The Fairness Doctrine: Part Deux

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm surprised no one has made a thread about this yet.

It seems some lawmakers have decided that the polical influence of populist, conservative, talk radio stations has gone far enough, and that what the country needs is a reinstitution of The Fairness Doctrine. It's not exactly ancient history, but it's before my time, so I'll post a little historical review.

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

It seems that the Democratic arguement is that conservative radio broadcasters are dominating the airwaves with right-wing partisan rhetoric, therefore, we should reinstate an old FCC doctrine that mandates some modicum of fairness for opposing views on the leased public airwaves.

At first blush, I'm completely opposed to the idea. I hate conservative radio idiots as much as anyone, but how is imposing a federal regulation on the content of radio programming remotely reconcilable with the liberal principles of our government? Do I have to cite the First Ammendment on this one? Is there something I've missed?

 

[MelBrooksfan]

The last thing talk radio needs is for every political show to be reduced to a spawn of Hannity and Colmes.

 

[fishbob]

I completely agree that imposing a federal regulation on the content of radio programming is a very bad idea. At the same time, I want sponsors to know that I will not listen to partisan hacks, and I do listen to people that expose and make fun of partisan hacks. I want air time for people that expose and make fun of partisan hacks.

 

[corplinx]

I think the general consensus around this forum is that the Fairness Doctrine is pretty much mentally retarded.

Its the last recourse of congressional scoundrels who hate what pundits are saying about them.

 

[Schneibster]

Simple question: who owns the airwaves?

 

[tsg]

There are those who make the argument (and I will stipulate that I don't necessarily agree that it is happening, although it is entirely possible in theory) that a conservative bias in radio programming is due to the corporate entities trying to curry favor with a conservative administration who is amenable to such an arrangement.

The First Amendment prevents the government from regulating what the press can and cannot say, but doesn't prevent them from "buying" favorable reporting with legal favors that allow media corporations to own more outlets in a particular marketplace or otherwise increasing their revenue, in which case some kind of legislation may be necessary to restore the balance.

If that is happening, though, a "Fairness Doctrine" I expect would be largely ineffective. If there is a desire to promote one party over the other, the undesirable party will be represented by uncharismatic presenters with weak arguments. To use Al Franken's words, "balance" would be a fat guy on one end of the see-saw and a skinny guy in the middle.

 

[Tony]

All the free market arguments against it are bogus. We the people own the airwaves, they are public property, and we have a legitimate interest in making sure the public is well informed and has access to the relevant opinions. I just don't think the government can implement it fairly, however I do think there should be rules governing media ownership. A singular or a few private interests should not be allowed to dictate what information and views the citizen hears. To allow that would be the equivilant of allowing a private owner to buy Times Square (or any other public place where people tend to demonstrate) and only permit those with certain views to demonstrate.

 

[tsg]

Of course, if we could convince people not to blindly believe everything they hear on the radio, that would go a long way to solving the problem.

I know it's asking quite a lot, but I can dream.

 

[Tony]

Of course, if we could convince people not to blindly believe everything they hear on the radio, that would go a long way to solving the problem.

That's the ideal, but that would entail designing an education system that actually taught students to think critically and question authority. And we can't have any of that evil liberalism and anti-capitalism infecting the minds of our virgin christian youth.

 

[MWare]

A singular or a few private interests should not be allowed to dictate what information and views the citizen hears.

Which is why the US Government should get out of the TV business (which means not regulating what can't be said and not regulating what must be said) and instead spend that money providing free (uncensored) high speed internet access to all citizens. These days, if I want to know something (fact or opinion), the television is the LAST place I would turn to for reliable information.

 

[Schneibster]

All the free market arguments against it are bogus. We the people own the airwaves, they are public property, and we have a legitimate interest in making sure the public is well informed and has access to the relevant opinions. I just don't think the government can implement it fairly, however I do think there should be rules governing media ownership. A singular or a few private interests should not be allowed to dictate what information and views the citizen hears. To allow that would be the equivilant of allowing a private owner to buy Times Square (or any other public place where people tend to demonstrate) and only permit those with certain views to demonstrate.

My point precisely. The thing to remember is that there are a limited number of frequencies, and two stations can't be geographically too close together if they're on nearby frequencies. So the analogy to, for example, Times Square, is apt.

