Fairness Doctrine and Talk Radio

I hear a lot, on some of the conservative radio talk shows out there, about how disastrous it would be if our government were to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine regarding talk shows in radio broadcasting.

The original intent of the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure that both sides of issues would be discussed in public, without one side having an unfair monopoly on the discussion. As such, the law was justified as being in the public’s interests and for the good of democratic society in general. Right wing hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, and Mark Levin may claim that their First Amendment rights of free speech would be jeopardized by a law that granted the right of rebuttal to others. I, for one, don’t have a “right” to have my own radio talk show like they do and rake in money hand over foot. Those personalities are where they are because the marketplace and their corporate sponsors support them, not because they are expressing free speech. As a matter of fact, I’ve believed for quite some time that this form of “speech” is nothing more than an Americanized form of hack speech resembling the old totalitarian “journalism” from last century’s Communist-bloc nations. Only instead of the ideology of Marx and Lenin, these folks are towing the line of large corporate interests.

I remember, during the years when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, listening to shows originating from WOR Radio. Broadcasting with 50,000 watts on 710 kHz from New York, WOR was the premier independent talk station in the northeast, if not the entire country. They had two prominent conservative talk radio stars in Barry Farber and Bob Grant. Of the two, Grant more resembled today’s brand of offensive, shock hosts, while Farber (whom I greatly respect) was much more interactive and intellectual (and gentlemanly) in his show. They had liberal hosts as well, but that didn’t keep these two from thriving.

Since a rising talk show host aspirant currently only sees a future in taking the conservative slant in his/her show, that will probably be the option taken. To me, that is what we are breeding with our current system: a plethora of hacks cynically towing the line that gets them their notoriety and wealth. All while I can’t get the other side of the issues when I fiddle around on my radio dial. Since at least half of the population (judging by the current political composition of congress and the latest presidential race polls) disagrees with the entrenched conservative talk show establishment’s viewpoints, liberal opinion is suffering de facto censorship on the public airwaves.

I’m not against folks making a living expressing their conservative viewpoints on radio. All I want, as a citizen listening to these publicly licensed stations, is to be able to hear the opposing views expressed in shows that wealthy sponsors may not be quite so eager to support. After all, broadcast radio is restricted by the number of stations that can broadcast in any area and by the frequency bands. Unregulated, that gives one ideology the potential to push out competitors and unduly dominate this medium that the citizenry depends on for information to help them decide how to vote in this representative democracy.

The Internet promises to liberate us from the restrictions inherent in broadcast radio. But I can’t yet carry around my Internet in a headset or tune in to it on my car radio. I see things happening in a positive direction there nevertheless. Of course, we all need to be concerned about the State’s vision of what should be allowed on the Internet. If the Fairness Doctrine were to be extended somehow to the Internet, that would be a travesty. Broadcast radio is a restrictive, inherently limited medium. Anyone can get on the Web, and hence using it is a purer expression of the First Amendment.