The Fairness Doctrine: Part Deux

[WildCat]

If you can't get on the radio because nobody wants to listen to you, your free speech has been restricted. Not directly by the government, but indirectly, because the government only allows people to talk on the radio who can pay for a FCC license or who can persuade the people who have said licenses. If the government allows the actual restrictions to be done by the invisible hand instead of by an explicit restriction on content, that is still a restriction on free speech.

You appear to be making the assumption that there are only 2 sides to the political coin. What's to prevent Libertarians, Communists, Nazis, etc etc from also demanding a piece of the air time?

And lets face it - there were damn few political radio shows while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. The FD discourages political speech by putting restrictions on it, by forcing stations to wade through a mine field of ill-defined rules and regulations. Most stations will simply change formats rather than negotiate through the regulatory nightmare the FD creates. Which probably suits politicians (of both major parties) fine, which I suspect is what they really want. The less criticism the better from their POV.

 

[firecoins]

If you've been drinking, it's time to log off and go to be before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

I was right. No sense of humor whatsoever. Its a good idea to tell another poster to log off in a thread about free speech. Clearly your the ass.

 

[firecoins]

But if you didn't do that, the dance musicians would have their free speech restricted. Free speech means you can say whatever the hell you want--speech without restrictions. If you can't get on the radio because nobody wants to listen to you, your free speech has been restricted. Not directly by the government, but indirectly, because the government only allows people to talk on the radio who can pay for a FCC license or who can persuade the people who have said licenses. If the government allows the actual restrictions to be done by the invisible hand instead of by an explicit restriction on content, that is still a restriction on free speech. Probably not in the sense which makes it unconstitutional, (since in that sense, everything restricts speech in some way) but certainly by the literal definition of the words. Free speech means you can say whatever the hell you want and nobody can stop you.

(Of course in this sense, absolute free speech is impossible, since every communication media is in some way rivalrous, in that if one person uses a broadcast antenna or a internet server or a printing press, that limits the degree that another person can use it. Speech itself restricts speech. But increased freedom of speech is still a worthwhile goal.)

But again, I agree that the fairness doctrine is probably not the best way to do assure such free speech is said. But it doesn't seem absolutely terrible.

That isn't a restiction on free speech directly. Its a restriction on the radio station's ability to program the material most profitable to them. This ends up being the restriction on popular speech. Popular speech will be replaced by something more "balanced". The majority of radio listners have already chosen to not listen to dance music in this example. Elected politicians feel the need to force the station to play dance music because there isn't enough balance but the majority of audience will just turn the radio off. The politicians will not pay the station's lost revenue.

 

[WildCat]

How about this for a new "fairness doctrine": Every time a politician sends a flyer (through the publicly owned US Postal Service, using taxpayer dollars) touting their accomplishments they must also send flyers for all of their opponents, of equal length and of similar quality/size/shape etc.

It's all about fairness, right? I'm sure all those politicians (and those posting here who support the FD) touting the FD for radio will also support this...

 

[fishbob]

Pre-emptive strike. If you think the liberals would not love to take out Limbaugh and company . . . .

Define 'take out' for this liberal.

If you mean booted from the air by regulation, absolutely not.

If you mean kept on the air and publically exposed over and over and over as hypocrital buffoons, then absolutely yes.

"See Billy, if you don't pay attention in school, eat your vegetables, stay away from drugs, etc you could wind up like that man".

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I know you're nothing but a big troll, but have you ever watched C-SPAN's Washington Journal?

No but I do miss Dan Rather and his "Fake but accurate" news!

 

[Daylight]

And lets face it - there were damn few political radio shows while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. The FD discourages political speech by putting restrictions on it, by forcing stations to wade through a mine field of ill-defined rules and regulations. Most stations will simply change formats rather than negotiate through the regulatory nightmare the FD creates. Which probably suits politicians (of both major parties) fine, which I suspect is what they really want. The less criticism the better from their POV.

I think that is a good thing though.

Instead you favor the current propaganda stations with its blatant lies that only the powerful can get on? What we have now is disgusting and suppresses free speech far more than the FD did. Great for dictotorships, but not a free society that values freedom of speech.

I'll take the fewer talk stations if it means both sides are presented and discussion is encouraged. Something that all citizens can partispate in instead of just the powerful.

The key here is which stimulates discussion? During the FD, you at least had the attempt at presenting both sides.

 

[firecoins]

I think that is a good thing though.

