James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, who normally writes on national security issues, had an op-ed in the Washington Examiner yesterday that addressed the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” in talk radio and efforts to bring it back under the guise of “localism.”
A few excerpts:
The [Fairness Doctrine]… was anything but fair. It provided no clear standard for determining what was “controversial.” It was also hard to figure out who represented the “sides,” since many controversial topics inspire far more than two viewpoints.
With all this uncertainty, the doctrine wound up having a chilling effect on free speech. It dissuaded broadcasters from tackling tough subjects at all, out of fear it would get them crosswise of some unelected regulator, who would then yank their license.
During the Reagan era, the FCC repealed the most egregious parts of the doctrine-and conservative talk radio was born. Now Washington wants it back.
Other regulatory threats to free speech lurk out there as well. One idea, called “localism,” is little more than a way to sneak the Fairness Doctrine in through the back door. It would require stations to let boards of local citizens determine whether their programming meets the needs of the local community.
Such boards are an open invitation for activists to skewer free speech they think is inappropriate. Stunningly, Clear Channel Communications, one of the nation’s largest radio networks, has already ordered their local stations to set up these star chambers of political correctness.
…The last thing talk radio needs now is a muzzle. What’s needed [are] independent voices speaking in defense of free speech on America’s airwaves…
The more I read and hear about the “Fairness Doctrine,” the more absurd it becomes to me, particularly now that I finally have XM satellite radio in my car. But not for the reasons you may think.
Sure, with satellite radio, the growth of the FM band, and digital broadcasting that takes up less spectrum, the theory of radio spectrum scarcity that drove much of the early “Fairness Doctrine” just about entirely disappears.
But what really made me realize just how ridiculous a new “Fairness Doctrine” would be, regardless of whether it’s simply bringing back the old FCC regulations or disguising it as “localism,” was listening to music in my car while driving around town, and hearing just how much political speech was coming through my speakers.
Consider “Imagine” by John Lennon. A few of the lyrics:
…Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
…Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
It isn’t hard to detect a particular political ideology in these lyrics, as Songfacts describes:
This song is a strong political message that is sugarcoated in a beautiful melody. Lennon realized that the softer approach would bring the song to a wider audience, who hopefully would listen to his message.
Lennon said this song is “virtually the Communist Manifesto.” That’s usually the last we see of the quote, but Lennon added: “even though I am not particularly a communist and I do not belong to any movement.”
“Imagine” is hardly the only song with a political message that regularly comes through my radio. Red Barchetta by Rush comes to mind:
My uncle has a country place, that no one knows about
He says it used to be a farm, before the motor law
And on Sundays I elude the eyes and hop the turbine freight
To far outside the wire, where my white-haired uncle waits.
Jump to the ground
As the turbo slows to cross the borderline
Run like the wind,
As excitement shivers up and down my spine
Down in his barn
My uncle preserved for me, an old machine —
For fifty-odd years
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream
I strip away the old debris, that hides a shining car
A brilliant red barchetta, from a better, vanished time
I fire up the willing engine, responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime…
Just try to listen to that song without thinking about an environmentalist movement that seems to have the internal combustion engine slated for extinction, or a totalitarian (or at least an authoritarian) regime with “eyes” that must be eluded and that has made private ownership of vehicles illegal.
Rush, incidentally, also had one album that an entire side was devoted to the writings of Ayn Rand, whom I think it fair to say wrote on topics related to politics.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg, as anybody who’s ever listened to Bob Dylan, Charlie Daniels, Joan Baez, Cheap Trick, Sammy Hagar, or thousands of other songs regularly played on the radio with strong political overtones can tell you. There is a rich history of music laced with politics.
All of this, of course, is well beyond the reach of anything envisioned (yet) by those seeking to control political speech over the airwaves. So, even if a new “Fairness Doctrine” was passed, the radio-listening American public would still be getting “imbalanced” political messages through their stereo speakers, unless the Federal Communications Commission were ready to demand that for every politically-oriented Sheryl Crow song played on the air a station also had to play something with an opposing perspective by Darryl Worley, and so forth.
Hopefully, enough Americans prize their First Amendment enough and oppose government meddling in what they can hear on the radio, either talk or music, that they Won’t Get Fooled Again into tolerating either the old or a new “Fairness Doctrine.”
