The Fairness Doctrine Response
  by Bruce Walker (2/20/09)

Obama has officially denied it, but it still seems like much of the Left wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine…for conservative talk radio.  How confident can we be that this will not happen?  About as confident as we could be that Obama, having promised to accept public funding of his presidential campaign, would actually do that during his run for office.  About as comfortable as we can that Democrats would never, ever, try to practice the tactics of Saul Alinsky and destroy their enemies.  So, perhaps, we should continue to explain why the Fairness Doctrine and its incarnations are not fair.

Democrats complain that talk radio is not balanced.  In one respect, the Left is correct.  Talk radio is highly competitive.  It is an easy medium for working people to access.  It relies upon words and not images.  So talk radio is a natural fit for those thoughtful, hard-working conservatives, who make up sixty percent of America.

The Left complains that public airwaves should belong to all of us and that all of us should have a chance to have our voices heard on the public airwaves.  But does the Left really favor a Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting?  The broadcast industry, when it includes all types of television and radio broadcasting, is overwhelmingly Leftist.  Because the Left focuses its complaint exclusively on radio commentary, it ignores the vast Leftist bias on those very public airwaves which, Leftists piously assert, belong to us all.

The bias against conservatives permeates nearly all of television.  Performers on Comedy Central almost always lambast Republicans and conservatives.  The Daley Show mocks conservatives mercilessly.  Real Time with Bill Maher does the same.  Daytime shows like The View have one token conservative and the rest of the co-hosts are loony Leftists.  Network television drama likewise presents conservatives in the worst possible light and Leftists as noble champions.

News and documentary programs are heavily skewed to the Left.  There are exceptions, like Fox News, but news programs which do not follow the herd mentality of the Left are rare.  Forty years ago Spiro Agnew made his famous speech against network news bias.  Since that speech, study after study has shown broadcast journalists are nearly all Left of center and nearly all vote for Democrats.

The response of the Left to its stranglehold on television broadcasting is typical:  straight faced denial.  Polls during the last election cycle suggest that even Democrats no longer believe that network news is not biased towards Obama.  Conservatives have been complaining about television news bias for decades, while Leftists have been denying that any bias exists…in television news (except, of course, for Fox News.) Many television journalists were former aides to Democrat leaders, while almost no Republican political advisers work for television networks.  But the Left cannot admit the truth.  It cannot say: “Yes, we dominate television broadcasting but conservatives dominate talk radio.” Instead, the Left says:  “Television news and entertainment are unbiased, but talk radio is slanted to the Right.”

Conservatives do not lie:  we agree that most talk radio hosts are conservative.  This honesty is part of our problem.  While conservative talk show hosts announce their values and beliefs, a Leftist like Jon Stewart pretends to be a comedian.  A Leftist like Katie Couric pretends to be an objective news anchor.  Leftists on television never admit that, just like conservative talk radio hosts, use broadcasting to advance their beliefs.

So what should conservatives do?  Conservatives should begin to attack the idea that broadcast programming can be conveniently divided into opinion, news, and entertainment.  If the Left wants to introduce balance into radio commentary, then conservatives should insist on balance in television entertainment and television news programs.  If the Left solemnly insists that news and entertainment are different categories of broadcast programming and these types of broadcasting do not require balance, then maybe talk radio should simply redefine itself.  Instead of being honest, radio hosts should play the game the Left plays:  pretend to be news reporters, entertainers, or artists.  So radio would begin to have program with names like “The Mark Levin News Show” or “The Rush Limbaugh Comedy Network” or “The Sean Hannity Art and Culture Program.”

Conservatives might create nominally Leftist talk radio - - so talk radio would be balanced! - - which really mocks the Left.  “The Karl Marx Hour,” as one example, could relate all the failures and crimes of socialism, but assert that these are actually laudable and good.  If nominal advocacy is what Leftist want to trigger the Fairness Doctrine, then have a conservative talk show host register as a Democrat, announce that he has seen the light and is now a Leftist.  This conservative who has now seen the light could announce that he now favors murdering unwanted children up to the age of two, believes that annual income over $1,000,000 should be confiscated, and that the state should close down all the churches.  The Left has no problem presenting people like Garry Wills, John McCain, and Mickey Edwards as “conservatives,” just because they called themselves conservatives.  So why should some conservatives simply define themselves as Leftists?

Finally, conservatives must speak frankly to the Leftist broadcast media:  the First Amendment exists for all of us or for none of us.  If those few voices of conservative thought in the broadcast industry must be regulated by government to achieve balance, then the vast army of Leftist voices in the broadcast industry must be regulated to achieve balance as well.  Real fairness comes through unregulated free markets.  The First Amendment allows the marketplace to regulate ideas, opinions, art, and information.  Once that freedom is gone, it is gone for all of us.  Ultimately, you cannot censor talk radio without censoring the whole broadcast industry.

Bruce Walker

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of the USA Sentinel.
Content is Copyright ©2006-2010 the individual authors.