2 of 110

No

Write now Article Tools

The question is: should the government control talk radio to make it more balanced?

The answer is: unequivocally, no.

The key word in the question is control. Before the onset of digital satellite radio, there were only so many frequencies on the dial that could be tuned into, and it was seen that at least some regulation was needed so each station could broadcast at a specific frequency without interfering with the signals from other stations - thus, this actually benefited the consumer. This was a government regulation that, gasp, actually made a situation better. But then government control overstepped it's boundaries and decided that since they were assigned licenses, they could dictate what the holder of the licenses could broadcast. And that good-old, one-of-the-few-government-syst ems-that-worked went right down the toilet into startling censorship.

Controlling content made no sense then - it makes even less sense now, with satellite technology insuring that anyone who cares to can have their own radio station. When a person sets up a radio station, they have worked hard to get enough money to start it, and they are the ones providing the content - the government has no right to use their resources to give someone else a platform to speak, especially if that person's views contradict the stations owner's. Imagine if "balance" meant that the station owner had to give broadcast time to someone who hated their radio station and wanted people to boycott it. This would be an absurd thing for the owner to want to broadcast, because it could very well cost them their business. Why should the government have any "right" to force them to support their enemies? If that's considered "balance," what else is balanced? Would balance include such viewpoints as racism? Would members of the Blank Panthers, KKK, and the Tamil Tigers all have to be given the same air-time? What about supporters of terrorism? Clearly we need balance between those who advocate terrorism and those who do not, otherwise it's just unfair. Sometimes, "balance" is a bad thing: for example, their can be no "balance" between good and evil, or life and death. Imagine George W. Bush being forced to put advertisements on the side of Air Force One that said "Impeach Bush" or "Destroy America." That's what "balance" would be.

The most democratic form of government is free capitalism - if I don't like what I'm hearing, or I believe that it is not "balanced" enough, I can change the channel, or I can simply turn it off. Just because no one else is articulating an idea doesn't mean that I can't have the idea. I don't need my views and opinions backed up on a radio programme in order to believe in my views and opinions. If it's there? Great. If not? Then I have no one to tell me what I want to hear. If I care enough, I can start my own radio station, or publish my opinions on the internet, or do a multitude of other things in order to get my opinion heard. But no one is obligated to give me a soap-box. The government should not and cannot tell other people how to run their business. That's freedom, and that's what the United States is supposed to be about.

Learn more about this author, Michael Collins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should the government control talk radio to make it more "balanced"? ?
We want to hear your view. Write now!