Rhomphaia recently posted about her views on the Fairness Doctrine (she's against it) and she claimed that liberals had all the money and the Fairness Doctrine was a tactic to make sure that only liberal views were heard. No, I don't think it passes the laugh test. The Fairness Doctrine simply states that equal time must be given to the opposition. Listen up, conservatives. If you think that the media are as strongly liberal as you claim, then you should be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine; it would mean those stations would have to give equal time to the likes of you.
Of course, in reality, conservatives know that their views are being financed by big money and they want to keep their opponents quiet. Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, and their copycats can be heard coast-to-coast around the nation because big money buys them airtime and pays their salaries. When there ever is a liberal radio broadcast, it's on a station with a shoestring budget with a range of maybe two miles and the speaker is unpaid. Conservatives will say that the won the battle of ideas. But they didn't. They won the battle of money. Now, maybe they would win the battle of ideas and maybe they wouldn't. But they don't want to take a chance.
Conservatives are not worried that they will be silenced. They know full well that that is not going to happen. They are worried, however, that their opponents will be unsilenced. They want to keep discussions one-sided. It's hard to make the claim that liberals want to put everyone in 14-hour-a-day forced labor camps if the liberals have the opportunity to present their own position.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I've always been puzzled by this attitude of "fairness." Does the Constitution protect "fair" speech or free speech? I'm pretty sure it's free speech. Under what premise then do people believe that speech can only be permitted if it is fair and balanced? That doesn't sound very "free" to me.
Can you imagine how this would have been received among the American colonies? What if King George III required that any paper that printed support for the revolution be required to give equal space to views in favor of England?
What about you? Would you have free speech if you were required by law to devote 1/2 of your blog space to me? But maybe you're more interested in "fair" than "free." I think that might be one of the defining differences between liberals and conservatives.
RKBentley:
My blog does not have money promoting it and giving it a wider (potential) audience. Your blog and mine are already on an equal footing. (Incidentally, most newspapers will print op-eds.) Plus, you do see opposing viewpoints on my blog, in the comments.
I find your mention of George III to be interesting. If we pursue the analogy more accurately, the mainstream papers were the ones supported by George and only published support for George's rule. King George would have been opposed to something like the fairness doctrine.
That settles it then. You are indeed more interested in "fair" than free. Since I don't have big money behind my blog, you and I are on equal footing. But if I had a lot of money to promote my blog, then suddenly, I have an advantage and some government control is necessary to make sure my speech remains "fair." Is that about how you see it?
Remind me again what part of the Constitution protects "fair" speech at the expense of free speech?
RKBentley:
The fairness doctrine does not prevent you, or anyone else, from saying what you wish. It does not impede free speech in any way. If effective, it prevents you from using money or power to keep the opposition from being heard. In essence, if you are using money as a megaphone, you don't get to put your opponents in a sound-proof box because they don't have money. Opponents of the fairness doctrine are not afraid that they won't be able to speak their minds or reach as many people as they want to. They can still do that; free speech is not hindered. But their opponents then also get the chance to be heard.
Sigh.
You still haven't told me where the Constitution guarantees fair speech.
If I have a lot of money and can spend it all to promote my ideas, that's FREE speech. Where do you get the idea that there must be some intervention where I must give someone else who doesn't have any money equal time to promote his ideas?
If you're going to respond, please cite some authority that guarantees fair speech. You've stated your opinion very succinctly but it's still merely your opinion. On what grounds do you base your opinion? Is it the job of the government to insure free speech or merely fair speech?
RKBentley:
The Constitution neither guarantees nor prohibits fair speech. There is, therefore, no block on legislation. But free speech and fair speech are not incompatible. Or perhaps you think that the Constitution guarantees free speech only for those who have money. I will disregard your request for an "authority" as a red herring. If someone's voice is silenced because the opposition has sufficient money and/or power, in what sense does he have free speech?
Post a Comment