Outcome-Based Broadcasting

Talk radio has become the medium of exchange of ideas in recent years. Talk-show hosts act as the ombudspersons of the common good, watchdogging such nagging social problems as the congressional pay hike, the House banking scandal, and the Zoë Baird nomination.

Now talk jocks have unearthed the new Evil Empire that threatens American liberty and prosperity. Is it a rising military power? A coming economic giant? A new spiritual force luring its devotees astray? No, none of these. It's our very own public education system.

In recent years such topics as busing, vouchers, and home schooling have been the focus of much editorial deliberation. If the current level of intensity of talk-show discussion is any indication, add "outcome-based education" to the sinister list. OBE is a teaching philosophy that assumes students must master material in order to progress. Students advance to the next level only after they demonstrate sufficient proficiency. Outcome-based education is oriented toward results rather than toward letting the students off with a bad grade and "time served" in class. OBE does not weed out slower learners, as has sometimes been the effect of traditional classroom education, but seeks to allow everyone to advance with the abilities necessary to flourish.

OBE's stated goal of having all students succeed makes it suspect with extreme right wingers: When reactive conservatives hear guarantees of result, visions of socialism dance through their heads.

Leading the crusade to put down this outcome-based insurrection is radio's own judge, jury, and executioner: Rush Limbaugh. Blending entertaining bravado with blistering attacks of an ideological kind on proponents of OBE, Rush shamelessly campaigns against moves to open up the educational system.

Limbaugh's own zealous defense of a non-outcome-based educational system is rooted in his erroneous belief that it is necessary, and in fact better, that some fail so others may succeed. In an atmosphere of social Darwinism, only the fittest within the school system, and the fittest system itself, will survive.

Scratching just a bit beneath the surface of many arguments against OBE, one finds unrepentant xenophobia and racism. Opponents seem to fear opening the system to greater participation by those traditionally locked out, because their comparable status may be, in fact will be, at stake.

BUT AS WORRIED as Rush is about America's educational system, of more immediate concern to the talkmeister is congressional reconsideration of the fairness doctrine, a policy sacrificed on the altar of deregulation by recent Republican administrations.

The fairness doctrine, which from 1949 until the Reagan-Bush era governed radio broadcasting, embodies a commitment to open the public airwaves to a multitude of opinion, not merely the beliefs of those who own the means of broadcast. In a 1969 opinion affirming the concept, Justice Byron White wrote, "It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." The new legislation would mandate the Federal Communications Commission once again to watch for a balance of perspectives by licensees seeking renewal.

Limbaugh takes this bill very personally. He calls the legislation the "Flush Rush" or "Hush Rush" bill. Limbaugh believes that "the market determines balance in broadcasting." But manipulation is a given in this age of superstations and super-sponsors. A mechanism for involving the consumer, who is also technically the "owner" of the medium in this instance, is in everyone's best interest. Regulation ensures that the common good will at least be given attention, if not final authority.

Rush himself provides insight into why attention is needed. Limbaugh spent the first hour of a recent show decrying the claims of a Southern member of Congress who said that Rush's demagoguery creates a milieu that can encourage racist attacks, such as the recent Florida burning of a black man by two whites. Rush said, for the third or fourth day in a row, that he didn't want to bring up the racial aspects of the crime, but he was forced to. He was incredulous that anyone could misconstrue his "fun" as racist.

Later that same day, while talking about the collapse of the Soviet empire, he brought up yet another favorite topic, Cuba. After a lengthy monologue on communism, he offered the opinion that we should "smoke some Cubans...the cigars, of course."

Well, as entertainer Rush always reminds us, "Words have meaning." Words stir the emotions of listeners; they cause action and reaction. In other words, they have an outcome. And that's what the hosts want. Since controversy sells, rowdy talk-show hosts are really in the business of "outcome-based broadcasting."

Rush is quick to point out, rightly to a large extent, the excesses of Hollywood films and the responsibility of directors, producers, and performers for contributing to social decline. But he fails to acknowledge his own impact.

Regulating balance through the fairness doctrine has some potential to have a chilling effect on talk radio. Since airwaves are a public trust, we the trustees must be just as vigilant against censorship as we are in ensuring there is no narrowing of views presented within the medium. It is in no one's best interest to pass legislation to silence Rush or any other ideological windbag. Besides, if left alone, his partisan narrow-mindedness and inconsistency will lead to his own demise.

The best way to educate our youth about our society is to stress the responsibility of all to care about the common good, and to refrain from the tempting alternative of censorship. The outcome of this education will surely be increased interest in democracy.

Bob Hulteen was the Under Review editor of Sojourners when this article appeared.