Affirmative action gone mad

WASHINGTON: Here in the land of the free and the brave, some liberals are looking more like cowards not much interested in real freedom. They have basically conceded that their ideas are on the losing side in the free market of ideas. Why else would some Democrats - and their think tank boosters - be calling, once again, for laws that mandate equal time on talk back radio for left-wing voices and right wing voices? That sounds like manipulating the free market of ideas, using laws to make sure people hear progressive views even if people don¿t want to hear them.

First, some history. The Reagan administration repealed a federal regulation – quaintly called the Fairness Doctrine - requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, which was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987. After the Fairness Doctrine was dropped, the free market was allowed to do its thing. And conservative talk radio became a booming industry.

Conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh - and the radio stations that employ them - succeeded because there was an enormous market out there hungry to hear conservative voices. No one shut down progressive voices on the radio. People just stopped listening – or at least enough people stopped listening to make progressive radio shows profitable.

This is not the first time Democrats have tried to revive the dopey Fairness Doctrine. They tried last year. Fortunately, Congress , by a majority of 309, rejected the distinctly Orwellian doctrine. It is, as The Washington Times wrote last Tuesday, nothing more than censorship. In the name of “fairness”, federal authorities would “monitor the airwaves for perceived political bias, imposing their own notion of ‘equal’ time and access for other viewpoints. The most important effect of this trampling on the First Amendment was self-censorship, as broadcasters hedged their programming. The result was blander, more stifled and less free coverage.”

As Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in the Media, a conservative media watchdog, said: “Liberals used to dominate the media, and they are irritated there are competing voices, so now they want to rein in the conservative media using the federal government,” Kincaid continued. “There is no prohibition against liberal talk radio. Liberals tried talk radio and it was not successful in the market place.” When Air America, the liberal talk radio network established in 2004 suffered serious financial problems, many said it was the free market at work. Not enough people were listening.

Now, in 2008, counting on a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat-controlled Congress, some Democrats are trying it on once again. Last year, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein said that because “talk radio is overwhelmingly one way,” she would be “looking at” reviving the Fairness Doctrine. One can only hope that saner Democrat minds prevail to defeat this wacky idea once and for all.

Mandating equal time on privately owned radio stations is the appropriation of private property for political purposes. This is not the same as a legislative requirement for balance and diversity of views on a publicly funded broadcaster. This is interfering in the free market to entrench progressive views that the talk back radio market has, by and large, rejected.

And notice how supporters of the Fairness Doctrine are not talking about mandating equal space for conservative views in left-wing print media outlets such as newspapers. No, they want left-liberal media outlets left alone. The selective demand for “balance” from progressives here in America ignores not just print media but the book publishing industry. Mercifully, the publishing industry in the United States does not tilt as far left as it does in Australia where bookshops groan with “Not Happy John” manifestos but are very light on the Mark Steyn “America Alone” style books. (And even then, as this column remarked last week, the ones that are published have, in Canada, been taken to Human Rights Tribunals to be muzzled.) But do the advocates of the Fairness Doctrine demand equal space on bookshelves for right and left wing books? And if so how do they propose to enforce it? Anyone for a little right wing shelf stacking coupled with a spot of left wing book burning? No?

The only time we should mandate balance is where media is financed by the public. That’s because taxpayers from one side of politics are entitled to see their money is not used to finance the unfair promotion of the other side’s views. But if a publisher or media owner wants to promote his preferred side of politics on his own nickel he should be entitled to go for it. It would be a pointless as passing a law requiring more balance in Pravda on the Yarra. If The Age wants to cater for a left-wing audience, let them.

The aim of American progressives is to neuter and dismantle the incredible success of conservative talk back radio that has held them to account. And never mind that consumers of information have never enjoyed such a vibrant array of media voices.

Which brings us back to where we started. The push for mandated equal time of radio for progressive views is a clear acknowledgement that without some legislative oomph, left-wing ideas won’t survive in the free market of ideas. If liberals were confident about the merits of their ideas, why would they feel a need to force left-wing voices on the radio?

As much as left-liberals may wish to use Barack Obama’s success as a sure sign that their progressive ideas are back in fashion, a closer look suggests otherwise. Sure, Obamamania is everywhere you go. But let’s not imagine that his extraordinary success has much to do with the fact that people love his policies, policies which are, by the way, to the left of Ted Kennedy. Obama’s success is less about policy and more about celebrity. It’s about change. This is a quasi-religious phenomenon driven more by emotion than a hunger for Obama’s policies. If Obama was doing so well because his ideas were resonating with mainstream Americans, then liberals here would not need to cry foul, looking to legislate their ideas onto the airwaves. The market would simply hunger for their ideas. That’s not happening.

So misguided liberals are demanding regulation. Conservatives favour freedom. It’s a neat reminder that, despite suggestions to the otherwise, there is still a fundamental divide between left and right.

Over to you…