The WSJ ($) noted in an editorial over the weekend that NBC has been forced to stop running “Law & Order” reruns while one of the show’s stars, Fred Thompson, runs for president. The paper happily notes that TNT, the cable station, doesn’t have to:

Why should L&O junkies have to suffer just because District Attorney Arthur Branch, er, Mr. Thompson is running for President?

… the editorial board asks, rhetorically. It answers:

The ostensible justification for equal time provisions is that, in a world of media scarcity, broadcasters need to provide a political platform for everyone on an equal basis, lest one candidate gain an unfair advantage through more exposure.

This might have made sense when these rules were written by Congress in the 1930s, but it’s a hard policy to defend in today’s media-saturated world. The sheer volume of media outlets today not only renders these regulations obsolete but also makes fair enforcement all but impossible.

The editorial is worth noting because it is an example of an easy test as to whether those who comment on FCC oversight of the broadcast networks and terrestrial radio are being intellectually honest.

Broadcasters operate over public airwaves. The controllers of those airwaves were given a public resource for a pittance; they now own money factories. (One sale of a Chicago station I covered was bought in the ’70s in the low three figures and was sold in the mid-’90s in the high eight figures.) Those who are allowed to broadcast on that spectrum knew the rules when they bought their stations or networks. Having amassed fortunes through those public trusts, they now hire (tax-deductible) lobbyists to try to change the rules and are supported in this endeavor by institutions like the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Any argument about the FCC that does not make reference to that dominating issue, as the WSJ editorial does not, can readily be seen to be practicing the politics of distraction.

Again, the editorial instead devotes itself to refuting this different point:

The ostensible justification for equal time provisions is that, in a world of media scarcity, broadcasters need to provide a political platform for everyone on an equal basis, lest one candidate gain an unfair advantage through more exposure.

Now, to the way most of us watch TV, with broadcast and cable station run together, this seems like a strange distinction. But there is a difference. Just as people can buy as many magazines as they want with stories about Fred Thompson, we can pay for cable and watch all the Fred Thompson TV shows we want. But the broadcast airwaves are still free, and there’s no reason a candidate should benefit from a corporate largess over them. Secondly, the broadcast networks, while fading, are still potent purveyors of a mass audience. Cable shows bigger than typical prime-time broadcast audiences are still rare, and even a network “Law & Order” rerun is watched by many times more people than a first-run cable show.

There’s at least one other issue here that the editorial carefully does not mention. NBC is part of NBC Universal, which is owned by General Electric. GE is the sort of outfit that could benefit by having as U.S. president a man whom one of its subsidiaries dutifully broadcast dynamic footage of, week after week, during a wide-open campaign.

In one sense, the editorial is right; media isn’t scarce any more. But the real issue is corporations chafing under restrictions to their power. A corporation will always seek any economic advantage it can take, and it will offer just about any preposterous story when challenged. When it gets caught, it will say, in effect, Hey, it’s what we do to maximize shareholder value. Beware of newspaper editorials proffering the preposterous along the way.