A Level Playing Field

I sent the following article, via E-mail to Charles Harlow (aka III):

Liberals, too, should reject the Fairness Doctrine

By Nicole Hemmer Nicole Hemmer – Tue Nov 25, 3:00 am ET

Charlottesville, Va. – Having won control of the White House and Congress, Democrats are turning their attention to their legislative agenda. High on the list of priorities? The Fairness Doctrine. Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York hope to use their party's victory to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine on radio, but the return of the doctrine would be bad news for them – and could end up being good news for conservatives.

Not familiar with the Fairness Doctrine? It's not your fault – it hasn't been in existence for more than 20 years. Meant to ensure every side received fair hearing on controversial issues, the doctrine was tossed out by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during the Reagan years.

Many Democrats are eager to bring the doctrine back, and it is likely to be introduced early on in the next Congress. Senator Schumer underscored this point when, on Election Day, he made his case for the doctrine on Fox News, arguing that government has a right to regulate radio for the public good, as it does with pornography.

In conservative media, the doctrine has been getting play throughout the campaign. As Barack Obama's victory looked increasingly likely, David Frum used the Fairness Doctrine to argue for divided government, warning that a Democratic Congress would try to silence the opposition through the Fairness Doctrine. Others contended that Democrats wanted the doctrine to force more stations to air less-popular liberal radio programming.

Perhaps these are the goals. If so, they show how off-base these Democrats are about the history of the Fairness Doctrine, and how out-of-tune they are with the current direction of the Democratic base. Liberals aren't clamoring for a voice on radio – they're staking out territory on the Internet, which they've effectively used not only to air grievances and ideas but to organize political action.

More important, though, the Fairness Doctrine did more to help develop conservative talk radio while in effect than it has in the 20 years since its revocation.

Admittedly, that conclusion isn't obvious. Democrats' decision to advance the Fairness Doctrine makes sense according to conventional explanations of conservative broadcasting's rise. In talk radio lore, the abolishment of the doctrine in 1987 gave rise to Rush Limbaugh and a slew of conservative imitators. That Limbaugh went national in 1988 lends credence to this theory.

But the Fairness Doctrine presented conservatives with a sweeping example of liberal media bias, a charge they have used to build and justify alternative conservative media. First articulated in 1949, the doctrine had a chilling effect on conservative opinion. No one – not the FCC, not Congress, not broadcasters – knew what the doctrine required other than that broadcasters ensure fairness.

But what did "fairness" mean? In many ways, the standard seemed to be the one a Supreme Court justice famously adopted toward pornography: FCC officials would know it when they saw it.

Rather than air controversial issues and risk license revocation if the FCC deemed the coverage unfair, many broadcasters simply steered clear of such material. This decision hit conservative broadcasters hard. In a political culture dominated by liberal consensus – the belief in the positive value of government action, containment of communism, and regulation of industry – conservatism was controversial in a way liberalism was not.

Take the case of Clarence Manion, whose conservative radio show ran from 1954 through 1979. In October 1957, Mr. Manion taped an interview with Herbert Kohler about an ongoing strike at Mr. Kohler's Wisconsin plant. The national radio network carrying Manion's program refused to air the broadcast. Too controversial, network executives said, claiming (incorrectly) that the network would have to give time for the union to respond.

The incident convinced Manion and his listeners that conservatives couldn't get a fair shake in established media outlets. Episodes such as these allowed conservatives to seize a populist platform, to decry censorship, and cement their perception of liberal media bias.

That bias argument is central to conservative media: If established media are intractably liberal, then balance demands the existence of alternative right-wing media. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine resurrects these issues without any prospect of achieving balance in radio broadcasting. Attempts to limit conservative broadcasting would meet instant legal challenges. No court would uphold the doctrine in its earlier ambiguous form, which survived so long only because it faced few legal challenges.

Moreover, liberals would do well to consider the implications of government regulation of on-air content. Do we really want government monitoring broadcasts, weighing their politics, and pushing program remedies? The doctrine died in the 1980s because it was seen as a muzzle on controversial broadcasting. It would do well to stay dead.

III's response, which stimulated this present post, follows:

Mike,

This is an issue that I have mixed emotions about. While I agree with you and the basic impetus of the article, I do have some reservations. I think the so-called fairness Doctrine should be in effect to protect those running for public office who do not have the personal resources of their opponent. But I don't believe it should be applied heavy handedly in all cases. But because I do not believe that the major broadcast networks are demonstrably liberal biased in their reporting, that may distort my opinion. Having read Eric Alterman's What Liberal Bias?, and Joe Conan's The Big Lies, I find that basic premise hard to accept, especially as espoused by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Drudge, and others of their ilk. Can you name even one liberal on privately owned broadcast radio? I can't, and I don't believe that is simply a matter of marketplace economics. Public radio is another matter entirely, but those folks are "preaching to the choir", as it were. Like most issues, this one is made up of all shades of gray, with very little pure black or white.

