Posted on 12/02/2008 9:46:49 AM PST by raccoonradio
Hello,
There has been a lot of talk since the election about the potential revival of the Fairness Doctrine. The recent vote elevating Senator Harvey Waxman to replace Senator John Dingell as Chair of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee lends some weight to this speculation. And while President-Elect Obama has suggested that he does not support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, there are several senior Democratic members of Congress who have expressed strong support for it.
In light of all this anxiety, I wanted to take a few minutes to describe the history of the Fairness Doctrine and to explain my view that its objectives have already come to fruition without the interference of Congress or the FCC.
The Fairness Doctrine was first introduced by the FCC in 1949, when the Commission released a report expressing its belief that, because of the limited number of radio frequencies available, no single viewpoint should be allowed to dominate any station. In later years, the Commission became increasingly concerned about whether stations were serving the public interest and presenting issues of importance to their listeners (sound familiar?). And so the Fairness Doctrine evolved into a dual policy of encouraging stations to present controversial issues of public importance, while at the same time ensuring that the presentation was honest, equitable, and balanced. In fact, the Fairness Doctrine was not often enforced. In 1974 the FCC reported that it had not yet exercised its power under the Doctrine because broadcasters were voluntarily complying with the “spirit” of the doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated by the FCC in 1987 after the Commission found that it had outlived its usefulness and was likely a violation of the First Amendment rights of broadcasters. In eliminating the rule, the FCC explained that the Fairness Doctrine actually “chilled” speech by inhibiting broadcasters from covering issues of public importance. I suspect we felt inhibited because our obligation to present opposing viewpoints was unclear, burdensome, or contrary to the format and our listeners’ interests. In many cases, broadcasters would simply choose not to cover an issue that could be considered controversial, rather than run the risk of being fined or having a license revoked for not covering the issue in a manner that would be approved by the FCC. Ironically, the Fairness Doctrine actually reduced the flow of diverse viewpoints to the public.
This story is very similar to the FCC’s history under its indecency policy. The justification for the FCC’s regulatory power over indecent content was that radio and TV were such dominant sources of information and entertainment that we had to be regulated to make sure the public discourse wasn’t harmed by whatever emanated from our airwaves. For many decades, the FCC’s enforcement power was rarely invoked because broadcasters were voluntarily complying. This, of course, has changed in recent years as the FCC has revised its indecency standards and abandoned its former commitment to restraint in enforcement. And in the years since the Bono and Janet Jackson rulings, broadcaster speech has unquestionably been chilled as we all struggle to “draw the line” between what is and is not indecent in the FCC’s view.
For the same reason that the indecency regime no longer makes sense, the Fairness Doctrine is similarly obsolete. Today, our listeners have countless options for obtaining information and opinion – not just broadcast radio and television, newspapers, and large-circulation magazines, but also an ever-expanding array of cable television stations, an endless variety of niche and alternative periodicals, satellite radio, internet radio, and an internet marketplace that offers streaming audio and video, blogs, and online newspapers and is growing exponentially each day. If someone questions what is coming out of their radio receiver, they turn it off and seek answers from Google, Wikipedia, or factcheck.org.
If Congress is truly concerned about viewpoint variety and balance, it should focus more on supporting emerging technologies such as HD Radio, mobile and Wi-Fi technologies, and whatever the next generation of telecommunications might be. A robust and competitive communications marketplace is a far superior tool for promoting balance and diversity of viewpoints than a vague and arbitrary governmental regulation that is constitutionally suspect out of the gate.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
But in this multimedia age, it is like applying the buggy wipe to a high speed sports car.
And I’d hope it would fail in a court challenge.
In Boston “progressive talk” just returned to the air after a two year absence (though some talk hosts on other stations were not necessarily conservative). It actually is being paid for by some libs to get it on the air and they hope it will succeed. Hey, better that than being forced on the air by
the government—which would result it talk stations declining to talk of important issues for fear of being forced to
put things like libtalk on. Instead, Rush, Hannity, Howie
Carr etc would be replaced by Good Time Oldies, syndicated
sports, or Gardening Talk. (Nothing against gardeners,
mind you; it’s just an example of non-political talk!)
The recent vote elevating Senator Harvey Waxman to replace Senator John Dingell as Chair of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee...
...he tends to lose credibility.
This statement is a load of garbage. Turn any broadcast station an learn about 4 four erections any time of the day.
Who in hell is “Senator Harvey Waxman”? I’m sorry, but when I come to something like that, I don’t bother to read any more.
Yes, but I at least agree with much of what he’s saying after that blooper!
That is why satilite radio/internet radio will be in boom times because consevitive talk radio shows will fine rufuge there.
For crying out loud, he can’t even get his first name right, say nothing of the office he holds.
What changed? Society threw God and morality out of the equation and then we got an anything goes broadcast stream on the public airwaves.
RE :’Obama has suggested that he does not support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine’
File this under going no-where. clinton wouldnt touch it and neither will BoB.
Congress does not like millions of angry phone calls when they are passing crap. But there is little they can do about it short disconnect the phones.
This is the most concise and accurate description of the Fairness Doctrine I’ve ever read. We need to get over our Fairness Doctrine paranoia. It’s not going to happen. And the more we talk about it the more the ‘Rats will use it as bargaining chip. Let it go. Walk away. Just walk away.
I think if it comes to a hearing in congress for a yeah or nay on the Fairness Doctrine, one could use the latest election results to prove that the “Conservative” point of view had NO IMPACT on the election or national politics. But with the Post reporting the media bias, perhaps it should be guided more toward newspapers and cable news ... that’s where a mathmatically documented case could be made. (Of course, I’m suggesting logic not emotion ... pardon me).
Jeff Santos, host of one of the prog. talk shows in Boston,
said people should turn to his show to hear viewpoints that you “won’t find in the corporate media”. Oh really...
like Keith Olbermann, who is paid by (MS)NBC? That’s not a
big corporation?
Even freaking Pravda is covering the Birth Certificate story!!! Old formerly government run communist rag Pravda, does better Job covering Obama's eligibility for president than Fox, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, CNN, Ingraham, Bennett, MSNBC, Oberman, O'Reilley, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc
I’d hope it would fail in a court challenge.
IMHO the way to challenge the Fairness Doctrine in court is to appeal to Article I of the Constitution, rather than to the Bill of Rights.IMHO that line of argument delegitimates both McCain-Feingold and the Fairness Doctrine.It is accepted doctrine that the reason the body of the Constitution does not contain an explicit bill of rights is that the framers thereof held that the principles of the Constitution implied more rights than a bill of rights could articulate - and that a bill of rights therefore carried the danger of limiting rather than protecting the rights of the people. And ever since the Associated Press was founded in 1848 it and its members have conducted a propaganda campaign tending to produce exactly that effect.
Specifically, they claim that journalism is "the press" and that journalists are objective. If journalism is "the press," then "freedom of the press" is specifically freedom of the Associated Press and its membership. And if it be accepted that journalists are objective - and you and I make no such claim - then it seems rational that journalists have a higher calling and deserve more respect than you and I. But, there is a problem. Article 1 Section 9 mandates that
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United StatesIf Pinch Sulzberger has control of the NY Times by inheritance, and if that control makes him an embodiment of "the press," and makes him (and anyone he hires) "objective," how is "the press" then not a title of nobility? And if his forebear bought The New York Times, how was that person different from any other person who has money today, in that he may choose at any time to buy a newspaper or a broadcast station and become a member of "the press?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.