Permission to Speak Freely?

Note: This article was published two issues ago before our blog was up and running. I’ve reposted it here in response to a previous posting about the reintroduction of the Fairness doctrine

Besides the opiates “change” and “hope” another buzzword of our day is “diversity.”  While diversity is usually associated with race, religion, gender or sexuality in the news, the idea of intellectual diversity gets much less airtime-even though it directly affects what is [and is not]broadcast. Even though Obama has stated he will not reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, his commitment to a vague FCC guideline known as ‘localism’ is poised for a slow but effective assault on the First Amendment.

What is media-localism? According to the FCC, localism policies seek to create a “diverse media” that should serve the needs of the local broadcasting community vs. the privately owned broadcasting company. It seems very tame, even beneficiary on the surface, but like many other ideas that look great on paper, localism in action ultimately removes the power from the individual station management to decide their own content.

To put it another way, imagine that for every song downloaded to your iPods by your favorite artist that iTunes is mandated by the government to force you to download music/podcasts that you do not wish to endorse, much less listen to. In the name of equality both you and the music distributor lose the power to choose. That was the Fairness Doctrine.  When it was repealed by Reagan in 1987 this led to a tremendous growth in the market and an expansion of what programs consumers could choose or choose not.

Under localism, if the government decides it is not of “local interest” for your radio station to play songs by X or broadcast the views of, say, Rush Limbaugh, the station is forced to comply and cannot air such content unless they want to lose their broadcast license.

If you think this isn’t already happening, think again.

As of January 2008 the FCC proposed the creation of permanent station advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues to ensure content diversity on the air. This is just more vague jargon that in actuality is going to limit whose viewpoints have the right to be heard. Checks will also be in place to make broadcast licenses subject to renewal every two years instead of every eight. Either way the content of any station that loses its license will end up reflecting the [liberal] owner’s views – and since localism does not mandate “equal time” you can bet that they will not break their back to preserve the first amendment rights of dissenting thinkers whom they regard as “right wing extremists” much less worry about infringing on your freedom of choice.

Here at Cornell and in the general Ithaca area where liberal bias [shrilly] prevails, we have already witnessed a form of localism in the motives of those who tell us to strip ‘Cornell’ from the Cornell Review’s name, who tell us that our conservative viewpoints do not represent Cornell and are not welcome in such “progressive” and dare I say “diverse” classrooms.  Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, I urge you to recognize that there is a difference between “freedom to” and “freedom from.” Whether you [or the station management] love or hate Ann, Rush or Hannity, we are fortunate enough to live in a country where their voices can still be heard (even if the sensibilities of local hippy-socialists are offended) and the power to change the channel remains with the audience. After all, “diversity” means nothing without the freedom of another favorite liberal buzzword, “choice.”

For more on this subject, visit:

http://www.fcc.gov/localism/

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29566