Fairness is one of our great American values. Who would not want that? But if we enforce "fairness" in broadcast media, let's go all the way with it. After all, if a little fairness is good then a lot of it is certainly better. I may have heard that from my kindergarten teacher.
The downside of fairness is that Rush and O'Reilly might have to share some of their time with liberals. On the other side of the coin just think of the fairness that would be gained if half of our teachers and professors and other “influencers” had to be conservative by quota.
CNBC and CBS, et al, would divide their programming so that 50% would be conservative. Any thrill that runs up Chris Matthews’ leg would have to run down the other one.
Reputedly, a past survey of journalists found that over 90% were self-proclaimed liberals. If true, let's replace 40% with conservative journalists for the sake of fairness.
Newspapers like the NYTimes and Washington Post would give equal space and weight to the conservative agenda. There would be special rules for major elections. If you praise a candidate you must also praise the other one.
Some media ownerships might complain that their property rights are being usurped because they can’t publish and broadcast what they want. But fairness in support of a social agenda that benefits all people is certainly more worthy than fairness concerning individual property rights. One could almost pursue this line of thinking right into communism.
So, here’s a start: The NYTimes would give some of Paul Krugman’s space to Bill O'Reilly. Krugman could then share O’Reilly’s “No Spin Zone” air time.
The super-cute, super-witty NYTimes op-ed writer, Gail Collins, would give up some NYTimes space to Ann Coulter, and in return would get equal presence in Townhall.
We would put Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews across the radio microphone from Rush Limbaugh. That sounds like about a fair balance.
Will these people like this? I don’t think so. But our goal here is fairness, not what they like.
Think of the excitement this will create for the viewing and reading public. This line-up will be more thrilling than late night wrestling, more Machiavellian than Survivor, more downright entertaining than American Idol. The media will thrive.
If the American public is going to reward mismanagement, malfeasance, outright stupidity and larceny with kazillions of dollars, then a plan like this is worthy because it will save the media from their usual non-election-year malaise while not costing a nickel.
And it's fair, which we all want.