(Written 29 July 2007)
Philip Terzian gets it right in his piece Radio Free America:
Revival of the Fairness Doctrine is not intended to facilitate "both sides of the story" but to shut down conservative talk radio. Why? Because efforts to invent a successful left-wing Limbaugh have consistently failed, and what Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, and Al Franken's Air America cannot manage on the air might be accomplished by congressional action. This has been a forlorn cause of the left since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed 20 years ago; but now that Democrats control Congress, new life has been breathed into the effort. A Democratic president could appoint enough compliant commissioners to the FCC to accomplish the mission. Or Congress could act.
The threat is not idle. Left-wing activists are not especially enamored of free speech–especially when the open marketplace of ideas puts them at a political disadvantage. [. . .]
Libs and lefties, despite some occasional populist noises, never trust anything that arises spontaneously 'from below' by the operation of market forces catering to consumer demand; on their scheme all must be orchestrated 'from the top' by libs and lefties for the 'common good' as defined by them. After all, anyone who self-identifies as a conservative must be a victim of Marxist 'false consciousness,' right? He cannot possibly know his 'real interests.' Such a benighted individual needs to be 'educated' by those who know better. Thus the enormous demand for conservative talk, engendered as it is by the 'false consciousness' of the rubes populating fly-over country, can be discounted. Government on the liberal-left scheme must control the airwaves just as it must control the health care delivery system, and everything else. Theirs is a wrongheaded view of government, however, one justly opposed by Michael Oakeshott, no rube, whom I just quoted:
. . . governing is a specific and limited activity, namely the provision and custody of general rules of conduct, which are understood, not as plans for imposing substantive activities, but as instruments enabling people to pursue the activities of their own choice with the minimum frustration . . .
Besides, on the business of fairness, the conservative talk shows do give libs and lefties their say. If you listen to the conservative talk jocks you know this to be true. Dennis Prager recently had Christopher Hitchens on his show, and Michael Medved recently hosted Noam Chomsky. I am not hastily generalizing from these two instances, mind you, I am illustrating a general statement. A point of logic often missed is the difference between hasty generalization and illustration of a generalization.
Instead of using the coercive power of government to ram leftist ideology down our throats, libs and lefties ought to try playing fair by producing some interesting, substantive shows that attract an audience. If they were to offer a good product, people might buy it.
The Left, of course, is not satisfied with their point of view being represented, which it is in spades in the universities, in the MSM, in Hollywood and elsewhere; hell no, they want to shut down dissent and enforce political correctness using the coercive power of government. That is what is really behind the pious talk of 'fairness.'