We all have the freedom to speak, whether it's yelling on a public street or writing entries on internet blogs like this. I contend that while speech is free, we must earn the privilege of being heard. This is, in its purest form, the marketplace of ideas. The good ideas "sell well" and catch on and get spread around while the bad ideas either fizzle out quite quickly, or only appeal to small fringe groups.
The mainstream news media, however, has made a mockery of this concept and either out of a misguided sense of "fairness" or for the pure entertainment value of polemics, has adopted the notion that when one opinion is heard, an opposing opinion has a right, ipso facto, to be heard contemporaneously. I think this is dangerous and irresponsible, and there's nothing "fair" about it.
We've seen it a million times before. MSNBC, CNN, etcetera (take your pick) has a segment discussing political issue X. They get one Democrat and one Republican to "debate" the merits of the issue and each others' positions regarding issue X - D(X) versus R(X) moderated by the news anchor (who nearly aways has some agenda him/herself).
People love a good argument and few things are more entertaining than a good verbal slap-fight. One can always change the channel and watch celebrities eating live insects, but that would be beneath the dignity of any respectable news junkie (or not...).
I have two points to make, and I'll probably get flamed for them. But so be it.
ONE. I reject the theory that "fair and balanced" reporting on an issue requires one voice from each viewpoint. At first glance it sounds perfectly reasonable and fundamentally fair. It's the same argument advocated by people who support teaching "intelligent design" - let the people hear both arguments and they can decide which one is "True". But that example should illustrate the fundamental flaw. One side is based on fact, hard science, and reproducable experiments. The other side is based on the notion that science is insufficient and an invisible, unprovable "creator" must exist to explain things.
Fairness (or the appearance thereof) has nothing to do with the reporting of fact. Facts are not something that should be left to the viewer to decide one way or another.
In some situations, the media has it partly right - some opinions are excluded as a matter of course. But they're excluded not because they have not earned the right to be heard; but rather, they're excluded solely because they are deemed politically incorrect and offensive. For example, imagine that MSNBC has a segment on the Holocaust, and to discuss it they have a holocaust expert ("Professor of Holocaust Studies" at Harvard University) in one window and, "to be fair" they also have a Holocaust denier in window #2 ("Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan"). Show both opinions and let the viewer decide? Fair and balanced? Of course not. On a similar note, imagine if every time the news reported about the space shuttle orbiting earth they had a talking head representing the views of the Flat Earth Society, so the viewers can hear "both sides" of the round earth vs flat earth debate. The Flat Earth Society has the right to have a website, but they have not earned the right to have a representative talking head on every news segment where the shape of the earth is implicitly in question.
The big problem with this, aside from the fact that one viewpoint is objectively wrong and has not earned the right/privilege to be heard, is that the average American is preconditioned to believe that the both sides of any given debate are partly right and the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. I call this the fallacy of presumed reasonability. So in the "two versus four" debate over 1 + 1, you'll have one talking head saying 1+1=2, the other saying 1+1=4, and most people will walk away thinking 1+1=3, proud of their ability to see the middle ground.
TWO. And this is where I will probably get flamed because people will assume I'm trying to suppress certain speech based on its content, though that's not the case at all. Just because we've traditionally had a two-party system, that does not mean each party is entitled to have a 'talking head' representing its viewpoints on every news segment. Equal time for both parties assumes both parties represent the people equally. They have to earn it. When a political party goes from representing half of Americans to being nothing more than a radical quasi-religious fringe group, then that party has lost its right to be heard in every discussion. Its right to be heard must be re-earned, and continually justified. We don't have talking heads from the Green Party and the Libertarian Party on every mainstream media "discussion" - and it's not because they don't have anything to say.
Are there people who take the position that the "Republican Party" - no matter how small and irrelevant it becomes - is grandfathered into all debates by default merely because it has been around for so long, and because it's considered to be the only viable opposition to the Democratic Party? Do we need at least two voices in all political discussions? For every viewpoint offered, must we be presented with an opposing viewpoint, regardless of its lack of merit? I say no.
I should remind you that the two-party system is not established by the Constitution, and the Framers made it very clear that they were against the tyrrany of factions. So please don't suggest that Republicans must be permitted an equal opportunity to speak as Democrats because the two-party system requires it.
I suppose my bottom line is this: At what point does the Republican Party cease to have its opinions/platforms/talking points/talking heads covered by the mainstream media in parity with those of the Democratic Party? Shouldn't there be some correlation between the percentage of people a political party represents and the amount of airtime they get? Political parties should have to earn their media coverage; they have no right to it by default. Nobody covers the 5 people who consider themselves Whigs. The Green Party doesn't get to argue with the Democrat and Republican talking heads on shows like "Hardball." The smaller, less inclusive the Republican Party becomes, shouldn't that equate to a direct correlation with the amount of airtime its representatives receive in the mainstream media? As a rule of thumb, if the Republican Party is 1/10th the size (in terms of people who associate themselves with the party) of the Democratic Party, shouldn't it receive approximate 1/10th the airtime? At some point, if it continues to shrink, it should eventually reach a point of irrelevancy (like the modern Whig Party).
My thesis here is not, and should not be interpreted as me saying that I hate the Republicans and as such they shouldn't be allowed on network/cable news. I'm only saying that people/groups/parties need to earn the right to be heard. I call it a right, but it's actually a privilege. Not only must that privilege be earned, but it must be continually justified. I think the current Republican Party has devolved into nothing more than a small-tent, christofascist cult full of racists and tax protesters. I used to be a Republican. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 (my vote was meaningless since I live in Texas). So this is no lifelong, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth welfare state, tax and spend Democrat writing this diary entry.
In conclusion, I think it's far time that I can listen to a news report about torture of terrorist detainees without having to listen to a mandatory "Republican Strategist" rattle off the party's talking points. When (if) the Republicans manage to become a national party again, then they can re-earn the right to participate in political discussions on the mainstream media. I also think people need to stop automatically presuming that the truth always lies in the middle of any two given positions ("both sides make some good points... things are not black and white... yadda yadda").