Okay, not really. In fact, it’s rather doubtful Hentoff even knows who Taylor Marsh is (Lord knows I didn’t before she singled me out as an “obtuse” opponent of the Fairness Doctrine)—though to be “fair”, it’s even more doubtful Hentoff knows who I am.
Of course, I don’t harbor pretensions of being some oppressed champion of Truth forced into the internet wilderness by a rightwing media conspiracy. But be that as it may.
Anyway, whether Hentoff is addressing Ms Marsh specifically or not is moot. Because what he is doing is addressing supporters of an effort to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine”—liberal supporters, to be specific—and in so doing, he makes the case, as I did before, that calling oneself a liberal while supporting a fundamentally illiberal position is, well, obtuse. From “‘Fairness Doctrine’ Bad Idea”:
Many liberals believe they are far more firm in their support of freedom of speech than many conservatives. A strong argument against this stereotyping of both sides is the current campaign to restore the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting by, among others, four liberal Democrat members of Congress – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and U.S. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), and Maurice Hinchey and Louise Slaughter (New York). They intend to bring this assault on freedom of speech back to life in the new Congress.
In effect by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that broadcast stations devoted a reasonable amount of time to discussions of controversial issues of public importance—and that the broadcaster was required to offer reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard.
If a station failed to adhere to the FCC’s interpretation of this “fairness†doctrine, the broadcaster could lose his or her license. Accordingly, the government would be in charge of policing the First Amendment—precisely the opposite of what the Founders clearly intended.
Of all justices of the Supreme Court, the most persistent defenders of freedom of speech have been Louis Brandeis, William Brennan and William O. Douglas. In 1973, Justice Douglas thundered:
“The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio in order to serve its sordid or its benevolent ends.â€Â
—Well, maybe so. But perhaps Justice Douglas didn’t have the the requisite sense of “fairness” to be making such pronouncements. Or maybe he just didn’t understand the Fairness Doctrine as well as Marsh, et al.
Besides, he made his pronouncements in 1973—before Fox News and reichwing talk radio began polluting the airwaves with the kinds of poison ideas that fire up the proles (or, as stalwart defender of all things fair, Hamsher-lite “TRex,” has called them, “gun-humping, sheet-wearing, inbred […] right-wing half-wits”), convincing them that they have a right to think and decide for themselves.
Such a quaint bit of idealism, while theoretically agreeable to the “progressive” worldview, has nevertheless proven unworkable, sad to say—at least according to our betters like Hinchey, Kucinich, Marsh, TRex, and pals, who worry that Americans exposed to pure, partisan viewpoints without the goverment stepping in to provide a bit of footnoting will make all the wrong kinds of choices. Like, say, holding onto their gun rights. Or electing Democrats to run both Houses of Congress.
Besides: what’s the use of having a Living Constitution if we don’t allow the thing to grow? And thirty-four years after Justice Douglas’ “thundering,” perhaps the Constitution, having gone through a dysfunctional childhood and a difficult divorce—both of which can be traced back to the overly-stern parenting of the Reagan Revolution—is finally ready to put away the self-help books and really assert itself this time, provided, of course, that, say, Oprah or Taylor Marsh is there to provide it with positive feedback and plenty of esteem-building hugs…
Continues Hentoff:
During the 1940s and early 1950s, I was a full-time announcer and reporter on radio station WMEX in Boston. When official Fairness Doctrine letters came to the station’s owner from the FCC, the front office panicked. Lawyers had to be summoned; tapes of the accused broadcasts had to be examined with extreme, apprehensive care; voluminous responses to the bureaucrats at the FCC had to be prepared and sent.
After a number of these indictments from Washington arrived at WMEX, the boss summoned all of us and commanded that from then on, we ourselves would engage in no controversy at the station. In newscasts, we could report controversies, but none of our opinions on public issues could be aired under the station’s auspices. For any other controversial statements by nonstaff members, opposing views had to be given equal time to reply.
This happened at other broadcast stations as well. Champions of the Fairness Doctrine glowed in triumph, emphasizing that due to the “scarcity†of stations around the country, the Supreme Court—in its 1969 decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC—had been correct in upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine. This rationale for circumscribing the First Amendment by government dictate came to be known as “the scarcity doctrine.â€Â
But in 1984, the Supreme Court came to its First Amendment senses in FCC v. League of Women Voters. In view, ruled the Court, of the continually multiplying number of radio and TV channels around the country—and, I would have added, the growth of one-newspaper towns and cities—the “scarcity doctrine,†as it applied to broadcasters, diminished free speech.
