The Fairness Doctrine

Of all the things that Obama could do in his administration, I honestly think the one that would make me the most visibly angry is the reanimation of "The Fairness Doctrine". If for no other reason it will ruin my commute.

Like most Americans, I commute to and from work every day. It takes me about 40 minutes to get to work, and about 40 minutes to get back. I spend most of that time listening to news talk radio. It's the only thing that makes my commute bareable.

If the fairness doctrine were reinstituted, the massive influx of lawsuits again CBS, NBC, ABC, Clear Channel, and Salem Radio Network would all but illiminate any interesting discussion on talk radio and make my commute totally unbareable. I would be forced to by a satellite radio, and write obnoxious letters to Senator Dick Durbin every single day, reminding him of how terrible my drive home is, and how the 80 minutes a day I spend getting angry at traffic and the government is only succeeding in ruining my physical and mental health.

The fact that some 47% of Americans actually support this travesty against free speech is a massive disappointment to me. The fact that our country has been so duped into letting go of personal freedom without receiving anything in return other than the temporary satisfaction that they "stuck it to Rush" appalls me, but unfortunately it doesn't really surprise me.

That the supposed party of civil rights would so overwhelmingly support this authoritarian control over the most basic and critical right to speak one's mind without fear of retribution is also appalling, but again, not altogether surprising.

For me, the primary problem with the fairness doctrine is not in how it is implemented, but the mere fact that the government would be given such significant power that can be so easily abused. Do we really trust our government's various beauracracies to decide what is fair and what is not? Do we really trust our government not to attempt to expand that power to protect its own interests? Do we trust the government to limit itself to political discourse? What would stop the FCC from forcing Christian radio stations to offer equal air time to opposing religious theologies? What would stop the FCC from demanding that "sleezy" talk shows give equal time to moralists to condemn immoral behavior and remind the audience of the negative consequences that can result from irresponsible behavior? Even if such checks and balances are in place today, what guarantee do we have that they will remain in place? It seems to me that the only genuine response is, "I don't think they would never do that," which is not enough reassurance for me.

If the reason for reanimating the Fairness Doctrine is the fear that the consolidation of corporate power will result in a loss of free discourse, how can a further consolidation of power in the hands of the government be the solution? I presume that few people see how the one hand washes the other in this case. The Fairness Doctrine not only stifles free speech, it stifles competition. It protects the entrenched corporate interests, which is really the only thing that the government seems to do well. If all radio stations are effectively the same, then it is impossible to enter the marketplace with something different, because different has been effectively outlawed.

If the government wanted to do something about freeing up discourse on the air waves, it should examine whether current regulation protects established inerests or not. Lowering the barriers to entry is a far better way to promote free discourse on the air waves. Reducing protectionist legislation and corporate welfare is a far better way to reduce the consolidation of corporate power.

Here's my last point. While corporate power can be tyrannical, it is much more difficult for corporate entities to exercise full control over an entire medium than it is for the government. The government responds to the tyranny of democracy. If 51% of the public demand that Rush Limbaugh be driven off the airwaves, then he very well may be driven off. When it comes to the marketplace, however, 10% of the market share is all it takes (if not a good deal less) to make opposing viewpoints heard. The marketplace does not have to cater to the majority at the expense of the minority. The government, however, is much more easily bound by the tyranny of the majority.