With Barack Obama's ascent to the White House and large Democratic gains in both houses of Congress, there have been some Congressional Democrats (most notably Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer) who have floated the idea of reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
I think that this is a terrible idea. And if you'll do me the honor of following me below the fold, I'll do my best to explain.
Now, I understand why some people believe that the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. The case, as it is presented, is that the airwaves belong to the public, that the airwaves should serve all of the public, and that affairs as they exist today see a tremendous imbalance between liberal and conservative talk radio. Most people would stipulate anecdotally that this imbalance exists, and a more detailed station-by-station analysis of programming lays bare the reality that liberal points of view are woefully underrepresented in the talk radio format.
I both understand and appreciate this argument.
That having been said, the circumstances that surrounded the genesis of the Fairness Doctrine (in 1949) are significantly different than those that exist today. In 1949, consumer choices were generally limited to the three broadcast television networks (CBS, NBC, and ABC -- PBS wouldn't be established for another twenty years) and a handful of local radio stations.
In 2008, consumers have access to literally hundreds of television stations, most of which are available exclusively via cable and/or satellite, but several more of which are broadcast at a local level via VHF and UHF. The dawn of satellite radio has provided a similar capability for that medium. Even though the medium of newsprint has declined in the face of high technology that threatens to render it obsolete, Americans today have access to many more newspapers than they did almost sixty years ago. While a 1949 American may have been able to read his local papers, a 2008 American can get the New York Times delivered to his or her doorstep.
And then, of course, no discussion of the media's modernization would be complete without a mention of the Internet. Never before has this sheer amount of information been available for consumption. Never before has it been easier for somebody to make his or her opinions readily available to billions of people (as evidenced by the treatise that you are currently reading).
Politically, let's be blunt: This idea is a loser. An August 2008 Rasmussen poll shows that only 47% of Americans support the idea of requiring broadcasters to put out an equal amount of liberal and conservative material. Now, this is certainly a large minority (as minorities go), but the fact remains that it is a minority. If President-Elect Obama wants to reach across the aisle and cement relations with Americans who did not vote for him, this seems like the textbook definition of "low-hanging fruit".
I listen to more conservative talk radio than any sane liberal probably should. I find it entertaining to immerse myself in the right-wing echo chamber, and I believe that it's instructive to educate myself on what "the other side" is saying. Based on what I've heard since Tuesday, I can report that one of the far right's primary talking points is that liberals want to use the Fairness Doctrine to shut down conservative talk radio. I've heard this on Limbaugh, on Hannity, on Levin, and numerous other vitriolic dittoheads who are too obscure to name.
Can you imagine the deflating effect on this rhetoric if President-Elect Obama were to publicly reinforce that he opposes the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and would veto any attempt to do so? Heads would explode. These far-right commentators who have spent the balance of the previous week talking about how the Big Bad Liberals (TM) want to shut them up would suddenly find themselves scrambling to change the subject away from their humiliating defeat at the hands of the American electorate on November 4th.
I don't fear Rush Limbaugh. Frankly, even though I disagree with him at least 99% of the time, I think it says a good deal about a country where a man like this has a podium as large as he has. Actually, I would submit that, on balance, he's probably helped us as much as he's hurt us -- for example, Limbaugh's ridiculous attacks against Michael J. Fox may well have been the straw that broke the camel's back and propelled Senator McCaskill into office.
Finally (and if you've stuck with me for this long, you have my gratitude), I oppose the Fairness Doctrine because it seems to me like it's an admission that those of us on the left cannot "win" (in terms of market and mind share) without the force of government acting as an equalizer. I reject this argument. I submit the fact that the MSNBC prime-time lineup is now regularly defeating Fox News among key demographics (O'Reilly's juvenile accusations of "Nielsen corruption" notwithstanding) as proof that our ideas can stand quite well on their own, thank you very much.
Make no mistakes about this: If a Democratic Congress and White House is able to revive the Fairness Doctrine, the right-wing media will portray it (successfully, in my view) as a liberal attack on the First Amendment, and Democrats will suffer in the 2010 general election.
The Fairness Doctrine is a loser. We don't need it. As I've said, I believe that there are lots of real, substantive arguments against it, but even if you toss those to the winds and look at this issue from a purely political perspective, putting this nonsense to rest would (in my view) be a huge win for Barack Obama. We have a President-Elect with a major mandate from the American people. Putting the Fairness Doctrine to bed would be an almost effortless (and effectless) way to expand that mandate.