Three years later, the FCC concurred:
“The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of (the Fairness Doctrine) restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … (and) actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.â€Â
Nonetheless, in 1987, a bill to restore the Fairness Doctrine passed the House by a 3-to-1 margin—and the Senate by nearly 2-to-1. (With Democrats now in control of both chambers, this could happen again.) President Ronald Reagan, who had been an active broadcaster (as in the “Death Valley Days†series), vetoed the bill because it was “antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.â€Â
Freakin’ conservatives. Always pointing back to some stupid document drawn up by white men of privilege whenever it suits their needs.
BUT WHAT ABOUT TAYLOR MARSH’S NEEDS?
[…] Should this enemy of free expression become law again in coming years, it would very likely also extend to FCC bureaucrats’ taking charge of freedom of speech on cable television, the Internet andcontinuing new forms of expression  under the mandate of the FCC’s definers of “diversity of views.â€Â
There are liberals who preach the need for “diversity of views†in calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine because they bridle at the high ratings of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and other conservative broadcasters who currently have more public favor than the comparatively fewer liberal commentators. But these liberals ignore why we have the First Amendment. As Oliver Wendell Holmes emphasized: “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought  not the thought that we hate.â€Â
The Framers of the Constitution, in which the First Amendment is embedded, knew from experience that government control of freedom of speech and thought could lead to tyranny. Imagine if Tom
Paine had had to give equal time to the royal governor’s opposing views.
Okay, fine. Point taken, Nat.
But such “thinking” that ain’t gonna get Taylor Marsh a radio show, now, is it?
And really, how “fair” is that?
“Liberals” don’t trust people.
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, unless I disagree with it.
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.
Hinchey, et al, call for diversity of viewpoint on the airwaves. Does this mean that NPR will be required to bring in Rush Limbaugh to balance out Daniel Schoor?
Are Hinchey, et al, also calling for diversity of viewpoint within the Academy?
“Diversity” is a masterpiece example of Orwellian newspeak.
Oh yeah? Well, scratch a conservative, find a fascist!
(the preceding message brought to you by the Fairness Doctrine)
Taylor Marsh… wasn’t she that b-list, skanky Maddonna wannabe with a nice set who had a few “hits” in the 80’s?
What? That was Taylor Dayne?
Who the hell am I? I’ve never even heard of me!
“Neither have I”—Nat Hentoff
( the preceding message brough to you by the Fairness Doctrine)
Taylor writes:
Notice what’s missing?
LISTENERS! Rush was successful because people tuned in and STAYED. (something Air America failed miserably at…despite talking money from the mouths of children)
If something is a MARKET success and its something the elite finds objectional (“right wing” radio, bloggers, McDonalds, Walmart), then by golly… There Ought To Be A Law! (for the unwashed masses own good, of course!)
Just an outgrowth of the Left’s antipathy towards capitalism. Hatred of free-will.
No, Darleen. They LOVE free will.
So long as they’re in charge of shaping it.
hahahah!
And they call me a “brownshirt”.
Unfortunately, the first amendment has already sprung a major leak. It’s called McCain-Feingold.
Now if all the people who say (insert conservative commentator) is a liar could only come up with some facts to prove it.
As an aside, I hear thgat Airhead America will lose Al Franken – their “best common-tater”.
How much would you love to be paid two million a year for losing your employer twenty million a year?
Proggs ‘r’ us
Ah! Yes, a student is “free” to write on any subject in any way…as long as it agrees with the professor’s views.
I don’t know, it was the absence of the Fairness Doctrine (or poor ratings) that kicked Nancy Skinner off the air here in Detroit. After a failed Congressional run, she was (like many other failed Democrates in Michigan) hired by the State, to be the Governor’s husband’s (the First Gentleman” of Michigan) assistant. He has THREE state-paid assistants.
If she was back on the air, I could just ignore her. Now I’m paying her salary.
Scratch Jeff Goldstein, find paste.
And well you should, you right wing twerp. If you had only listened to her droolimg drivel, she wouldn’t have been out on the street to start with!
What is this “Let the market decide?” crap? I think the Proggs should decide, because we are obviously not smart enough to do it for ourselves. I mean, just how stupid do you have to be to listen to Rush? There is obviously something wrong with you, and we must step in to cure you. You f’n wingnuts!
There’s a great picture of what’s his name on the front page at Lucianne.com today.
