Fairness and Balance

Atrios tells us that googling for "fair and balanced" is good for a laugh.

So I tried it, and he's right. I turned up a long list of blog pages. Leading the list, though, was a link to Fox News, and by happenstance, at the moment I looked, the Fox News link was to this column by John Gibson, dated November 22, 2002. Gibson is responding to his readers, who are in turn responding to his contention that the return of the Fairness Doctrine to broadcasting would be a bad thing.

So a bunch of you said, "Well, why would you complain about the Fairness Doctrine if you say you're fair and balanced? Hmmmm?"

Here's your answer, smart guys. We are fair and balanced. Just look at our lineup of guests, packed with Democrats, former Gore staffers, former Clinton administration officials, former Carter officials. That, coupled with putting on the other side and letting the debate rage, is what we call fair and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine was actually a lie. It wasn't fair. It was a way for a sly broadcaster to tip the scales in a political debate by pretending to be purely neutral, while booking an articulate, persuasive guest on his side, and a clunker dud of a guest on the other. And the host or anchor was loath to express any opinion for fear of the FCC threatening to yank the station's license. [emphasis added]

It's a classic case of projection — of attributing to one's unspeakably evil enemies the ends, and the means used to gain them, that one does not want to admit one has and uses onesself. (Another example: the Republican commentators, during the Florida vote-counting crisis, who accused the Gore campaign of using the courts to overturn the electoral process.)

You're right, Atrios: finding this was a real hoot.