Nashua Telegraph: Critics of Fairness Doctrine column weren't playing – or writing – fair

[David Lifferth]

Joe Konopka
Published: Sunday, December 21, 2008

Critics of Fairness Doctrine column weren't playing – or writing – fair

People differ in the way they react to an idea they don't like. Some use intimidating language to silence it. Others employ a well-fashioned argument, creating verbal smoke with which to obscure it. However, if the idea is viable, neither effort can succeed, but much can be learned from the attempts.

Both reactions were among responses to my column on the possibility of Congress re-imposing the deceptively named Fairness Doctrine. Most e-mails opposed such censorship.

The only negative reader e-mail was that of a Nashua resident. He clearly did not like my affinity for talk-radio debates. What wasn't clear was why. He wrote: "My guess is that your favorite TV channel is Fox. How mindlessly pathetic!"

Did you catch how he set this up? It's the classic straw-man tactic – imply that your adversary is engaging in some action; then, throw verbal stones at it.

However, as Benjamin Franklin said: "The sting in any rebuke is the truth." That being the case, this e-mail equates to being chased by a lion without legs.

Using guesses as a basis for criticism is like loading a musket with wet gunpowder. Neither provides the desired result. Similarly, accusations based on what the accuser feels rather than what he knows is as reliable as a rifle with a rusty barrel.

In this instance, not only was the guess inaccurate, but also the fragmented sentence made no sense. The adverb mindlessly is incongruous with the adjective pathetic.

The latter means either "arousing pity" or "inadequate." Mindless means acting without justification or concern for consequences. Hence, "mindlessly pathetic" is like saying "carelessly pitiable."

I challenged the author to define mindlessly pathetic. It went unanswered. As I expected, he couldn't do it.

As hate mail goes, this was mild compared to many I've rebutted. Nevertheless, it had the same unmistakable purpose.

That certainly was not to persuade me to accept the author's view. No. It was an attempt to inflict an insult. The goal: intimidation. The purpose: silence the idea. So what did it really accomplish?

Not much. That I had fun rebutting it instead of shattered feelings reaffirms Ben Franklin's wisdom.

This is often the result with those who shun talk-radio debates. Most don't learn to argue; instead, they quarrel.

There's a difference, you know. One uses persuasion, the other hostility. In the marketplace of ideas, those employing the latter are paupers.

By contrast, a more sophisticated approach was taken by The Telegraph's reader advocate. A skilled writer, he's highly proficient at putting a left-wing spin on ideas. I often study his tactics.

In disagreeing with my proposition, he attempted to convince readers the incoming political majority has no interest in re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine. To support this contention, he referenced a Los Angeles Times opinion. However, a reader's Google search quickly discredited it with several examples to the contrary.

That he was wrong is secondary to appreciating the tactics he employs. It takes expertise to substitute innuendo for evidence so skillfully it's barely noticeable.

For instance, he writes: "Some would argue that calling Sean Hannity and Jay Severin's radio shows "alternative news sources" and "entertainment" is like calling the rack and the thumbscrew parlor games . . ."

In a single sentence, he implies there's something malevolent about these radio programs before quickly jumping to another topic. The jump avoids the obvious questions. Why did he say that? Is it that these programs convey information other media outlets suppress?

Some refer to this as hit-and-run commentary. It can fool naive thinkers. Hence, it behooves people to recognize when it's used in order to avoid being manipulated.

That same innuendo technique was used with readers who canceled their subscriptions in response to The Telegraph's endorsement of Barack Obama. The reader advocate chastised them:

"I think some of the cancellations show a lamentable trend toward what I call combat politics. Out with the old idea that parties or candidates disagreed on issues but came together around doing what was best for the city, state or country; in with the idea that one's political opponents are stupid, hateful, immoral or even dangerous and deserve not so much to be defeated as to be destroyed.

"Canceling one's subscription because you disagree with an endorsement is just another manifestation: You disagree with me, so you deserve to be hurt, if not destroyed."

This characterization is another straw man. It makes the cancellations appear more egregious. Although anger toward readers seems incongruent with reader advocacy, it's effective.

Yet, what does it accomplish? Will it bring back those readers? I think not.

Rather than burning that bridge, I think an argument persuading them to reconsider might have been worth a try, but, hey; that's just me – someone who argues against the Fairness Doctrine.

That threat is substantial. It's seen in both the caustic e-mailer and the articulate reader advocate. They share a common hostility toward talk radio's free flow of ideas.

Such information challenges their views. Thus, one tries to silence the messenger, the other to discredit the message.

That neither has succeeded is not surprising. Whether harsh or mild, a rebuke without truth is indeed a lion without legs.



Joe Konopka of Hudson is a freelance columnist. His column appears on the third Sunday of every month. E-mail him at [e-mail].


http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081221/...