Media Fairness

While I try to steer clear of conspiracy theories or discussion of evil motives, I have a worry.

Do you remember, in the months shortly after Obama was elected, when there was noise about reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine (or institution of some type of regulation to “level the playing field” with regard to talk radio)?  Without going into specifics, politicians such as Dick Durbin (Sen), Nancy Pelosi (H. Rep), Debbie Stabenow (Sen), Anna Eshoo (H.Rep) and others, spoke out in favor of reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine and some even floated legislative trial balloons or regulatory proposals to advance the idea.  But suddenly, Obama, with the waive of the presidential magic wand, called off the idea shutting down the discussion.

Some say Obama shut down discussion of the Fairness Doctrine because it was a distraction from his agenda – this might be true. However, I am concerned that he shut it down because he knew its imposition would be disadvantageous for his agenda, because it would arguably impose an obligation on his fawning television media friends to report (or allow equal time for reporting of) all sides of the health care reform debate and other items upcoming on his agenda. After all, what good is “fairness” at a time like this?

I speculate that Obama understands that Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and other radio talkers, while a nuisance to him, are speaking to the same audience day in and day out (a/k/a “preaching to the choir”), and so, they probably represent less of a threat to Obama or his agenda than some would like to believe. With the loudest voices of opposition largely speaking only to those who already oppose (and who would oppose anyway), why impose upon the more friendly broadcast media an obligation to break from their adoration and support?

One has to wonder, if there were a true Fairness Doctrine which required the broadcast television networks to fairly report on matters of public controversy and importance, whether the health care vote would have had the same result.  Regardless of the answer (which we will never know), it is disheartening that one must contemplate the imposition of the (easily) arguably unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine in order to imagine a different result on health care reform. Had the broadcast television media shone a truly fair light on the pros and cons of health care reform (as contained in the Senate bill), and had the broadcast television media more highly scrutinized the crooked process and Obama’s lies about transparency, there might have been more pressure on the House of Representatives not to vote in favor.

My theory and my speculation above cannot be proven (or disproven), but it should give rise to thought about the lack of integrity of the broadcast television media and how its overwhelming one-sidedness affects the outcome of critical landscape-altering legislation.  If conservative talk radio is “preaching to the choir” and overwhelmingly liberal newspaper is not capable of content regulation (because it is not electronic media regulated by the F.C.C.), then broadcast television becomes a sort of “swing vote.” Americans deserve better than this.