Fairness vs. Laziness

I recently had a chance to share a brief visit with my son Sean over the Christmas holiday. Now Sean and I share a number of common interests, including a love of reading and a certain computer game which will remain nameless (World of Warcraft). On the other hand, we do not share a common political view. While there is an overlap of our thinking some subjects, Sean leans a fair bit more to the left than I do. (I am sure that he would tell you that it is only that I lean a fair bit more to the right, but such is perspective.) 

As a consequence of these differences, any political discussion which occurs (and it invariably does) can be very lively. Both of us attempt to argue our point of view cogently and passionately, and while one may give ground to the other based on logical argument, such ground is given grudgingly. Such is the strong will and obstinate nature of the Higgins clan. (Yes, that means you too Laura.) 

The reason that I bring this up is that during our time together, we often make a journey by car. While my radio is invariably tuned to a local Conservative talk radio station, my son's vehicle is often to have it's radio tuned to National Public Radio (NPR), which is probably as liberal as radio gets. What the two of us listen to is a choice that we have made and a reflection of our political philosophy and taste. This divergent taste in listening material is also a great illustration of why we don't need a re-institution of The Fairness Doctrine. 

Now for those of you who do not know the history of the Fairness Doctrine (because you haven't been reading this blog) it was a policy enforced by the FCC beginning in 1949 as part of the licensing of a radio station. It was designed to insure that media outlets, which it considered public trustees, provided fair and balanced coverage to the most important issues of the day. It was thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1987 however because it was not mandated by Congress. When Congress sought to rectify this at the time, their efforts were vetoed by then President Reagan. 

Never a group to let a bad idea go to waste however, Congress has recently taken up the concept again. You see Congress, a group that has always proved itself the Huckleberry Finn of politics, believes that the American people are as lazy as the legislators who represent them. When Congress believes that we are too lazy to be charitable, they simply take the money from us and give to causes they choose. When they believe that we are too lazy to save for our own retirement, they foist the ponzi scheme of Social Security on us and again take our our choice and our money for "our own good". The Fairness Doctrine is simply the next logical step for a group of citizens who Congress believes are too lazy to change the station. 

In a time of unprecedented choices in media with cable and satellite TV and radio channels numbering in the hundreds, and where we can get information from more news sources than in the history of humanity, Congress is telling us that we are too lazy to push a button to choose what we will. Instead they would like to "mandate" equal time and points of view to insure that we are not burdened with choosing what we will listen to. They would like to decide for us what is fair and balanced, to insure that we are being properly exposed to what they consider are all points of view. 

What next? Could we move from that to government approved radio stations? (Can you say Pravda or Al Jazeera?) My response is pretty simple ... No! At little over fifty years, I have managed both the strength and the ability to change the channel when Seinfeld, Friends, or any reality show came on TV for some time. I have likewise managed to go through life while changing the radio station when rap music came on or the Howard Stern Show aired. While many might consider me now in my dotage, I believe that I am still capable to continue in such responsibilities. What our government looks at as The Fairness Doctrine is more than taking for granted our physical laziness though, it is using it is an assumption of intellectual laziness which I for one will not tolerate. I will prove my ability to choose by making two additional choices instead: the choice of a free marketplace where ideas can compete and the choice to keep government out of my freedom to choose.