Your Right-Hand Man: The fascism doctrine

As I was flipping channels on a somber election night, a friend of mine and I were discussing the Fairness Doctrine, a piece of legislation that would require holders of broadcast licenses (which are held when one broadcasts radio) to present two sides to every news story. I asked my friend, fully convinced it was an assault on free speech, “What would be good about the fairness doctrine?” I had yet to hear really anything positive from anyone regarding it that I wouldn’t consider Democratic Party conformity-speak. She responded by saying that journalism has fallen apart, and that something was needed to instill a sense of order into what is considered the news media today. I completely agreed with her.

The most tragic thing that happened in an election season that will be historically celebrated is that the news media entirely fell apart. Between Fox News showing a “fair and balanced” logo in the bottom corner of the screen during an “Obama’s a Secret Muslim” segment, and Keith Olbermann trying to open-mouth kiss the President-elect, the media lost its credibility faster than a line of condoms endorsed by Shawn Kemp. I don’t, however, feel that implementing the Fairness Doctrine is any way to counter this epidemic of journalistic garbage.

One of those reasons is that I don’t think that the place this new regulation is coming from is one of noble intentions like my friend mentioned. It is oversimplifying to say talk radio is 80 percent conservative (it is) and the Democrats in Congress are for the Fairness Doctrine (they are) and therefore Democrats are trying to get rid of conservative talk radio. Instead, it makes more sense to say that it is possible that conservative radio is a target, and that if it isn’t there have been liberals who have either said or implied so. The traditionally liberal media advocacy group FAIR is quoted as saying that the Fairness Doctrine is needed to combat “the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves.” When asked about the Fairness Doctrine, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying, “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

What I take from this quote from Schumer is not the idiotic part about porn (while I personally think censorship in America has gone overboard, much thanks to the Republicans, clearly there’s a difference between porn and political speech. Just as there’s clearly a difference between a man marrying another man and a man marrying a box turtle. The slope isn’t that slippery. It is you, Mr. Schumer, who is being inconsistent). The part about “the very same people,” is what concerns me. Schumer doesn’t say that it is to protect journalistic standards, but turns the argument into a Liberals vs. Conservatives playground squabble. Like Rush Limbaugh took Schumer’s juice box and won’t give it back, so now Schumer got his cool older brother to give Limbaugh a mervin.

Another reason I think it’s a bad policy idea is that it has already been tried. The Fairness Doctrine was in place from 1967 to 1985, and was revoked by Congress because at the time Congress felt that it interfered with free speech. Additionally, many people in the media felt that it encouraged radio broadcasters to take on less controversial stories in fear of a government penalty.

The part that seems the most likely to repeat itself if the Doctrine is reinstated is that the administrations at the time used the rule to bully news stations who ran unfavorable stories against them. Both the Nixon and Johnson administrations used the Fairness Doctrine to suppress stories they did not feel put them in a favorable public light, which brings me to a deeper point: if the Fairness Doctrine is imposed, the federal government will enforce it. The Fairness Doctrine is not a document that magically talks to news radio and tells them to be rational. It is a government-imposed rule; therefore, it will be interpreted and enforced by the upcoming administration.

If you think that this Democratic administration is suddenly more angelic than any previous administration, think again. Nancy Pelosi is viewed by members of both parties as one of the most vindictive people in Congress. Harry Reid has shown he puts keeping his party in power over just about anything; imagine what he would do to keep Democrats from seeming corrupt in the media. It would seem like a conflict of interest (or totalitarian) in any other scenario for one party to regulate how it’s presented. The Obama administration, like any administration, would at least want to have some of its dirty laundry unaired. It’s human nature.

This brings me to my last point. Even if this regulation is truly aimed at restoring journalistic credibility, and the federal government would enforce it with Boy Scout-like honesty, then it still becomes a question of fundamental freedom in my mind: does the government have the right to have a hand in people’s opinions? The government’s role is to protect people.

A good example of this is the Food and Drug Administration. While it has its pitfalls, I fundamentally get the FDA. The average citizen does not possess the time or technology to filter through their food and pharmaceuticals and determine if they are safe to consume. What the average citizen does possess, however, is the ability to turn off a radio, or the ability to hear something and think to themselves, “Chris Matthews is an idiot.” Isn’t it our right to think these things? Isn’t it also the right of some political talk show hosts to convey their unabashed opinion? It’s not like most people don’t get that Rush Limbaugh is conservative, or that the Huffington Post is liberal; no one is being swindled. While it isn’t ethical for the main news stations to be this way, most people could tell that Fox News is most often conservative, and MSNBC is most often liberal. If a citizen is dumb enough not to realize this, then they could certainly construe “balanced” opinions to mean nearly anything.

In an age of the internet, as well as the age of a good old fashioned library, fairly credible and concise news stories can still be found. We aren’t forced by anyone to listen to or watch media-garbage. After this election cycle, I think the American public decided that until members of the mainstream media prove themselves reliable, we as information consumers can choose to get our information elsewhere. If we have a right to anything, it is to our own thoughts.