Instead you favor the current propaganda stations with its blatant lies that only the powerful can get on? What we have now is disgusting and suppresses free speech far more than the FD did. Great for dictotorships, but not a free society that values freedom of speech.

I'll take the fewer talk stations if it means both sides are presented and discussion is encouraged. Something that all citizens can partispate in instead of just the powerful.

The key here is which stimulates discussion? During the FD, you at least had the attempt at presenting both sides.

Yes that what a free society really needs. No political talk shows on radio or television unless they present "both" sides so we can get two different sets of lies.

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

This is interesting.

In reality, the Fairness Doctrine stifled discussion of controversial issues and was used as a political billy club by both parties against critics.

Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under John F. Kennedy, admitted to CBS News producer Fred Friendly that

“Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

Richard Nixon didn’t require much incentive to follow in those footsteps. Jesse Walker of Reason magazine reports that the Republican National Committee routinely filed challenges against stations whose reporting upset the White House. During the antiwar demonstrations of October 1969, a paranoid Mr. Nixon issued orders 21 times to aides to take “specific action relating to what he considered unfair network news coverage.” Luckily, most of his rantings were ignored by aides who believed he was just blowing off steam. But other efforts at intimidation of journalists - including the famous “enemies list” - proceeded.

Even without overt government hostility, the Fairness Doctrine proved a nightmare of compliance. Liberal journalist Nat Hentoff recalls that when he worked at a Boston radio station, “the front office panicked” whenever a complaint was filed. “The brass summoned all of us and commanded that from then on, we ourselves would engage in no controversy at the station.”

http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=6325

 

[UserGoogol]

You appear to be making the assumption that there are only 2 sides to the political coin. What's to prevent Libertarians, Communists, Nazis, etc etc from also demanding a piece of the air time?

Nazis have opinions too. I don't see any inherent reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have their say. (Although maybe it would be worthwhile to have a sort of Wikipedia-esque policy on the issue, to only force voices which are in some way "notable.") Although I suppose that shows the impracticality of the fairness doctrine, since ultimately there'd be so many people who'd want to show their opinions that most networks would just give up entirely. But that's just an implementation detail. It's not that the fairness doctrine is unjust, but that it's very hard to implement it in a just way.

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”

Ronald Reagan

 

[firecoins]

History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”

I like the quote.

 

[UserGoogol]

The free market cannot provide unbiased news because unbiased news is boring. Nobody in their right mind would ever wanna watch it. The only news show in America that comes close to being truly unbiased is the Weather Channel's "Local on the 8's," and if we had unbiased news, that is what all news would be like. Just a bunch of numbers being read to us by a synthesized voice as smooth jazz plays in the background. The free market can provide diversity of news, but that's not the same thing. Unbiased news requires cold unfeeling robots.

Maybe diversity is the best we can get. The tragedy of the human condition is that we are not cold unfeeling robots, and so to aspire towards that is impractical. Even then, the government seems to have a role to play. The free market will not give a voice to people nobody wants to listen to, like Nazi pedophiles. (Of course, Nazi pedophiles can go online, but to force them to use certain media to express themselves seems like implicit censorship.)

I agree that bureaucratic regulation is probably not a good way to do it. Again, maybe public broadcasting is better, by giving a voice to the Nazis and dance musicians who would not otherwise be able to get a voice. To try to regulate networks into airing fairness seems dumb and impractical. Not unjust, but stupid, because it does not work, for the reasons you have already said.

 

[rymdman]

This is a very confusing discussion.

For instance, why would a radio station that has to comply to some form of content regulations, be worse/or better, than a station that would not have to comply with the same regulations, but that definitly would have to comply to some other form of regulations... and, is there even ever such a station....

What is it, that precisely, says that a radio without "FCC" would be more liberal, or more free, or whatever you'd like to call define it as, then a radio that has some form of regulations on the content "quality", then let's say a station that only thinks about not offending the sponsors.

Just wondering.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I was right. No sense of humor whatsoever. Its a good idea to tell another poster to log off in a thread about free speech. Clearly your the ass.

That's "you're" newbie. As far as your evaluation of my sense of humor... I'll leave that to the evaluation of people who actually have made an impact on the forum.

And I'm still wating for anyone to provide me with evidence that legislation to re-impliment the Fairness Doctrine has made it beyond the liberal rabblerouser talking smack stage and is in the hearing or floor vote stage, rather than this being a created outrage by Talk Radio and reactionary think tanks.

