Bipartisan bias

As a person who doesn’t see herself as fitting anywhere on the American conservative-to-liberal political spectrum, I tend to notice the mainstream media’s biases not only in terms of opinion balance within articles but also in what they choose to report in the first place. \nMany of us who hold minority political persuasions see issues important to us only get occasional and passing attention, if any at all, from mainstream news sources. \nBut when I read this week that the fifth Congress member this year, Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., declared her desire to revive radio broadcasting’s Fairness Doctrine, I didn’t react with excitement that Congress is becoming more interested in giving opinions like mine a better shot at airtime. \nNo – this “Fairness” Doctrine in which Congress has taken interest is only meant to balance airtime for bipartisan opinions. It disregards the notion that those of us who aren’t Republicans or Democrats are equally as entitled to the right to free speech and suggests that the First Amendment only applies to those who hold majority opinions. \nThe doctrine, a regulation the Federal Communications Commission policed from 1949-1987, stated broadcasters had to provide “reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.” \nIn theory, it was a great way to allow for different voices to be heard that couldn’t otherwise get access to the crowded spectrum’s airwaves. But in practice, it caused stations to be hesitant of running controversial material at all because they found it too hard to balance out opinions without being shutdown by a group with an agenda to get them off the air. And shutting them down wasn’t difficult because, as holders of minority political opinions know, mainstream news sources rarely do justice to every side of an issue. \nIn 1987, the FCC finally conceded to this problem and repealed the regulation. Since then, talk radio has been dominated by conservatives, which is what’s brought four of Congress’s Democrats and one of its Independents (a self-identified socialist) to complain: their position isn’t being heard.\nAlthough these people aren’t explicitly excluding those of us who don’t hold liberal or conservative views, their entire conversation is revolving around those positions. And anyone with any intention of including minority viewpoints would know it’s impossible to include all of them.\nFew people with brains currently view Rush Limbaugh, for instance, as an objective news source. But if he’s forced to appear that way, he’ll only do it to keep liberal Congress members and interest groups off his back, and that won’t mean he’ll go the extra mile to get the voices of anarchists, libertarians and communists heard, too.\nThe members of Congress pushing for a return to this regulation are merely operating under the guise of fairness to gain support of a major voting group – liberals – and they’re willing to limit the free speech of the rest of us to do it.\nThe First Amendment was created to protect those of us with minority opinions. Let us keep it.