My thoughts, which of course are evolving, on the issue are:

For the purposes of full-disclosure, I need to state that I not only am a devotee of PBS, especially National Public Radio, but I have supported this organization with "generous" annual pledges. I first began listing to NPR after we moved to the Cleveland, OH, area in 1967. I do not, however, believe PBS should receive any Federal Support whatsoever. My understanding is that Federal Support for PBS amounts to approximately 20% of its annual budget. In the same context, I don't believe any media outlet, Main Stream or otherwise, should receive Federal Monies or tax breaks.

Why? For the simple reason that Federal support comes with Federal "control" or, at least arguments about how liberal or conservative PBS/NPR should be. The best control would be based up listener/view support. That is, the level of contributions would reflect the listeners' views/agreement with what is broadcast. I am confident that, were Federal and, for that matter, State support withdrawn from PBS/NBS, the clientele would make up the different. From this perspective and without any attempt at self-aggrandizement, ego gratification, or elitism, several surveys have shown that PBS/NPR supporters/listeners typically have higher income and educational levels than the rest of the population. Therefore, even a modest amount of advertising (only at the hour and half-hour time periods) for high quality products would more than make up for the loss in governmental funding. If not, too bad: PBS/NPR would then deserve to flounder or disappear.

While I get most of my "news" from PBS/NPR, I also watch CNN and, sometimes, FNN. I seldom watch NBC, CBS, or ABC because I find their programing dull. I do not, however, resonate with the "in your face" combative conservative style often seen on FNN.

Is there bias in the Main Stream Media and PBS/NPR? Indubitably, but to no more extent than on FNN, conservative talk radio, O'Riley, Coulter, etc., etc., etc. etc. III asked if I could identify one liberal on MSM? I can't but I do detect liberal bias in the reporting on some occasions, most of the time with more difficulty than I make the same detection on FNN, etc.

Philosophically, I believe the chances of reporting a perfectly unbiased news story are vanishingly small. Despite our best efforts, when and if we choose to employ them, even our basic vocabulary with which we report "news" derives from personal experience and outlook.

If, however, a perfectly unbiased news story where placed over the airways or in print, liberals and conservatives each would declare the story biased simply because the reporter did not explicitly support the viewpoint of the reader/viewer/listener. I make this statement (which I hope comes through in boldface) because I think the observation is at the root cause of conservative discontent with the Main Stream Media, whatever that is.

I do not comprehend the Conservative malaise, discontent, and anger over the alleged MSM liberal bias. If my Conservative brothers and sisters believe they have detected such bias, they have plenty of opportunities to make rebuttals, even refutations. Let's keep in mind that the MSM (e.g, newspapers, and network TV) continue to "suffer" declines in readership and viewership.

I read a recent survey that found approximately half of Americans now rely on the Internet for their "news". Certainly during this last presidential campaign, I observed conservatives flooding the net via E-mails and blogs with counters to liberal positions. Yes, many of these counters degenerated in racist and religious diatribes.

I am not pessimistic that some of my more extreme liberal brothers and sisters will be successful in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This past election confirmed: This Republic remains slightly right of center with regards to politics. So far, President-elect Obama, despite his campaign rhetoric, has hewed to this position with his statements and appointments. I am optimistic that the majority of the electorate will tell the extreme liberals supporting a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to (in military terms) "Suck it up and drive on". That is, if you can't compete in the open market place, get out of the game. Can you imagine the field day conservative radio hosts, bloggers, etc. will have if a serious attempt is made to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? I suspect the next mid-term elections would, as a result, generate a conservative landslide. P-E Obama would be an idiot to support the effort at reinstatement.

Additionally, would extreme Liberals want to risk application of the Fairness Doctrine to P-E Obama's (Democratic Party's) massive Internet fund raising so successfully conducted in the last election?

If the majority of Americans are so naive as to be unable to detect bias in the media, regardless of the political origin, the Republic deserves to fall. Yes, I may be highly educated (some persons would even say, over educated) but, if I can detect bias, almost anyone can.

Rather than succumbing to irrational feelings of persecution over media bias, my Conservative (and Liberal, for that matter) brothers and sisters should offer rational counters to that bias. Diatribes, personal attacks (as opposed to attacks on positions), insults, and predictions of gloom and doom do not constitute rational counters to bias.

Finally, my sense of "rational" optimism places me solidly with Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln: I trust the common sense of an educated public and you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I see the task, therefore, as one of education.

You can tell that III punched one of my "hot buttons".