Dunn's Den of Knowledge.

“Say whatever you want, anywhere,” said the professor, “But I don’t have to listen.”

Freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed, within some limits. A person can’t endorse the violent overthrow of the government, libel his neighbor, or shout fire at a rock concert. An advertiser has to be able to prove his claims.  (A politician? He can say anything. Truth has nothing to do with it.)

 To be heard, you have to earn it. Deaf ears abound. Advertising is a numbers game.  You can buy rating points or circulation, but not listeners or readers, certainly not believers. The value and importance of your message will determine its delivery.

 Is that fair?  Shouldn’t every product or cause have equal chance?

Well, they do.  You can but time, space or a theater. What if nobody came?  (You can always rent actors or paid mourners.)

 There’s talk of bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine,” which dictates that radio stations must give “balance.” That means airing equal time for opposing viewpoints. The problem (among many) is that equal time doesn’t deliver equal amounts of listeners. For some unknown reason, conservative talk shows attract far greater audiences than liberal hosts. So if stations have to make time available to each, their audience would shrink.  And so would advertising revenues.  So much for fairness.

 The justification for the “Fairness Doctrine” is that since radio frequencies are limited, the government owns them and can license them. Ergo, they can police and control their content to assure equal access to all points of view. But what does that mean—equal number of listeners, the same time slots?  Who will monitor and decide?  And where will stations find liberal talk masters that will be as popular as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? So much for free speech.

 If the government does this, somehow varying causes will find a way to be heard. Unless the internet is the next thing to be regulated—-.

George Lemmond