May 5, 2005
The Fairness Iceberg
New York congressperson Louise Slaughter is trying to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine". For those not familiar the doctrine says broadcasters have to provide "equal time" to opponents of political views expressed on the public airwaves. Imposed by the Federal Communications Commission, the Fairness Doctrine lasted from 1949 to 1986 when it was declared unconstitutional. In 1993, Congress unsuccessfully attempted to re-institute the rule. Today we find history repeating itself. Congressperson Slaughter’s got a website up and running and signatures are getting signed by people in favor of fairness.
Why do we need this? Turns out it’s because the country has experienced "a proliferation of highly partisan news outlets that disseminate unbalanced news coverage." And "News consumers, particularly those of talk radio, are overwhelmingly exposed to a single point of view." Lest one think this is driven by liberal self interest the website makes clear it is not an ideological fight, but a process "by which the public is returned to the table of media policymaking." This level of nobility brings a tear to my eye.
But, experience with politicians tells us the issues are not the issues. When they talk about this, assume they really mean that. Much like an iceberg, the biggest and most deadly part of any political action lies beneath the surface.
Fairness Iceberg are among the most beautiful in nature. This is due to their tips being composed almost entirely of truth. This particular iceberg’s truth is that news consumers are overwhelmingly exposed to a single point of view. But why?
Sure conservatives dominate talk radio. But that the only way to get news? Don’t liberals still dominate TV and the traditional press at least to the same degree? And with the internet don’t Americans have a greater variety of available news sources now than at any time in history? If you can’t get your news in practically any political flavor you want you’re just not trying. Why are people exposed to a single point of view? They choose to be. How can a law make people watch, listen to or read anything they don’t want to?
Even if we pretend consumer choice is limited, where is it written that all opinions shall get equal time? The Constitution? Nope. The first amendment says "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." Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. This is a law abridging the freedom of the press.
If the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary and unconstitutional then what’s this new attempt really about? Democrats trying to catch up. Plain and simple. The game has tilted in favor of the Republicans lately. If the Democrats can limit popular conservative talk show hosts and/or get some free air time themselves it would obviously be to their advantage. And it comes with little cost. A little taxpayer money to cover the time spent. And like any other legislation, throw in enough pork and you can get Republican politicians to swallow just about anything. Spray paint a bit of fairness on it and you can sell it to the public as well.
Here’s the problem. It won’t be fair. No matter the details, no matter how noble the effort, the bill will be a whole lot more fair to some than to others. Politics always works that way. Why would this time be different? Is there any question only Democrats and Republicans will get "fair" treatment? When’s the next time you expect to hear from third parties or independents? Let’s call this what it is, the "Fairness to Democrats and Republicans Only Doctrine".
This is a dangerous piece of legislation. The press is supposed to be a watchdog on the government. The Fairness Doctrine makes government a watchdog on the press. Assuming it’s even possible to legislate fairness, would Democrats and Republicans ever really do it? Throughout history the best defense of fairness has been freedom. Those of us advocating such would be well served relying on freedom to achieve fairness rather than the undeliverable promises of the fairness dealers in Washington.
- Ed Powell