were enough media to get every viewpoint out in the open, today I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that there is not easy access to any number of beliefs and ideas from across the political, spiritual, philosophical and any number of other spectrums, with just the click of a mouse.
What’s more, most news channels already hold to the most important part of the fairness doctrine – the requirement that an opposing viewpoint be brought in to counter the other side of a contentious issue. CNN nearly always has someone from both sides when discussing a political issue. FOX News does it, even though it’s often only to mock the other side, but you have to give it credit for at least going through the motions.
The target here is really the conservative-dominated “talk radio,” infamous for such household name shock jocks as Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus and Michael Savage. Naturally, there has been serious outcry against the doctrine’s reinstatement in this corner, especially from Limbaugh and other conservative and libertarian sources.
While I am loath to admit being in agreement with someone of Limbaugh’s, er, character, I have to confess that I respect his right to rant as much as he wants without providing a counterpoint to his proclamations. In something as individual as free speech, it is not the right of the government to force broadcasters to show the other side’s view if they do not wish. That is the responsibility of the makers of the news programs, and the commentators themselves. It is a fact that good journalism covers as many sides of the story as are relevant and possible. If a program decides it doesn’t want to show the other side of an issue, that speaks against it, not the omitted viewpoint. When you don’t allow your opponent a chance to get a word in or are unwilling to answer to questions against your views, it doesn’t make you right – it just makes you loud.
The very first amendment in our Constitution grants our citizens the right to say what they feel without threat of government interference or control. Even if the Fairness Doctrine was enacted in the name of “fairness,” as the old proverb goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It is too much of a slippery slope to have the government control how people dictate their conversations, even in a public forum. It is the responsibility of those people to deliver a quality product, and it is on us to demand it.
[email protected]