At the forum, Morris actively cheered the firing of Imus. "'Thank God' is my reaction," he said. He accused the radio host of making "bigotry and ethnic hatred entertaining and fun" and cited several examples of previous racially charged statements Imus had made. Morris added that he hoped the incident would be "part of a revolution in manners ... [that] signals the death knell for ethnic jokes in public."
Talking to Salon afterward, however, Morris drew a distinction between Imus and people like Limbaugh. "I think there's a vast difference between humor that seeks to demean, or rhetoric that seeks to demean," Morris said, "and issue positions that happen to be against the views of a certain community."
Kincaid drew a similar distinction in an interview with Salon, saying he favored the FCC's monitoring of broadcasts for sexual indecency, but that he would not support similar measures against racist speech.
"Then you're getting into political speech," Kincaid said, "and what one defines as, quote, 'racism.' How do you define the term? I don't want the FCC to define that."
Indeed, much of the panel seemed of two minds -- on the one hand happy that an "indecent" voice was gone from the airwaves, and on the other worried about what Imus' firing portends for conservative free speech and concerned that liberals are trying to use the power of the state to silence them.
"This is very much an issue of censorship, and it's interesting, isn't it, that hate speech is only hate speech when it's directed against the carefully designated victims' groups of cultural Marxism," Lind said. " You can say all the hate speech you want on radio or television directed at Germans or Swedes ... This is our old opponent, cultural Marxism, doing what Marxists do -- trying to use the power of the state to make it illegal to disagree with their ideology."
Blackwell, for his part, said liberals are trying to use the Fairness Doctrine to accomplish what they could not in a free market, and asserted that liberals are "terrible" at making talk radio. "If liberals think it is just too hard to compete with the Sean Hannitys of the world," Blackwell said, "then they should focus on what they do best -- make ice cream."
The panelists tried to assemble proof to support their Fairness Doctrine fears. They mentioned Sharpton's call for the FCC to step in and his vow that this was only the beginning of the fight; they pointed to the Huffington Post's listing old examples of controversial statements by Limbaugh and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. There were also the ritual invocations of favorite boogeyman George Soros. Kincaid repeatedly referred to Media Matters as Soros funded, and a pamphlet and fundraising appeal that Accuracy in Media distributed at the forum talks about a dark "conspiracy" that puts "in jeopardy ... all of the progress that conservatives have made in the media over the last several decades."
But perhaps conservatives are projecting a little bit. Though there are media organizations on the left -- some funded by Soros -- that have called for its return, the evidence for the Fairness Doctrine's imminent reappearance is not overwhelming. Free Congress Foundation panelists warned that a Democratic president would be able to appoint FCC commissioners who could unilaterally reinstate the rule. They didn't mention, however, that it hadn't happened in the eight years of the Clinton presidency.
Return of the Fairness Doctrine via an act of Congress isn't exactly looming either. An effort to bring it back died in the House in 1993, when Democrats controlled both chambers and the presidency. Fourteen years later, the law has its proponents in both chambers, but they're not the sort of legislators who are known for corralling veto-proof majorities -- Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., among others.
Meanwhile, those who could realistically be the catalysts for such legislation don't seem to have much interest. Reached April 13, a spokesman for Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who chairs one of the relevant House subcommittees, didn't know what the Fairness Doctrine was. In the Clinton era, by contrast, Markey had been a key proponent of the doctrine's return.
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate majority leader, dismissed conservatives' concerns.
"I'm not aware that there's any kind of debate about the Fairness Doctrine," Manley told Salon. "To be honest, I barely even know what it is ... [Sen. Reid] is not contemplating anything like that. It truly is not on his radar screen."
About the writer
Alex Koppelman is a staff writer for Salon.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)