HANDS OFF TALK RADIO

HANDS OFF TALK RADIO
By Bob Ward

There’s been a lot of buzz lately about reviving the so-called Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting in response to conservative domination of talk radio.

Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, complains that, “Talk radio is running America and we have to deal with that problem." Talk radio allows the people of America – those unrepresented by a trade association, a lobbying firm, an advocacy group, a labor union or other organization – to make their opinions public and to generate support for their positions.

We are entitled to ask why Trent Lott considers that “a problem” and who does he think should be running America if not the people. We would also be interested in knowing what he means by dealing with this so-called problem. Does he mean that lawmakers have to learn to live with and take into account talk radio, or does he mean to eliminate the “problem?”

Whatever Lott has in mind, there are politicians who would restore the Fairness Doctrine – repealed during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. If they succeed, it would put and end to talk radio. Radio stations would be subject to endless complaints and nitpicking from interests who feel their position has not been given fair treatment. This would allow the politicians to do whatever the special interests pay them to do without having to listen to a lot of guff from the riff-raff.

The Federal government must regulate those aspects of broadcasting that must be regulated for broadcasting to function. If two radio stations broadcast on the same frequency, neither would be heard and understood by listeners. Clearly, frequencies must be assigned and the assignment must be enforceable and that means government has to do it.

But this is strictly a technical issue and has nothing to do with the contents of a broadcast. Federal authority to regulate content rests on a lie – the claim that the “airwaves” belong to the public – “public” being a euphemism for the government. This is a weak peg on which to hang so much government power. And it raises two questions: 1. What is an “airwave,” and 2. How did the government come to “own” them.

The first is easy. There is no such thing as an “airwave.” What you hear when you turn on your radio is a signal generated by privately owned electronic equipment. It travels through a vacuum as well as through air. “Airwave” is a fiction. That signal is a form of radiant energy, like light. And, like light, nobody owns it.

The assertion that the “airwaves belong to the public” is a lame fiction and no basis for disregarding the First amendment to the Constitution.

Federal power over who can say what on the radio has also been based on language in the1927 statute conferring on the Federal communication Commission authority to license broadcasters to operate on specific frequencies. The rationale is that because the licensee is granted the exclusive right to use a particular frequency, the law requires that the station operate in the public interest.

Even this is an overreach. Who determines what programming is or isn’t in the public interest. How about the public? If we compare the public’s response to Rush Limbaugh to the public response to Air America it’s pretty clear where the public interest lies.

Vaporous phrases like “the public interest” and fictional entities like “airwaves” simply cannot stand against the hard language of the First Amendment. What part of “Congress shall make no law . . .” do these gentry not understand.