If I were Franken’s opponent, I’d paste it on every piece of litrerature and highlight it in every TV ad I make.
Well that explains part of Michigans Budget Deficit. F*ing Liberals. Ugh.
Ideas are too important to be left to the unwashed marKetplace. How are we ever going to get the lobotimized uncultureD Hannitized to realise the their own delusion? The airways are a public trust and simply can’t be trusted to the public!
Um … ignore that last sentence …
FAIRNESS IN TRUTH TO POWER!
I think Radio success is pretty simple, put someone or something on the radio that the people want to hear with the choice of not listening. Liberals are always obsessed with forcing their crap position down our throats…..Of course they always know what is best for us and all….
Had a run in withthe same type of scenario when I was in college and a student DJ on the campus radio station, being the only conservative student at the station, every thought or word I said was heavily scrutinized…. I lasted 1 semester before being forced off the air.. Fairness indeed….
Ok, this may come off as a bit wingnutty, but – if the left is able to put into law a “fairness doctrine” effectively outlawing certain types of thought and speech, what are we willing to do to gain back our freedoms?
“Ok, this may come off as a bit wingnutty, but – if the left is able to put into law a “fairness doctrine†effectively outlawing certain types of thought and speech, what are we willing to do to gain back our freedoms? “
I dunno, maybe wear more tinfoil?
Nice. That was an honest question. Perhaps I phrased it wrong for your liking. Besides, Tinfoil clashes with my overall look.
Excuse me, that’s Nobel Peace Prize nominee Rush Limbaugh.
Bwaahahahahaa!
So does this mean that every time they play a song by an “activist” band with an overtly political message, like those Greenday douchebags, they’ll have to play an eaqually long song by that Toby Keith? Or will they just bottle up all of the Toby Keith and play it from 2-6 sunday morning?
Either way, radio’s gonna suck.
more
thank God for my Victrola and Grampy’s fiddle
TW: music39. The last good year IMHO.
get the hell off my lawn
Sorry I offended you….
you misspelled marKKKetplace.
because Hitler was a coupon clipper, too.
This is a GREAT idea. I mean the children will tell you that they want to watch Barney, instead of say an endless loop of their favorite relatives sodomizing kittens and puppies, but really how fair is that? They should be exposed to all sorts of diverse viewpoints.
Todd. No offense really. I thought it sounded wingnutty to thats why I said it so.
See? See? You have objectified my spelling while my grammer speaks, even though I’m writing this, speaks truth to the power of progressive fairness and the objectivity of higher, HIGHER, truth!
I hope that this is clear but I doubt it as you lack the decoder ring, er, insight and compassion to understand the power of objectified truth.
Now run and get me a soy latte, IMPERIALIST!
Hmmmm……. The Department of Wingbatterey…wonder who should co-chair ?
I have the perfect person in mind but, well, we must not mention her…
Carry on…
Limbaugh and AlGore on the same ballot? This is going to be too good.
While we’re on the subject of fairness, I think, to be fair, Alex Tourk should work me over with a tire iron.
P.S. Anyone check out the trophy caboose on my limo driver’s old lady? I’d so hit that.
Bogarting that idea a bit, I think it’s at least a minimal nod to fairness for Jeff to permit that Retardo Montalban character to give him a vigorous tongue-lashing.
Err…that doesn’t quite sound right, does it?
I DEMAND OLIVER WILLIS ON FAUX NEWZ!!1!!@!
BALANSE OUT TEH HANNITY AND O”REALLY!!1!
God I’m sure sure what Taylor’s response will be when she sees her pathetic rhetoric is posted here & Ace’s blog. The combine traffic must equal, like 2 years worth of traffice for her Internet based radio program & from evil, nazi-like conservatives no less. So much for her voice not being “fairly” heard. Funny, how she won’t be able to explain, why the traffic doesn’t continue.
I think someone on the right side of the aisle needs to propose a Fairness Doctrine for the House, with a corresponding analog for the Senate.
You wanna tell us what we can say, you F’n douchebag politicos? Fine. Works both ways. You screw up my radio, I’ll screw up your 1 minute speeches. And your votes.
BWWAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Seriously, when they pass an unjust law, I’m going to f’n ignore it. Just like they do, all day long.
Screw ‘em. (and not in the way they wish).
Hentoff left out a line from the Holmes quote, and as it appears it makes no sense. It was:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought–not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1929
Source:The Supreme Court in American History, 1965