The (Un) Fairness Doctrine |
A Commentary by a GeekPolitics Founder Derek Clark The so-called Fairness Doctrine that was overturned in the '80s has entered conversations in Washington once again. Prominent Democrats in Congress such as John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi support a measure that would bring it back. The Fairness Doctrine was first instituted in 1949 by the FCC, and it required broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial issues. In theory, this is an interesting idea. In practice, it is a terrible idea that did not work the first time and would be even worse this time.
The TheoryThe theory behind the Fairness Doctrine is good. The idea is to provide both points of view on important issues facing our society. Sounds good so far, right? Broadcasters didn't have to give equal amounts of time, but they had to air each opinion in a way that was honest, equitable and balanced in the Commission’s view. There are so many problems with this it is hard to know where to start. First of all, it is way too subjective. What is the Commission’s view? Does it change every few years as the balance shifts from Republican to Democrat? They don't have to be equal time, but they do have to be balanced. What does that even mean? Next, what is considered honest? These are basically opinions we are talking about. There aren't many facts involved, so who decides what honest is? Besides, what politician is really honest? Does anybody really believe the campaign promises they make? Anybody who knows how the system works realizes that many of the things they say they can't possibly accomplish. Somehow we want a five-person committee of these people to decide what fair, honest and balanced is? It is really pretty laughable. Finally, why on earth would anyone think it is a good idea for the government to decide what should be broadcast? This is the really ridiculous and scary part of this whole thing. Having a government that only lets you hear what they want doesn't sound much like America to me. It violates everything the Constitution stands for; I have no idea how this lasted as long as it did the first time around. The following is a quote from Bill Ruder, who was in the Kennedy Administration: "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." Thomas Hazlett, a telecommunications scholar, said this about the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." These are examples of why good theories don't always work in practice. They also show what would happen if we try the Fairness Doctrine again. The RealityThe reality is that most of the stuff that I talked about in the first section won't happen. How do I know? We have done this before. All you have to do is look at history and you will see what is going to happen. Opposing views on important and controversial topics won't actually be heard. Broadcasters will be too scared to air things like that for fear that someone will say they weren't balanced. This will stifle the discussions that it was designed to promote. Radio, as it is currently is, is composed of many more conservative talk shows than liberal ones. For whatever reason, there is more of a market for conservative talk radio, so that is what we have. The idea of the Fairness Doctrine would be to have a more balanced lineup. Unfortunately, as I said before, this won't actually happen. The stations will simply stop producing controversial content. I have two major issues with this. The first is that it limits freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a basic right that every American is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The Fairness Doctrine limits this. It tells broadcasters what they can and cannot say, as well as forcing them to say things that they apparently don't want to, for whatever reason. Maybe they are all really conservative. More likely, they have found that there is more of an audience for conservative talk radio, which means they can make more money off it. Either way, limiting the freedom of speech is not something I am willing to do, even in the name of fairness. The second issue I already briefly mentioned. The radio stations have decided there is more of an audience for conservative talk radio. They are businesses first and foremost and they are in it to make money. If airing different content than they currently are would be better for their business, they would do it. However, it is not. So not only would the Fairness Doctrine inhibit the freedom of speech, it hurts the free market and capitalistic ideals this country was founded on. This is something that I am completely against, as I have written about previously in reference to the bailouts. Capitalism is a wonderful system that we need to do a much better job of preserving. Forcing radio stations to do something that is not in their best interests is silly. Are we going to subsidize them for this? Maybe we can have a bailout for them as well. I sure hope not. I think that is something most people would agree is not needed. Why is this even being talked about?The real question is why is this even being discussed? When the Fairness Doctrine was first enacted, 2,881 radio stations existed. Now there are over 10,000. There are many more television stations as well. Finally, the internet contributes a huge amount to the news that people hear. There certainly isn't a lack of competing ideas being distributed. While freedom of speech and preserving free-market capitalism are good things, they might not be the best arguments against the Fairness Doctrine. The best argument might be that it simply isn't necessary.About the AuthorDerek Clark is a co-founder of GeekPolitics. GeekPolitics was created to share our passion for politics, public policy and the economy with as many people as we can. We have an interest in the world around us, and we always want to know what is going on in it and why. We promise to let you know what is happening and always tell it like it is.Trackback(0)
Comments (2)
  written by Simona Fica, journalist in Romania, December 10, 2009
Article written by Simona Fica
ARMY HAS THE RIGHT to shoot pregnant women, old men and children? Defense Ministry promoted a bill that brings a number of provisions anomalous specific to a real martial law. It is L84/2009 draft law on the regime of weapons, military devices and ammunition owned and used by the Romanian military and foreign armed forces in Romania. Article 16 provides that staff may MAPN use of equipment and weapons to shoot the person, "after committing offenses under the law of criminal attempt to flee or ripostează objects. (if you throw stones, soldiers can shoot you!). Article 20 says: "Avoid, if possible, use the weapon against minors, women and elders" (My note: What forms Distress !!!). Article 21 states that the military "can open fire on children or pregnant women visible, perpetrators of an armed attack in isolation or in groups, which endangers the physical integrity of a person. It is clear that these rights are granted not only aberrant Romanian military, but also foreign ones stationed in Romania.
Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Journalists in the Spotlight
|
| Related Items |
|---|
convinced me to do so! Thanks, very good post.