Much Ado About Nothing

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, November 21, 2008

As my brother’s column illustrates, there has been buzz gathering over a potential revival of the long-dead FCC Fairness Doctrine. The concern is that media voices from one side of the political spectrum would need to have a balanced reflection from the opposing side.

Now that the Democrats are securing even more power in the House and Senate, and now that we are on the threshold of a Democratic presidential administration, talk of bringing back the FCC rule is growing louder.

The interesting fact is that almost all of the talk is coming from right-wing bloggers, pundits and talk radio personalities. Few on the left have done more than briefly give the Fairness Doctrine lip service, and to my knowledge, no one has seriously mentioned instituting a like policy when the FCC dynamic changes under President-Elect Obama. In fact, the June 2008 report Gordon mentioned in his column was the result of carefully worded questioning by conservative blogger John Gizzi to illicit a specific response from Speaker Pelosi.

So, from where does the idea that the Fairness Doctrine is a top liberal priority come? To answer that question, it helps to examine the voices shouting the loudest about its threats to free speech. Newt Gingrich, who is skilled at focusing the political narrative to favor the conservative agenda, has spoken recently of the doctrine and a potential “attack” against media personalities like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. With Rush driving the story, word spread like wildfire through talk radio and in sites on the right side of the blogosphere. A conspiracy is born.

Why would the right want to generate fervor about the Fairness Doctrine? Well, as Rush did in 1993 when rumors were circulating about a revival, the right seeks to use this “threat” to mobilize the base and maintain ideological divides.

The fact is that talk radio finds itself in territory that it hasn’t visited for eight years. It represents the voice of opposition. After preaching during the Bush administration that the test of patriotism is the defense and support of the sitting president and his policies, it must now attack the principles and values of the sitting president and do it without sounding like it is guilty of “blaming America first.” Inspiring fear among loyal listeners that government intervention threatens their favorite icons lays the groundwork for opposition against the Democrats in power. This animosity is key to future advancement of conservative agendas and any shift in power two or four years down the road.

While there has been some talk of conciliatory transitions, the Republicans and the right seem to have little interest in bridging any political gaps. One need only look at the names rising to the top as Republican Party leaders met recently to lick the wounds and regroup. Among the hopefuls for Republican nomination in 2012 are superstar Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich himself. If George W. Bush is seen as a great divider, he is small potatoes compared to these two professional partisans.

Also, there is little political will to reign in the media. Even those who would support some government intervention don’t believe in its viability. Most legislators who would endorse a new Fairness Doctrine admit there are many far more pressing matters and higher priorities to be addressed. Taking up this banner – even with control over the presidency and both houses of Congress – would be political suicide. There are just two many dire challenges to address.

I certainly oppose censorship and don’t believe that the state has any business making broad strokes toward controlling information. That said, I do think that the media has an obligation to inform. I think they also must take care not to blur the lines of objectivity. When listeners tune to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly they usually expect a conservative viewpoint, just as those who tune to Rachel Maddow or Amy Goodman expect a liberal view. However, it is not always easy to discern news from editorial, and some outlets choose to make the difference harder to distinguish. When I watch Fox News, I expect the right’s talking points to be the thrust of the coverage. I wonder, though, if there are viewers who take its tagline of “Fair and Balanced” as a pledge. I understand that it is a case of “buyer beware” but we do have rules that require truth in advertising. Is truth in information any less vital to our citizenry?

In any case, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the United States have little to fear from the FCC during Obama’s watch. Censorship is not at hand. Free speech will remain free.