All’s Fair In Love and Talk Radio

Politics & Current Events

Some potential good news — Fox is reporting that President Obama has repeated his opposition to reinstatement of the appalling and Orwellian-named Fairness Doctrine:

“As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

As Patrick mentioned earlier this week, some Congressional Democrats have been making noise about reviving the entirely illiberal doctrine, the application of which is considerably more complex in an age of cable and internet news.

However, don’t count the Congressional Democrats out yet. There’s no telling whether the White House response to this question is misleading. Congress could pass some array of rules that has fundamentally the same impact as the Fairness Doctrine and simply slap a new label on it, and President Obama could use that new label as the excuse to sign off on it. I’d be considerably more comfortable with a stronger statement from the White House, like this: “the President disagrees with, and will not support, any attempt to regulate broadcast content by telling media entities what political or social views they must air, whether or not under the guise of ‘fairness’ or ‘even-handedness.’” I doubt we’ll get anything that blunt, though.

The argument over media bias reveals strange incongruities on both sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives tend to oppose the Fairness Doctrine on the grounds that the market, not the government, should drive broadcast content. I agree with that proposition. Yet some conservatives constantly bemoan liberal bias in the media. Accepting for the sake of argument that there is such a bias (a proposition that I think is seriously oversimplified), isn’t that bias a result of the same market forces that conservatives cherish? Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal illustrate that conservative media voices can succeed to the extent the market supports them — in other words, Americans can, and do, change the channel to one that suits their need for fairness and accuracy (if you like Fox News) or opinion porn (if you don’t). Isn’t conservative carping about liberal media bias therefore like my carping about reality TV — a thinly disguised expression of disgust for the taste and judgment of the populace forming the market?

Liberals are simply hoist from the other direction. Liberals like to claim that there is no liberal media bias, but an actual conservative or corporate bias (again, a highly oversimplified proposition, I think), and vigorously resist and ridicule conservative efforts to police the media for liberal excesses. Some liberals tell us that certain ideas are preferred in the media because the opposing ideas — conservative ideas — have failed, and that this is as it should be. Yet the same liberals are willing to let the government regulate talk radio on the pretense that there is some sort of market flaw preventing liberal thought from surviving there, and that it is somehow in the public interest to force each media outlet to be its own mini-market of ideas. But there is nothing structural that prevents talk radio, or any other media, from running liberal content if it is profitable. Arguments to the contrary rely on cartoonish visions of plutocrats passing up profit in favor of ideological purity — cartoonish visions that rather resemble conservative complaints about the liberal media, in fact.

We’ll see whether Congress chooses to test the boundaries of President Obama’s opposition to the Fairness Doctrine.

Last 5 posts by Ken

8 Comments

7 Comments

  1. TJIC  •  Feb 18, 2009 @4:08 pm

    I’m an example of a person who (a) thinks that the Fairness Doctrine is unacceptable; (b) think that there is liberal bias in the media.

    Journalism is a tempting career choice for leftists.

    I don’t, however, want any government action to “fix” the liberal bias in the media.

    Just because there is a “market failure” does not mean that government intervention can make things better (even if government intervention was legitimate).

    Libertarianism is not utopian – it does not assert that everything is perfect under the market. It merely says that the results are better than the alternative.

  2. John Beaty  •  Feb 18, 2009 @4:09 pm

    Sorry, but although I agree that the Fairness Doctrine is appalling, the notion that the airwaves should be given away with no quid pro quo is equally suspect. And the idea that TV stations will always follow the money is true only if you discount the idea that it takes investing first to find out if there is money to be made, and therefor there is not guarantee that any even handedness will obtain.

  3. Patrick  •  Feb 18, 2009 @4:15 pm

    John, a guarantee that evenhandedness will obtain would apply to bandwidth as well, and to paper and ink. If you want to complain, complain that the FCC doesn’t allow microbroadcasting, which would return radio to the weird and wooly world of the early 20th century or the few areas that have freeform radio, where you can hear almost anything.

    Fuck evenhandedness. “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.” Though Mao said that in order to draw out his critics for prison and execution, I’ll endorse that beautiful thought as my own. You can quote me without fear, because I’ve never executed or imprisoned anybody.

  4. Ken  •  Feb 18, 2009 @4:17 pm
    Just because there is a “market failure” does not mean that government intervention can make things better (even if government intervention was legitimate).

    Travis, how would you define the market failure that leads to a liberal bias? In other words, how would you demonstrate that the liberal bias is the result of a flaw rather than a result of market forces?

    Sorry, but although I agree that the Fairness Doctrine is appalling, the notion that the airwaves should be given away with no quid pro quo is equally suspect.

    John, if I were inclined to agree with you, I’d still say that the quid pro quo cannot be content-based.

    And the idea that TV stations will always follow the money is true only if you discount the idea that it takes investing first to find out if there is money to be made, and therefor there is not guarantee that any even handedness will obtain.

    But if there is a market for conservative media speech, and no one is serving that market, then won’t rational investors provide the starting capital, just as they would for any other underserved market?

  5. Esther  •  Feb 18, 2009 @8:36 pm

    While I agree that the conservatives bemoan the liberal bias of the media, I don’t think they have gone as far as suggesting there should be a law against it. On the contrary, they point out the bias and suggest the viewer/reader watch/read their content instead. It’s only across the aisle that we see Democrats attempt to make it a crime. The solution is rather simple, if you don’t agree, turn it off. Your “illiberal doctrine” should read illegal and unconstitutional.

  6. Yogi  •  Feb 19, 2009 @11:03 am

    Hey, Esther, that’s great. Why not show the Playboy Channel or better all day on ABC? Or have you maybe forgotten the “conservative” backlash to the wardrobe malfunction? Despite what you seem to think, much of the regulation of TV is from a distinctly conservative POV. Except for the political end apparently.

    Ah, well, I think we should just allow anything on every airwave at all times, and charge the TV stations a stiff fee for using what belongs, after all, to the public. Then we could all just watch what we want, provided someone thought they could make a buck of us. And if no-one thought it would make money, then, WTF, don’t show it.

    Given that news programs, in depth reporting, children’s programs and the like are usually money losers, I look forward to the day when it’s all porn, all the time, interspersed with car chases and MMA, punctuated by naked co-ed football. Esther and I will be at the forefront of support for that, I’m sure.

    Yogi’s first law of investors: Investors are not rational.
    Yogi’s 2nd law of investors: Every investor wants to beat the market, but has zero tolerance for risk
    Yogi’s 3rd law of investors: Investors only invest in outdated ideas and concepts 9Buy high, sell low)

  7. Grandy  •  Feb 19, 2009 @12:52 pm

    Naked coed football would be inferior to football, so I don’t know why it would get better ratings and more investment money than football.

1 Trackback

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>