Fairness Doctrine

"Andrew" over at Obsidian Wings takes what I consider a rather dim, elitist view of the late, lamented Fairness Doctrine (whereby opinion pieces in the media could be answered by an opposing viewpoint, at least in theory):

For those unfamiliar with the Fairness Doctrine, the basic idea was that if a station ran a broadcast deemed to advocate a particular point of view, it had to provide equal time for the other side. This was intended to provide a variety of points of view in broadcast media. Instead, it led to opinion (other than that of the media) being generally banished from the airwaves.

... Should freedom of speech apply to the airwaves? The original justification for the Fairness Doctrine included the fact spectrum is limited, so not everyone can have access to a radio or TV station, and while the spectrum is a lot larger now than it was then (or, more precisely, we can use more of it), it is still a finite resource. On the other hand, there are laws in place to guarantee that the spectrum cannot be completely dominated by a particular network, and if those laws are insufficient, it seems to me that fixing those is a better way to ensure multiple viewpoints are aired than a doctrine that will restrict the airwaves rather than improving the discourse. The fact remains, as any blogger trying to boost traffic knows, that the public decides what they want to listen to with little regard for fairness or equal opportunity.

... We are fortunate enough to live in a country and an age where it has never been easier to get your message in front of your fellow citizens. Sure, TV and radio are still costly and relatively exclusive, but the internet has given millions of other people a voice in the discussion, and while most of those are looking at pornography and bitching about movies, a nontrivial fraction are having an effect on our political dialogue.

Many conservatives saw the Fairness Doctrine as being an impediment to free speech, but, in fact, it helped to blunt the impulse of rich megamillionaires (like Rupert Murdoch) to impose their idiosyncratic, authoritarian viewpoints on everyone else. The last paragraph quoted above seems way too pollyannish to me.

When all 135 of us dark-horse candidates ran for Governor of California in 2003, we immediately ran into the problem of how to quickly get our views out to California voters. If you don't have millions of dollars at your disposal, it won't happen in an effective and rapid way. Broadcasters often were deliberately rude and insulting to us, because they knew our options were limited.

There are limited ways to broadcast emotion-laden political messages to a receptive passive mass audience - radio and TV are still the best means to do so, and it is very expensive to do so. In practice, it means the rich lecture the poor, which severely stunts the universe of political speech. A proper fairness doctrine would subsidize well-considered messages of deserving poor pundits. Imagine how much more-effective blogs like Obsidian Wings would be it had two minutes on Fox News three nights a week to get their message across.

(Of course, implementing such a scheme would be nightmarishly difficult, but it doesn't mean we don't need something to balance the scales of wealth, even if imperfectly).

Remember, it's not just liberal viewpoints that get squelched - conservative views get squelched as well. If you are conservative and poor, your opinions get ruthlessly crushed too, by the rich coastal liberal elites of Blue-State America. That's one form of rough justice, I suppose, but it would be better if everyone had an equal chance to get their opinion out there. The Internet is a great help, of course, but mass media rules!