The Problem with Fairness

Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have kept pursuing the revival of the Fairness Doctrine that mandated holders of radio station licenses air opposing views. In their view there are a larger number of conservative voices on the air, and it is difficult for liberal ideas to find adequate voice. Regardless of the accuracy of this view, how could anyone oppose the idea that both sides of an issue should be heard? Indeed, if it is such a good idea for broadcast transmission, then what about cable, or the internet?

 

The problem is trying to apply modernist binary logic to complex postmodern issues and arguments. The day of right-left, black-white, good-evil analysis has passed. Genuine good and perfect evil still exist, of course, on at least a cosmic level. But here in the daily world things are more mixed. Evil terrorist groups are funding schools. Good social organizations are driven by self-interest and self-promotion. Corporations, the latest bogey men set up for all to mock, are funding tremendous public programs through their foundations.

 

As regards the Fairness Doctrine, any particular issue of public interest has many facets, not merely two, pro or con. Take California water wars as an example. Is the issue one of environment versus the farm? What about urban versus rural? Is water a resource of financial value to be marketed? To whom does it belong, the Federal government, the State, The people, the land owners over which it flows, the land owners under which it seeps?

 

This is one issue. How can a government board possibly sort out whether fairness has been achieved? What of ideas that come along late in the course of debate? These are often the best and most salient points to be made as dialog continues to mature on an issue. But how can fairness be achieved without giving discussion over totally to the latest arguments. And what could possibly be fair about that?

 

The Fairness Doctrine is doomed by its very aims to be reductionistic, to reduce public discourse to the crudest of arguments and to impoverish the debate it seeks to enrich.

 

Unless, of course, you have a different perspective...