Obama's America and the "Fairness" Doctrine

Patrick McIlheran, in "The case to subtract some talk," considers the Democrats' threat to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

In his Milwaukee Journal Sentinel column, he leads off with a disturbing instance from the presidential campaign, when Barack Obama's army organized to attack, intimidate, and to a certain extent, silence dissent and shut down free speech that presented Obama in a negative light.

In August, Stanley Kurtz was ambushed during a quest appearance on Milt Rosenberg's WGN-AM radio program.

Some background:

DENVER -- Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.

..."WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse," the note said.

...On Wednesday evening, Obama's campaign urged supporters to call the radio station to complain.

"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves," the note continued. "At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies."

...[Zack Christenson, executive producer of "Extension 720 with Milt Rosenburg] said the Obama campaign was asked to have someone appear on the show and declined the request.

For more details on that ambush, read "Barack Obama, Aspiring Commissar."

Will this sort of tactic become the norm in Obama's America, muzzling the opposition?

Will the Fairness Doctrine or other such government imposed measures that would force a bulldozing of the talk radio landscape reemerge?

Political progressives, now empowered, have ideas about reshaping radio. Often, these are said to be about fairness or a "diversity of voices." The movement's passion, however, seems to be more about shutting some mouths.

Obama, nominally, has forsworn the old Fairness Doctrine, in which any broadcast opinion could be permitted only with equal time for opposing views. Other Democrats haven't. "This has sort of been circulating at the top levels of the party for some time," said Brian C. Anderson, editor of City Journal and co-author of a new book, "A Manifesto for Media Freedom." Top congressional Democrats have favored such rules. If they pass them, would Obama veto? Anderson thinks not.

"It would kill talk radio," says Anderson. Before the shackles were loosed, most stations avoided any opinion at all. Fewer than 100 radio talk shows existed in 1980. The economics of having to provide free air time to foes didn't work. Now, 1,500 stations offer talk, a blossoming of public affairs.

It's not just equal-time rules, however. The Federal Communication Commission has proposed that radio stations' licenses would be up for renewal every two years, not eight, and that stations form "permanent advisory boards" made up of "officials and other leaders" who would advise, in some unspecified way, what to broadcast.

"The question is, who is going to sit on those boards," said Anderson. "The likelihood is that it would be activists, professional activist types."

The FCC's proposal says as much, suggesting 24 constituencies, from unions to doctors to the elderly, who should weigh in. Such rules - Obama has said favorable things about them - would impose opinion by committee.

I find this murmuring about reenacting some incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine and creating advisory boards to sit in judgment to determine what should or should not be allowed on the air to be truly alarming. Putting such policies in place would clearly be an affront to civil liberties.

The new rules that the Left is drooling over are about controlling thought and the free exchange of ideas. This has nothing to do with maintaining standards of decency on the air. It's pure politics. Leftists want to quiet their critics and promote their own agenda without being challenged.

One way to do that is to force conservatives off the air to make room for liberals.

In effect, it would be a talk radio affirmative action program.

That's twisted, given the fact that the political party in power, the one in control of the executive and legislative branches of government, can hardly be seen as needing assistance in leveling the playing field. It's not a helping hand for the minority. Instead, it's a heavy-handed method to squash opposing opinion.

Talk radio is a business. It's profit-driven. That's as it should be. Let the audience determine what they want to hear. Programming should reflect what the audience actually wants, not what some board says it should want.

The thought of government stepping in to reshape radio in order to impact public opinion by being more liberal-friendly is troubling. I see it as a potential abuse of power and a serious threat to liberty.

It's the sort of meddling that we, as Americans, typically decry. In places like China and Iran and Venezuela, we see it as an infringement on personal freedom.

Oppression dressed up as "fairness" is a joke. You can put lipstick on the suppression of free speech, but it's still an attempt to stifle free speech.

If Leftists were successful on radio, they would not be calling for limits on the conservatives' voices.

Bottom line: The government shouldn't be acting as the program director.
_______________

From McIlheran: "More on talk radio and its future"