From the News today politicians in support of the failed Immigration bill lash out at …. Talk Radio !?
The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.â€
I’m sorry Mr. Lott, but the last time I checked Freedom of Speech was still a constitutional right. Now I am not a big talk radio listener these days. But I can say that what Lott and most Democrats want is to bring back what is called the “Fairness Doctrine.” The Fairness Doctrine is an old Federal Communications Commission regulation that required all political opinion broadcast on the public airwaves to be balanced with equal time for the opposing viewpoint. Originating in the 1940s, when radio and television stations were few and far between, it may have made sense to require balance, lest a region be inundated with unchallenged opinion presented as fact.
But as time passed, more stations came along, offering consumers what they longed for: choice. Radio and television stations popped up by the thousands, offering a microphone to anyone. Opinions of all types were abundant, making the Fairness Doctrine obsolete.
Politicians want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine so that they can control the media (TV is already theirs) and ram erroneous legislation like the current Immigration Amnesty bill down our throats.
Regardless of how I or anyone else feels about talk radio, it has a right to be there. It has a Constitutional right… think of all the lewd and incredulous displays that can be seen in the name of Free Speech and our Constitutional rights. And lets not miss the point, its conservative talk radio that is the aim. Liberal talk radio shows have failed miserably and that is the issue.
People listen or watch the news only if they want to. People want to listen to talk radio and if they do not like what they are hearing, then there would be no business and all these radio shows would be gone. There is a consumer base that enjoys listening to talk radio and has a right to listen to it.
My recollection is that the Fairness Doctrine was based on the premise that there were a limited number of media outlets in any given market — hence those who were awarded licenses were required to act in effect as trustees for all viewpoints.
Technological innovation has relegated that premise to the ash bin of history. The average viewer receives hundreds of channels on television alone. In addition, by any reasonable measure, television, radio, internet radio, politically oriented blogs and the internet in general are fungible. The average citizen with an internet connection has tens of thousands of options, and any idiot (like me!) can start a blog to express their views, no matter how moronic. Under the circumstances, reimposition of the fairness doctrine would be a patent infringement of the First Amendment.
I’ve located the Supremes case upholding the fairness doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969). Here’s an excerpt that captures the essence of the rationale:
“Where there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish. If 100 persons want broadcast licenses but there are only 10 frequencies to allocate, all of them may have the same “right” to a license; but if there is to be any effective communication by radio, only a few can be licensed and the rest must be barred from the airwaves. It would be strange if the First Amendment, aimed at protecting and furthering communications, prevented the Government from making radio communication possible by requiring licenses to broadcast and by limiting the number of licenses so as not to overcrowd the spectrum.
***
“By the same token, as far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.”
I think it’s fair to say that there are more than ten frequencies available these days. No one is barred from hearing the opinions of countless others or expressing their own opinions to a nationwide and, indeed, worldwide audience.