To quote Claus, "Evidence?"

 

[Daylight]

Yes that what a free society really needs. No political talk shows on radio or television unless they present "both" sides so we can get two different sets of lies.

That has to be better than the current system where some markets only get one side and zero discussion. The current system does not allow or encourage multipule points of view.

Remember during the Iraq build up and invasion, did you hear differing points of view or any discussion on if it was a good idea to invade? And anyone that did manage to publicize their message was labeled anti-American or worse? It was an excellent example of why an equal time provision in media is far superior the current system.

 

[Tailgater]

That has to be better than the current system where some markets only get one side and zero discussion. The current system does not allow or encourage multipule points of view.

Remember during the Iraq build up and invasion, did you hear differing points of view or any discussion on if it was a good idea to invade? And anyone that did manage to publicize their message was labeled anti-American or worse? It was an excellent example of why an equal time provision in media is far superior the current system.

Not really. Show evidence that talk-radio silenced opposition to the war. While your at it, show how the internet, tv, newspapers, and office lunch rooms did the same. Support for the war was very high in the polls at the time. Media becomes a reflection of its audience. Media adapts to the audience to push the ratings points and increase the money. If the audience does not like the media outlet, it ceases to exist. The audience available for daytime talk radio is arguably conservative. A sampling would show a lot of truckers and service oriented drivers, stay at home moms, and people listening during lunch at work calling in. These shows get ratings from these people.

Before talk radio, there was nothing on AM except elevator music and sports. If you want more of a voice on the AM dial, send your donations to help start NPR2.

 

[fishbob]

Media becomes a reflection of its audience. Media adapts to the audience to push the ratings points and increase the money.

And there is the problem.
I don't want media. I want news, facts, analysis, historical perspective and I can't get it.
PBS Frontline is the closest thing, and that has been labeled as 'liberal media'.

eta: The Daily Show comes in second, and that is comedy.

 

[Daylight]

Support for the war was very high in the polls at the time. Media becomes a reflection of its audience. Media adapts to the audience to push the ratings points and increase the money.

There is your answer. If all sides were presented by the media, would it have polled so high then? When finally the opposing message got out, and citizens realized they had been lied to, the election of 2006 showed their anger. Any yet, to this day there are still people who think Iraq was involved in 9/11 because they only got/get one side of the story. You just made the case why all points of view should be considered.

Before talk radio, there was nothing on AM except elevator music and sports. If you want more of a voice on the AM dial, send your donations to help start NPR2.

Every citizen should be able to voice their point of view. You’re saying only the powerful can have a voice? This works fine in a dictatorship.

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

And there is the problem.
I don't want media. I want news, facts, analysis, historical perspective and I can't get it.
PBS Frontline is the closest thing, and that has been labeled as 'liberal media'.

eta: The Daily Show comes in second, and that is comedy.

Amusing....

You know what would be fun, and actually helpful? If in the latest struggle over funding for public television, people said what they know to be true.

The argument, once again, is about whether PBS has a liberal bias. There are charges and countercharges, studies, specific instances cited of subtle partiality here and obvious side-taking there. But arguing over whether PBS is and has long been politically liberal is like arguing over whether the ocean is and has long been wet. Of course it is, and everyone knows it.

Not just Republicans, but Democrats. I doubt you could find a Democratic senator who, forced to announce the truth, standing at the gates of heaven and being questioned by St Peter, would not, on being asked, "By the way, is PBS liberal?" answer, "Of course." Or, "Yes, but don't tell Tom Delay I knew."

Just about every Democrat on the Hill, and in the newsrooms of our country and the faculty lounges, knows that PBS in general reflects a liberal worldview. That's why they like it. That's why they want to keep it.

The Democratic Party naturally desires to retain or increase public funding of a television network whose overall and reflexive tendency is to persuade viewers to see the world as liberals see it. They say this is a First Amendment issue, an anticensorship issue, a Big Bird issue, and some of them mean it. But mostly they're trying to keep a particular building on the liberal plantation up and operating.

The Republican Party naturally opposes and resents such funding. Why should they underwrite the opposition? Why should they force taxpayers to fund it? They say this is an issue of elemental justice, and many really mean it. But animating some of them, I think, is a certain spirit of destruction. If you are a conservative and have watched the past 30 years of PBS documentaries and talk shows, chances are you are angry, legitimately, and looking to apply a little punishment. Or a lot

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006824