« Small Change, Big Consequences | Main | Street Fight »

January 16, 2007

The Beauty of 'Fairness'

"There's no two things on Earth are equal or have an equal chance." Sergeant Buster Kilrain, Gettysburg

Via Captain's Quarters, I see that Representative Dennis Kucinich, in between Presidential runs, has decided to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. For those unfamiliar with the Fairness Doctrine, the basic idea was that if a station ran a broadcast deemed to advocate a particular point of view, it had to provide equal time for the other side. This was intended to provide a variety of points of view in broadcast media. Instead, it led to opinion (other than that of the media) being generally banished from the airwaves. As is so often the case when the government criminalizes behavior, the Fairness Doctrine created a marvelous means for politicians to suppress unfriendly speech through selective enforcement of the doctrine. Members of both the Kennedy and Nixon administrations admitted using the Fairness Doctrine to lash out at networks deemed unfriendly to their administrations.

The larger problem with the Fairness Doctrine, however, is that fairness is by its nature a subjective term. Who gets to decide what 'fair' is? If President Bush appears on television, the Democrats generally get a response, but nobody else does (other than the talking heads, of course). Libertarians don't get the opportunity to present their case with free air time. Nor do Objectivists, Socialists, Communists, or any of the other myriad schools of political thought. Is that fair? Democrats and Republicans likely think so. Those of us who don't hew to either party tend to disagree. Since the Fairness Doctrine would be implemented by a government dominated by those political parties, we can rest assured that 'fair' would go no further than acknowledging those two sides. Fairness, it should be clear to see, is almost entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Since fairness is subjective, the fact it is [Update: it is Democrats pushing the issue, not 'the Democrats'] the Democrats who are pushing so hard for a new Fairness Doctrine suggests that, were they successful, they would change the current broadcast landscape. Talk radio would go away, because the left is poorly represented by talk radio. Fox News might find itself in trouble as well, as many on the left believe Fox News is nothing but an extension of the Republican Party. While I can sympathize with the frustration that many Democrats feel about the relative success of conservative talk radio vs. liberal talk radio (although liberal talk radio still seems a pretty young medium; I suspect the conservative dominance will fade as more talented liberal hosts are found), but shutting down conservative voices strikes me as an inappropriate response, particularly for a party that likes to claim it supports civil liberties like freedom of speech. (While it's not the stated goal of the Democrats to eliminate conservative talk radio, the fact is that the Fairness Doctrine guaranteed that such programs did not exist because there's no audience for the other side, and so stations would stick to programming that didn't cost them money.)

Should freedom of speech apply to the airwaves? The original justification for the Fairness Doctrine included the fact spectrum is limited, so not everyone can have access to a radio or TV station, and while the spectrum is a lot larger now than it was then (or, more precisely, we can use more of it), it is still a finite resource. On the other hand, there are laws in place to guarantee that the spectrum cannot be completely dominated by a particular network, and if those laws are insufficient, it seems to me that fixing those is a better way to ensure multiple viewpoints are aired than a doctrine that will restrict the airwaves rather than improving the discourse. The fact remains, as any blogger trying to boost traffic knows, that the public decides what they want to listen to with little regard for fairness or equal opportunity. Conservatives read conservative web sites and listen to conservative radio. Liberals read liberal web sites and listen to NPR (just kidding). Yes, there are people who cross the lines to read what the other side is saying, but they are the exception. For whatever reason, conservatives tend to be drawn to talk radio. Whether that's because the MSM is dominated by liberals as they claim or because the format just happens to appeal to their temperament (or, more likely, for reasons I'm not aware of), it appears likely that liberal talk radio just isn't going to do as well. A new Fairness Doctrine may eliminate conservative talk radio, but I fail to see how that is a victory for any but Democratic partisans.

We are fortunate enough to live in a country and an age where it has never been easier to get your message in front of your fellow citizens. Sure, TV and radio are still costly and relatively exclusive, but the internet has given millions of other people a voice in the discussion, and while most of those are looking at pornography and bitching about movies, a nontrivial fraction are having an effect on our political dialogue. Take a look at how many people look at The Daily Kos or Instapundit; it may not be as many as watch the evening news just yet, but the momentum appears to be in the internet's favor. A requirement for 'fairness' that will be applied according to wholly subjective criteria that will rely heavily on who is in office at the time doesn't seem calculated to do a thing to aid political dialogue.

I would be curious to hear why people think shutting down political speech is somehow good for the country, or why they believe that a new Fairness Doctrine would not shut down political speech given the law's history.