An Ear for An Ear?
TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 13 August 2008 | The Fairness Doctrine, under the Media Ownership Reform Act, a bill that would force broadcasters to give equal air time to opposing sides of issues, has made the rounds in Congress lately. After being brought up by Democrats for consideration a few months ago, it was countered by the Republican sponsored Broadcaster’s Freedom Act, a bill that would ban the Fairness Doctrine from ever being passed. In childish response, House Speaker Pelosi then vowed that the Broadcaster’s Freedom Act would never come to the floor for a vote. At a virtual stalemate, both bills have been tabled as Congress has broken for their summer vacation. There has been talk that the Fairness Doctrine could be brought back to light after the inauguration of a new president.In covering the ongoing banter, both the liberal and conservative wings of the media have focused almost exclusively on how they perceive the doctrine affecting their rights to free speech. Liberals feel that talk radio and other venues have been unfairly overrun by right wing nuts and that their side of the story isn’t being heard. Conservatives feel that regulated free speech is a horrific contradiction of terms that can never work. And, while free speech is important enough to have been the front-runner amendment in the Bill of Rights, focusing on it alone will cause us to miss the bigger picture—the fact that freedom itself is at stake in this debate.
Key Points
- The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the greatest and most significant examples of proper use of free speech. After seeing that their cries for change had fallen on deaf ears, the Founders set forth a system of checks and balances that would allow for grievances to be effectively addressed.
- Regulation of free speech is a removal of those checks and balances. If one cannot address his views of a problem without fear of sanction, he has no avenue in which to protect his freedoms.
- While the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t provide direct sanctions against speech, it takes steps in that direction by limiting the amount that can be said. Effectively slicing broadcast time in half, it forces stations to cap the discussion from either side of any issue. Failure to provide equal airtime to either side (or to find someone willing to fill the necessary time slots for both sides) would result in sanctions.
- Plato said, “Where no contradiction is evident, there is no cause for reflection.” Opposing views are needed in the debate process to help us refine our views of truth and error.
However, forcing the public to listen to views that are unprincipled or flat-out wrong will cause gradual acceptance of these ideas. Sales trainings often teach that repeated exposure to a concept will eventually break down objections and build familiarity and acceptance. This is also a tactic of the socialist agenda. - Continued exposure to diametrically opposed ideas will lead to schizophrenic confusion and inaction (if the public are dumb enough to not turn off the radio when needed). Liberals foster this sense of helplessness in order to create a need for and dependence on government solutions, which is also a tactic of the socialists.
- In the free market system intended by the Founders, there is no need for a doctrine to mandate fairness. People are free to share their opinions and the system will sort out good from evil, truth from concoction. Dollars follow value and market will see that voices that are meant to be heard are heard.
Conclusion
Because a free market system will see that truth is brought to the forefront, one must question the motives of anyone who seeks to regulate or eliminate that system. If elected officials are doing what they believe is right, they will feel no need to regulate what is said about their actions. As they often have no idea what is right or do things that they know to be wrong, they fear people’s opinions and shy away from criticism.
It has been said that no single drop feels that it is responsible for the flood. But, regulated speech is always one of the first drops to hit the masses as the floodgates of socialism are opened. Viewing the Fairness Doctrine as either fair or harmless shows a wanton disregard for the principles that maintain and guard our freedoms. To see such a doctrine being considered in a free country is ludicrous. To see that it is being pushed by liberal minds who have often considered themselves the defenders of free speech is infuriating.
Action Items
- Read the First Amendment to the Constitution.
- Post here as to what you believe the Founders intended with this amendment and how Americans have mistranslated that intent.
- Consider contacting your Congressman to express your concern about the loss of freedom that the Fairness Doctrine would lead to.
- Support freedom in talk radio—listen to FreeCapitalist Radio live or via podcast, or check your local listings for a chanel in your area.
MRFC Principles: 
(7, 9, 11, 12)
Source
“Fairness Doctrine Vote Not In The Cards”, FMQB.com, Aug 1, 2008.
(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Did you guys see that this so called fairness doctrine may applies if instituted would applies to all media web content also ? http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx for a store.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
The most principled response to the Fairness Doctrine would be to introduce a bill that completely eliminated the FTC and all regulation by the national government over the airwaves.
The 1st Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…”. On top of that, no where in the Constitution was congress given the power to create laws that have anything to do with regulation of media.
According to the Constitution, only the state governments have the authority to create laws against any speech that violates individual rights (10th amendment). Of course, I’m yet to see how “right-wing”, “left-wing”, or any other talk over the radio violates my rights since I can simply turn my radio off. Thus, any form of fairness doctrine and/or censorship by the state governments also violate principle.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:15 am
Matt, while I agree with the overall points of your article, some of your main points are missing the point involved in the issue.
When you say things like, “However, forcing the public to listen to views that are unprincipled or flat-out wrong will cause gradual acceptance of these ideas.” and “Continued exposure to diametrically opposed ideas will lead to schizophrenic confusion and inaction” can only be true if your premise is that the truth needs to have an advantage of time in order to prosper. Also, unless they force people to turn on the radio and listen to a specific station, the government is not forcing anyone to listen to anything.