 

[Oakheart]

Traditionally, the airwaves have been deemed as public property which is leased to corporate stations. As long as they keeping in mind the public good then they are fine. Fairness doctrine on content is a bit whacked! I can understand that during and election campaign that it is good to force the stations to give equal time but during regular programming I am not so sure. However these are the public airwaves not a subscription service so...

 

[Tony]

Which is why the US Government should get out of the TV business (which means not regulating what can't be said and not regulating what must be said) and instead spend that money providing free (uncensored) high speed internet access to all citizens. These days, if I want to know something (fact or opinion), the television is the LAST place I would turn to for reliable information.

Good point.

 

[Beerina]

It may be "owned by the public", but that doesn't mean the claim they are doing this to bring "fairness" about isn't fraudulent, when they know forcing stations to give equal time to shows nobody wants to listen to will cause a number of stations to drop the conservative show rather than add a new block of basically income-dead air.

Which is the intent, of course. Let's not delude ourselves that it's about some kind of fairness. If Al Franken could generate ratings, he'd still be on and picking up steam.

 

[Tailgater]

All the free market arguments against it are bogus. We the people own the airwaves, they are public property, and we have a legitimate interest in making sure the public is well informed and has access to the relevant opinions. I just don't think the government can implement it fairly, however I do think there should be rules governing media ownership. A singular or a few private interests should not be allowed to dictate what information and views the citizen hears. To allow that would be the equivilant of allowing a private owner to buy Times Square (or any other public place where people tend to demonstrate) and only permit those with certain views to demonstrate.

I'm not sure I agree with that analogy. If a smoking hot liberal radio show guaranteed ad money for a station, it would be picked up. More successful liberal radio shows would solve the problem. IMO, daytime radio is not the best outlet for left-leaning news. I think it is more about the right audience, at the right time, and the right outlet. This only attacks the pocketbooks of the radio staions. Most stations follow the advertising money. There are stations where I live that have tried to put on both types of shows during the day. The conservative shows always end up in the afternoon (primetime) and the liberal shows end moving to one in the morning or off the air till the next try. On the other hand, If there is demand for both and one owner is buying up all the airwaves to corner the talk market with one block of syndicated shows, then I would think it be more of a monopoly issue. There are so many more sources for news and talk now. I would hate to see this spill over in to other outlets when this was really meant for the pre-information age.

 

[Tony]

to shows nobody wants to listen to

Evidence that no-one wants to listen?

 

[Tony]

If a smoking hot liberal radio show guaranteed ad money for a station, it would be picked up.

Can you support this?

More successful liberal radio shows would solve the problem.

There are tons of successful liberal radio shows.

There are so many more sources for news and talk now. I would hate to see this spill over in to other outlets when this was really meant for the pre-information age.

True.

 

[Tailgater]

Can you support this?

There are tons of successful liberal radio shows.

Not without more time. I think you support the statement in your next quote, but I might be wrong. If they are successful, they are picked up. Someone had to put the tons of liberal shows on the air in the first place. I think the best research would be how these shows compare to each other in ratings and in what markets, but my son is climbing the walls for attention at the moment.

ETA:It also needs to be shown if a successful liberal show has been purposely taken off the air or denied access in a market due to politics.

 

[firecoins]

All the free market arguments against it are bogus. We the people own the airwaves, they are public property, and we have a legitimate interest in making sure the public is well informed and has access to the relevant opinions. I just don't think the government can implement it fairly, however I do think there should be rules governing media ownership. A singular or a few private interests should not be allowed to dictate what information and views the citizen hears. To allow that would be the equivilant of allowing a private owner to buy Times Square (or any other public place where people tend to demonstrate) and only permit those with certain views to demonstrate.

Exactly who decides what are "relevant" opinons? Aren't the opinons deemed "relevant" become government sanctioned propoganda. Sounds like whoever controls what is relevant can kick anyone they don't like reguardless of the ratings they achieve.

If I accept your premise that this is not a marketplace, than where do the unrelevant opinions go? So the public airways become a monopoly for offically sactioned gov't "relevant" opinions?

 

[Tony]

Exactly who decides what are "relevant" opinons?

That's pretty simple isn't it? Take gay marriage, there are "for" and "against" sides. Those are the relevant opinions, someone denying the holocaust isn't.

Sounds like whoever controls what is relevant can kick anyone they don't like reguardless of the ratings they achieve.

I did say I don't think the government can implement it fairly.

If I accept your premise that this is not a marketplace, than where do the unrelevant opinions go?

Somewhere were they are relevant.