What is good for the Fox is good for the Gray Lady

By hunter Posted in Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Requiring a medium to carry something to the standard set by the government is censorship. Censorship is not just a flensing of content. It is also imposing content. In the days of the so-called 'fairness doctrine', the public square was not free and vibrant. It was simply suppressed and more quiet. It was in short anemic and oligarchic.
The other argument I see here, that somehow people are 'too extreme' in their discourse, so the government is justified in censoring media that happens to use the airwaves, is simply an argument from the 'philospher king' school of public discourse - that the poor plebes, inflamed and ignorant, need the self declared wise ones to quiet their ignorant heated blood.
No thanks.
Ask this: If the "fairness doctrine" is so good on media that is broadcast, why not apply it to print? After all, the capital cost of establishing a large newspaper is terribly high. Additionally, in nearly every market, there is a very limited number of newspaper outlets - it is in fact nearly exactly the situation of broadcast media in years past. And all large newspapers are owned by large corporate interests.
Is not the public good of only having one newspaper in most markets inherently unmet due to this reality?
If 'fairness doctrine' should be applied in radio and TV, where nearly every market has many radio outlets, should it not apply even more to markets served by only one newspaper?
If a fig leaf is needed to justify censoring newspapers, one can say that since newspapers sell advertising, they are actually engaged in commercial activities, not free speech, and they use public roads to deliver their print, and advertise on public airwaves to promote it. So not covering issues 'fairly' they are discriminating against those whose side the newspaper's editorial policies ignore or belittle.
That is about the same argument for re-imposing censorship in broadcast media, and what is good for goose is good for gander. Or rather, what is good for the Fox is good for the Gray Lady.

The government has no real grounds for enforcing the Fairness Doctrine on the New York Times, or, for that matter, the Fox News Channel. Neither one is under the purview of the FCC, and neither one is dependent on an FCC license to keep in operation. The Fairness Doctrine could, however, to use your "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" analogy, squelch CBS News as well as talk radio, but what are the odds of that actually happening? After all, the Fairness Doctrine was FCC policy back when Cronkite was advocating surrender in Vietnam...

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones

is that if we buy into censorship in the name of 'fairness' and 'diversity', the newsprint media is a very logical place to focus - very few owners, most markets completely dominated by one newspaper, and editorial policies that obviously promote one side of an issue.
I think no organ of the government has any justification at all to impose any kind of regulation of free speech.
But the way the issue lingers, and the possibility of lefties taking over the WH and Congress and nominating lefty ideologues on the USSC, means to me that we better keep the arguments well defined and ready to hand.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service