Truth, if given equal time, will become evident on it’s own. There is no need to fear additional views added to the market place of ideas. The problem isn’t that false and unprincipled views will enter the market place. If they are false and unprincipled, as long as truth is given equal exposure, that will become apparent.
The whole point about freedom of speech is that no government has the moral authority to promote, or to abridge the voicing of any opinion, principled or not.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Ammon,
As always, you bring up good points. You’re right–truth doesn’t need to have an advantage of time in order to prosper. I would argue that it doesn’t even need to have equal time to be properly recognized by those who seek it. But, in today’s world, the number who dedicatedly seek truth is a small number in comparative ratio to the sheep out there who will listen to any voice indiscriminately. Those who listen to anything that is broadcast will gradually become accepting of that which they hear. While those who seek truth and discriminately sift through all ideas, reject those that are false, there is a large bulk of the population that fail to make distinctions and do grow to literally believe anything that they hear.
The subconscious mind, much like a computer, doesn’t judge the information that it is given to be true or false. It simply runs on the parameters that it is given as standards. When given falsehoods, so long as those falsehoods don’t compete against existing ‘parameters’ it will run according to those falsehoods. If sheep listen to diametrically opposed ideas, their minds will be filled with contradictory parameters and they will have a harder time making effective decisions and taking actions. (Perspective determines action–vacillating perspective brings vacillation in actions).
While truth will become evident on it’s own and their is no need to fear additional views in the marketplace of ideas, I believe that our current condition in this country is due in large part to the fact that people listen unquestioningly (and uneducatedly) to the false messages that bombard them in current media. How else would a people who say they love freedom come to so willingly embrace so much that is detrimental to that freedom?
True, the government can’t force me to listen to anything, even if they sit me in a room with the radio turned to the station of their choice. But, if they can squelch the message of truth by limiting it’s broadcast time, they have taken an effective step in advancing their agenda. Even in communist regimes where all media is controlled and the messages of truth and freedom are banished, men of free minds will have freedom and will lead others to it. But, the masses tend to accept the shackles and give up their freedom.
The Fairness Doctrine will never hurt you or me directly. We have chosen to understand freedom in its fullness, regardless of the media of the day. But, the doctrine will directly affect our mission to help the masses see the light. Granted, many who will allow the Fairness Doctrine to affect them directly are not the ones that would grasp and embrace our message anyway.
Regardless of legislation, those who seek truth and those who seek to share truth will find each other. The Fairness Doctrine, and any other propaganda legislation for which it sets precedent, will just make the process more difficult.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I think the point here is that people choose those whom they trust. When the government, by force, arranges a fairness doctrine and the same voice must give equal time to opposing viewpoints, it will confuse those who trust that voice.
For example, if I support issue A and I spend an hour talking about the greatness of issue A as I see it and then through some (un)fairness doctrine must then turn around and provide the merits of Issue B which opposes issue A, my listeners may very well become confused as to my motivations and my perspective. This forces me to indorse a point of view I am opposed to. This is a violation of free speech. I have the right to be as biased balanced or biased as I want.
I a supporter of Issue B wishes to take the initiative I have taken and to create a venue in which his points of view may be supported, more power to him, but HE is saying it, not me. HIS radio station is saying it, not mine. And both of our listeners may choose what they want to listen to, whether both or just one, and they have the ability then to decide for themselves.
The silliness behind all of this is that the liberal point of view generally has a difficult time finding air time because sponsors don’t want their names associated with the ideas espoused on those programs and radio stations generally do not want to waste precious air time on a less profitable product. Truly, outside the liberal school system, their ideas find very little inroads into the marketplace of ideas.
In all reality, the only true “fairness doctrine” is for the government to get their stinkin’ fists out of the marketplace of ideas. Laissez Faire!!!
August 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Exactly and ditto.
The problem with the “Fairness Doctrine” is that it is, in a very real way, abridging the freedom of speech. They are limiting what you say and telling you what you have to say. This bill is so obviously unconstitutional.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The thing everyone in the conservative camp seems to be missing is that we can demand equal time on their shows equally as well as they can demand it on ours.
Since their shows are a larger portion of the media, we should wind up ahead on the deal, if the payor for the airtime/exposure is required to give up 1/2 of his purchase to those with contradictory comments to offer to the public.
Clearly, the main visible effect will be to grossly decrease the debate, in general, because folks with obviously illogical ideas, who will be any given show’s position proponents, will be cautious about their money being utilized by their opponents to promulgate ideas they would just as soon the public were not being offered, at all.
Does the bill, as written, indicate that the time must be used for the proposal promoter to go first and leaving the opponent to go last, regardless how many back-and-forths there may be in between? If so, this might be very helpful for conservatives, on all occasions, since the concept of truth making itself clear to clearheaded people would make fools of the enemies of truth best, in both directions.
Now all we have to do is the get those of us who think God’s ideas are the ones to follow {and not His enemy’s ideas} to get out and vote, and we will shortly be out of these woods.