When Fairness Equals Censorship
Josh Harding
February 13, 2009
Let me start off by saying that I am not a fan of right-wing talk radio. Rush Limbaugh, if not a racist, is definitely a race baiter, especially when he uses terms like "stupid and unskilled Mexicans" and plays parody songs titled "Barack the Magic Negro." (Yes, I know, I know, I'm taking Limbaugh "out of context." But just how many times can one guy be taken "out of context" before you call a spade a spade?)
Whatever your tastes, however, you can't deny Limbaugh's success, which has spawned numerous successful imitators. And that's what scares the Democrats, especially right now over the fight on this stimulus bill. That's why prominent Democrats are calling for the resurrection of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
Former President Bill Clinton, when asked in an interview whether the government should enact "some type of enforced media accountability," said "you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side." Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), when asked by Bill Press if sheīll push for hearings on the Fairness Doctrine, said she "feel[s] like thatīs gonna happen." Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), also speaking with Press, said with exuberance "we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again."
Just because Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk dominate AM talk radio, does that really mean there isnīt fairness on the airwaves? Michael Harrison, publisher of the radio industry magazine Talkers, said "Thereīs far more diversity of opinion on radio today due to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine than when there was the Fairness Doctrine."
There are plenty of liberal voices on radio. The radio syndicator Air America Media broadcasts liberal programming. Satellite radio contains channels that cater to both the left and right. NPR is on the airwaves (both on terrestrial and satellite radio), and Iīve never heard anyone accuse NPR of containing a conservative bias.
And when you go beyond radio and look at the media in general, there are plenty of liberal voices. While conservative Fox News is number one in ratings, MSNBC is clearly a liberal alternative. Arguably the two biggest political blogs, The Huffington Post and Daily Kos, are left-wing. And thatīs not even touching the whole "liberal bias" argument with regards to network news, CNN, and newspapers.
The progressive message is being heard. Just look at the November elections.
Thatīs when you realize weīre not talking about political balance on the airwaves. Weīre talking about censorship. Silencing dissent is what the Fairness Doctrine is all about.
Nat Hentoff, arguably the nationīs foremost defender of the First Amendment, knows the history of the Fairness Doctrine. In his view, the Fairness Doctrine did more to silence viewpoints than to encourage diversity. In a speech to Hillsdale College, Hentoff spoke of working at WMEX in Boston during the 1940s and early 50s. The station aired controversial opinions, which attracted the attention of the FCC. After numerous letters, the station muzzled the expression of political opinions. Hentoff, hardly someone you could accuse of being right-wing, also spoke of how the Fairness Doctrine was used to throw fundamentalist preacher Carl McIntire off the air. In his speech, Hentoff cites Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who spoke out against the Fairness Doctrine in a Court ruling, stating how the Doctrine "enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio in order to serve its sordid or its benevolent ends."
Thatīs why Democrats are toying with the Fairness Doctrine once again. With control of the legislative and executive branches, they have the opportunity to enact their (sordid or benevolent) agenda. They donīt want Rush Limbaugh getting in their way like he did during the first two years of President Clintonīs term. Their dreams of national health care went up in flames when public opinion turned against them. Not only did they lose that debate, they lost Congress to the Republicans in the 1994 midterm elections. Limbaugh played a real big part in that shift. While it seems improbable at this moment, he could once again strike the flame and start a public backlash. The Democrats know this, and want to use any means necessary to prevent it. And that includes censorship.
Justice Douglas said the purpose of the First Amendment is to "invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." It is vitally important for the health of our democracy that this principle remains unfettered, and reenacting the Fairness Doctrine would do just the opposite.
Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090211/pl_politico/18680
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_04/opinion_07.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Harkin_We_need_the_Fairness_Doctrine_back_.html?showall
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Stabenow_wants_hearings_on_radio_accountability_talks_fairness_doctrine.html?showall
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Clinton_wants_more_balance_on_the_airwaves.html
Whatever your tastes, however, you can't deny Limbaugh's success, which has spawned numerous successful imitators. And that's what scares the Democrats, especially right now over the fight on this stimulus bill. That's why prominent Democrats are calling for the resurrection of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
Former President Bill Clinton, when asked in an interview whether the government should enact "some type of enforced media accountability," said "you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side." Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), when asked by Bill Press if sheīll push for hearings on the Fairness Doctrine, said she "feel[s] like thatīs gonna happen." Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), also speaking with Press, said with exuberance "we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again."
Just because Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk dominate AM talk radio, does that really mean there isnīt fairness on the airwaves? Michael Harrison, publisher of the radio industry magazine Talkers, said "Thereīs far more diversity of opinion on radio today due to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine than when there was the Fairness Doctrine."
There are plenty of liberal voices on radio. The radio syndicator Air America Media broadcasts liberal programming. Satellite radio contains channels that cater to both the left and right. NPR is on the airwaves (both on terrestrial and satellite radio), and Iīve never heard anyone accuse NPR of containing a conservative bias.
And when you go beyond radio and look at the media in general, there are plenty of liberal voices. While conservative Fox News is number one in ratings, MSNBC is clearly a liberal alternative. Arguably the two biggest political blogs, The Huffington Post and Daily Kos, are left-wing. And thatīs not even touching the whole "liberal bias" argument with regards to network news, CNN, and newspapers.
The progressive message is being heard. Just look at the November elections.
Thatīs when you realize weīre not talking about political balance on the airwaves. Weīre talking about censorship. Silencing dissent is what the Fairness Doctrine is all about.
Nat Hentoff, arguably the nationīs foremost defender of the First Amendment, knows the history of the Fairness Doctrine. In his view, the Fairness Doctrine did more to silence viewpoints than to encourage diversity. In a speech to Hillsdale College, Hentoff spoke of working at WMEX in Boston during the 1940s and early 50s. The station aired controversial opinions, which attracted the attention of the FCC. After numerous letters, the station muzzled the expression of political opinions. Hentoff, hardly someone you could accuse of being right-wing, also spoke of how the Fairness Doctrine was used to throw fundamentalist preacher Carl McIntire off the air. In his speech, Hentoff cites Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who spoke out against the Fairness Doctrine in a Court ruling, stating how the Doctrine "enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio in order to serve its sordid or its benevolent ends."
Thatīs why Democrats are toying with the Fairness Doctrine once again. With control of the legislative and executive branches, they have the opportunity to enact their (sordid or benevolent) agenda. They donīt want Rush Limbaugh getting in their way like he did during the first two years of President Clintonīs term. Their dreams of national health care went up in flames when public opinion turned against them. Not only did they lose that debate, they lost Congress to the Republicans in the 1994 midterm elections. Limbaugh played a real big part in that shift. While it seems improbable at this moment, he could once again strike the flame and start a public backlash. The Democrats know this, and want to use any means necessary to prevent it. And that includes censorship.
Justice Douglas said the purpose of the First Amendment is to "invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." It is vitally important for the health of our democracy that this principle remains unfettered, and reenacting the Fairness Doctrine would do just the opposite.
Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090211/pl_politico/18680
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_04/opinion_07.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Harkin_We_need_the_Fairness_Doctrine_back_.html?showall
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Stabenow_wants_hearings_on_radio_accountability_talks_fairness_doctrine.html?showall
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Clinton_wants_more_balance_on_the_airwaves.html
Print
Email
