Fairness and Balance

by Eric Martin

Marin Cogan tries to trace the providence of the "fairness doctrine" scare that has been all the rage in conservative circles both immediately before, and now after, the election of Barack Obama.  Many prominent conservative pundits (Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.) have been sounding the alarm over what they perceive as Obama's intention to reintroduce the fairness doctrine - which mandates that broadcasters allow opposing viewpoints to be given equal time on television and radio.

In truth, Obama has no such intention and there is only nominal support amongst a tiny group of Democratic lawmakers to bring back the fairness doctrine.  Which is fine with me, as I am not an advocate myself, nor do I see it as a particularly useful measure.  But here's the interesting question:

Why do conservatives, who have long complained of the existence of an overwhelming and pervasive liberal media bias, oppose a system that would ensure that their viewpoints receive an equal airing on radio and television?  Wouldn't that help to correct the vast liberal media bias?

Perhaps we should consider the possibility that the media isn't quite as biased in the ways claimed, and that many conservative media personalities are legitimately worried that a true requirement of balance would cut into their air time.  It's either that, or those same conservative media types are opposing, on principle and with a steadfast zeal, a provision that would greatly enhance their access to the airwaves. 

Suffice it to say, I suspect the former to be the case.

Comments

[Zifnab]

Two things - firstly there's a fundamental flaw in the fairness doctrine in that there are more than two points of view. You can have a three way disagreement on - say - how to do an automotive bailout or how to arrange the tax code or how to conduct war in a foreign country. Rush's crowd occupy the "right" side of the spectrum, but he has major disagreements with conservatives like David Brooks or even Bill Kristol on matters of public policy. Meanwhile, a show like CNN can have a crossfire round table where both "sides" are represented and yet you never hear a real diversity of opinion. It's all mealy-mouthed centrist tripe. You've just got four different flavors of the same beltway viewpoint that can go unchallenged.

So I can understand how fringe radio hosts would dread being forced to include mainstream views in their shows. And I can understand how they'd feel it is unfair that they have to include a difference of opinion when mainstream pundits clearly don't.

Secondly - Rush exists in a vacuum on the air. He gets to disseminate whatever lies or propaganda he chooses and his studio strictly controls how people are allowed to respond to him on air. Introducing alternate viewpoints breaks that vacuum. Suddenly Rush has to respond to a viewpoint he can't cut the mic on. He's got to work harder to sell to his audience. He's got to lie better and put on a bigger and more convincing show. And - worst of all - he doesn't get to be the center of attention.

So even assuming a left-leaning mainstream, I can see how the fringe right loudly pronounces its fear of facing the mainstream left.

But more than that, it's the inherent fact that the fairness doctrine is a bad idea. We agree its a bad idea. So it's the ideal place to beat up on the Democrats. Bring up the boogey-man of bad legislation and pronounce yourselves the Don Quiox who will defend your brothers from it.

So Sean / Rush / et al get to tilt at windmills for a couple of hours between cigar commercials and viagra ads, then retreat to their studios with proud announcements of how they saved the Radio.

[Mona]

Exactamundo, dear Eric. I also have little love for the FD, but am quite bemused -- indeed, jaded -- when I hear the hue and cry from some on the right about it.

[Mona]

And also, what zifnab said. Especially the part about the inanity of thinking there are always 2 -- and only 2 -- views on an issue.

[NoMoreBlatherDotCom]

A group closely linked to BHO supports something that would have a similar effect on talk radio as the FD. Why didn't TNR or Eric Martin tell you that?

[anderson]

Why do conservatives, who have long complained of the existence of an overwhelming and pervasive liberal media bias, oppose a system that would ensure that their viewpoints receive an equal airing on radio and television?

Precisely because they know that "liberal bias" is a a crock of shit, and that they exist in numbers unrivaled by anything even remotely liberal.

[WJ]

The previous Fairness Doctrine only applied to radio licenses, not to TV licenses (if I remember correctly). Also it was never applied to newspapers.

[Eric Martin]

WJ: I was under the impression that it applied to television and radio. But not newspapers - which I never claimed.

[Eric Martin]

La Raza? They're going to convince Obama to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

Oh nelly.

As for fighting media consolidation, that is a worthy cause and is not like the FD in any respect.