That’s the claim of Thomas Hazlett, an economics prof at Clemson University and chief economist at the FCC late century, in his Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Critics say it has outlived its usefulness, as today’s media landscape offers a cornucopia of platforms unknown in 1920s America. The critics are right, except for one thing: The rule has never been useful and has always functioned mostly to suppress coverage for challengers.
On the contrary, the media routinely suppresses coverage, not just for challenger politicians in general, but for politicians on the right side of American politics, whether candidate or incumbent—and not just in politics: media routinely suppresses coverage of much of the discourse, on any subject, from the right.
We have The New York Times announcing around the time Donald Trump was campaigning in 2016 that there no longer could be balanced news reporting; news writers must take (the Left) side.
We have broadcast network anchors announcing that there are not two sides to arguments, in many cases there is only one side—and news anchors Know Better what that correct side is.
We have major newspapers announcing that they will no longer publish letters to their editors that dispute man-caused climate warming; that science is, those editors pronounced, settled.
We have media in general spiking stories that disputed the Russia hoax and the reality of the Hunter Biden laptop.
We have social media actively censoring posts from the right, even canceling the social media accounts of Conservative Presidential candidates and a variety of other accounts containing postings of information from the right.
Hazlett added this claim:
“Equal time” requirements tax free speech and turn debates into media circuses. The networks won’t broadcast them, and major-party candidates boycott them.
This is risible on its face. The former is the “media’s” decision, and their decision to not broadcast the debates is an obvious argument for the equal time law. The latter is a politician’s decision and is wholly irrelevant to the question of equal time legitimacy. Equal time requires outlets to offer equal time to all candidates; it does not require all candidates to participate.
The Radio Act of 1927 might need tweaking to bring it into the 21st century, but its principle—equal time for political candidates—remains highly useful.