A Free Market Approach to Ending Hate Speech in Broadcasting
Posted on November 8, 2008
By Joe Miller |
There’s been some talk in the wind about the Democrats wanting to reauthorize the Fairness Doctrine–that oh so 20th Century approach to balance in political speech. The doctrine basically said that if one political view is presented, that broadcasters must give equal time to the opposing viewpoint. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine lobbied to have it repealed because they claimed that it chilled free speech. Long story short, they succeeded. There is no more Fairness Doctrine.
But now we’re starting to see the unintended consequences: increases in hate speech and potential links to hate crime. Over the past few years, we’ve all come to know Bill O’Reilly who once, in referring to the whereabouts of a Latino singing group, said, “I hope they’re not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps.” Or the radio personality Michael Savage who once said, “Whenever you see the word ‘South Asian,’ substitute the word for ‘terrorist,’ or reference to ‘terrorist.’ That’s the new code word, ‘South Asian community.’”
An increase in the number of hate groups corresponds with this trend. For example, the 2006 annual Southern Poverty Law Center survey found that the number of active hate groups in the United States has increased by 33%, to 803, since 2000. According to the May 3, 2006 issue of Race Relations Reporter, between 2004 and 2005, the number of Ku Klux Klan chapters rose to 179 from 162, and the number of racist skinhead groups rose from 48 to 56.
Fans of O’Reilly and Savage claim that the success of these shows indicates that “there is a market for it” and that supply and demand are what ultimately determine which shows are successful, whether or not the hosts of these shows fuel hatred. But when you have hateful viewpoints being expressed, unchallenged, on a particular station or channel at a particular point in time, viewers, especially adolescents, perceive the viewpoint as being a part of the mainstream. That is the real source of the perceived market demand.
But that alone does not necessitate the reauthorization of the Fairness Doctrine. Perhaps we don’t even need it. If enough people start asking advertisers whether they want to continue sponsoring programs that feed hatred, the net result would likely be greater than a reauthorized Fairness Doctrine would yield.
