
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, September 10, 1993                   TAG: 9309170436
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A9   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JAMES LILEKS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

RUSH TO JUDGMENT

ONE OF the consequences of having a Democratic president - besides the bounce in your walk that results from not having your wallet weigh you down - is that hoary old legislation that has been comatose for a decade suddenly bolts up from its gurney and staggers onto the floor of the Senate. The latest bill to be re-animated and shoved still blinking into conference is a media-regulation bill called the Fairness Doctrine.

Well, that's what they called it in the old days. Today it's known as the Shove A Big, Glue-Soaked Cork in Rush Limbaugh's Mouth Doctrine.

Unofficially, of course.

What is it? Simple. The Fairness Doctrine requires broadcasters to provide balanced coverage of issues, and gives citizens a means to challenge a station's license if they believe the station isn't serving the community. If this sounds familiar, well, it used to be the law of the land, but the Reagan administration gave it the heave-ho in 1987. There is bipartisan support for its return, which immediately should make you suspicious. Conservatives who sign on are in need of hosswhipping: In its flavor and its intent, this is just another federal finger poked in the public eye.

The world has not been demonstrably more unfair since the Doctrine's repeal. Actually, there's more diversity of opinion around today than ever.

Before 1987, broadcasters showed their devotion to community issues by grinding out unwatchable community-affairs programs, which they ran in the highly coveted spot between Sunday morning sign-on and broadcasts of church services. Now, with cable everywhere and AM radio flourishing again, all viewpoints, from the League of Spiky Chastity Belt Owners to the Transgendered Ethanol Sniffers, have a spot to get their views across.

What exactly is balanced opinion, anyway? Some people think that ``diversity of opinion'' means that National Public Radio is carried by two stations in one market, or that a station interrupts Rush Limbaugh to run Paul Harvey. When others complain that a broadcast isn't fair, they generally mean it isn't fair to them.

And it usually isn't. When the TV news shows a picture of Earth, it's unfair to those who believe the planet is flat. There's just no getting around that. If the average nightly news program attempted to satisfy every viewpoint, it would last 24 hours. A nudist could protest the entire thing because the anchors were wearing suits and thus demonstrated a bias against nude news-reading.

Were it not for Rush Limbaugh's atomic-powered megaphone of conservatism, the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine would be just another staggering, crypt-breath example of Big Government. But Limbaugh's daily Dutch-rubs against official Washington are tailor-made for Fairness Doctrine complaints, and Democratic supporters of the bill are no doubt aware of its salutory usages.

But here's the irony: If someone files a complaint, and uses the power of the government to stifle a voice they don't like, they vindicate everything Limbaugh says about liberals - namely, that they define ``fairness'' as the ability to punish and harass dissident voices. Nobody wins. Conservatives get the dank and bitter satisfaction of being repressed. Liberals get their way, only to see people trading cassettes of Rush shows like followers of renegade Muslim clerics swapping taped exhortations to jihad.

The solution to all this is simple. If you don't like Limbaugh, for example, go elsewhere. There are plenty of liberal alternatives - you have Larry King, who sucks up to his guests with such force that nothing is visible but socks and shoes protruding from King's mouth. There's Michael Jackson, a syndicated host whose heart bleeds so incessantly that you can hear the staff rip open crates of fresh type-O every 15 minutes. There's whatever straw-dog-du-jour Pat Buchanan has as a co-host for his daily bout of broadcast joylessness.

Most people, confronted with a broadcast they don't like, simply change the station. Fairness Doctrine supporters apparently think the nation's audiences are tied to a chair on the other side of the room, desperately trying to reach the knob with their toes. They could sprain something. Pull a ligament, maybe.

Clearly, this has to be stopped! Let's open up all stations to all possible viewpoints, make each pause on the dial an ever-spinning kaleidoscope. You'd no longer have to change the channel to find something you like; the radio would do that for you. Think of the Fairness Doctrine as a big, universal remote control, spinning your dial.

You won't mind if Washington holds the remote, will you?

\ James Lileks is a columnist with Newhouse News Service.

by CNB