Whether or not we should have a fairness doctrine is less of an issue than whether or not one would achieve its objectives. Fairness on the radio is in the ear of the beholder. As a liberal, I would be very concerned about who was to represent my "side," and I just might find myself questioning a liberal position as being too radical or unrealistic, or perhaps not liberal enough. For example, who on the liberal end of the spectrum holds the majority position on how and when to end the war? Is there a consolidated opinion on homeland security measures or illegal immigration? Even the conservatives are divided on these issues. So rebuttal time under a fairness doctrine could end up being a confusing hodge-podge of minority opinions, or, perhaps, a series of panel shows, which sometimes works on television but would be unmanageable on radio. And would people really sit through long boring discussions by so-called experts, or would they prefer the punchy, high energy give-and-take of today's political talk no matter how one-sided it might be? Of those who saw the President's speech the other night, how many stayed to watch the Democrat rebuttal, and how many of those stayed to watch the commentaries and analyses? Even Rush admitted to watching the rebuttal only because he knew that his listeners would ask him about it.
Political talk shows are much closer to entertainment, and even sports, than they are to news, and everyone knows that. If talk radio had to take on the trappings of a supposedly balanced or objective news or panel show, would it have more credibility, or would it just be bulls--t in stereo? Perhaps there should be some time set aside for debates and balanced discussions, but these should be presented as news and information, or even public service programming, and not as political talk. If there is to be government regulation, this would be the place to start, kind of like the public access requirement in cable franchises. There could even be a mandate for rebuttal time by individuals who are personally attacked, but with an exemption for fair comment so that the privilege is not abused Or maybe a portion of a station's air time could be purchased or subsidized by an impartial conduit for government and corporate funding in the tradition of the public broadcasting model. But trying to make each station's broadcast day fair and balanced, either by diluting controversial discussions or by requiring stations to carry hours of unprofitable programming, is just plain senseless and will ultimately leave us with fewer venues for political debate.
The fairness doctrine was enacted because the broadcast spectrum, even in major markets, was severely limited, and there was a heavy burden on licensees to serve the width and breadth of the public interest. With the proliferation of other channels of communication (cable, satellite, the Internet, etc.), it's getting harder for anyone to have an ideological monopoly, and there is no shortage of voices in the wilderness searching for an audience. I worry more about daily newspapers, which become fewer in number as costs increase and revenue is siphoned off by other media. I'm not happy that Murdoch wants to buy Newsday, but I'd rather see that than have it go under.
Commercial broadcasting is ratings driven just like any other product. It's all about supply and demand. If you want a more level playing field, you just gotta play a better game.
