Report: Move To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine Gaining Steam
from the it's-ba-ack dept
Back in January, Congressman and dark horse Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich expressed interest in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, an old FCC rule that required broadcast media companies to present issues in a "balanced" manner. The rule hasn't been in effect since 1987, and for good reason. Not only was it a violation of the First Amendment, but it was arbitrary, in that there's really no way to define what a balanced reporting of an issue might be. Today the rule makes even less sense, because the proliferation of new media acts as a countervailing force to any bias, real or perceived, on the part of major media outlets. At the time Kucinich made his proposal, it seemed like mainly a theoretical issue, considering the fact that he's pretty far out of the mainstream, even within his own party. But word is that the new House leadership is now interested in the matter (via TLF) and wants to pursue the issue in the coming months. It should be stated at the outset that the magazine making these claims is the conservative American Spectator, which bases its story on anonymous sources close to the house leadership, so you may choose to take the whole thing with a grain or two of salt. However, if the sources are to be believed, the desire to reinstate the fairness doctrine is motivated by a desire to see more Democratic voices on the air in the hopes of countering major talk radio hosts, like Rush Limbaugh. In other words, the goal is expressly counter to the First Amendment. It's pretty plain to see why the Fairness Doctrine should stay in mothballs. Not only is it irrelevant in a world that's trending away from broadcast media, but it's too easily used as a tool to influence political discussion on the air.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not necessary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not necessary
I don't recall the Republicans trying to shut down Air America or CNN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairness Doctriny is not fair..
As an example, if I had an opposing opinion from Neal and James shown above, Techdirt _MUST_ give me exposure as an opposing viewpoint.
The doctrine was put forth to allow anyone of political opinion to retort anyone anywhere.
This will have the effect of preventing _ANY_ news about politics making it to the news outlets. If CNN reports favorably about Obama, then the must give equal time to _ALL_ of the other candidates. There are a lot more candidates that you do not hear about. The Fairness Doctrine would force CNN to give equal air time to _ALL_ of these other candidates, ALL of them, not just the party sponsored candidates, "Hello, I am Ajax 4Hire and I am running for governer of california." I insist on equal "Fair" Air time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairness Doctriny is not fair..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairness Doctriny is not fair..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the Fairness Doctrine is brought back, I
I just need to declare myself a candidate for whatever.
This sort of policy would have no end in sight. You can keep splitting the Fair response over and over again.
TV and radio stations would be forced to set-aside 84 hours a week (Thats half a week) just to give all oposing views air time. Faced with that requirement, CNN would stop political coverage.
Rush Limbaugh could insist on CNN air time; just declare yourself a candidate, Air America responding to comments on Fox NEWS.
This is a classic "flat" view of the world.
Everything is either left/right, top/bottom, good/bad, heads/tails.
But opinion and politics does not have a single oposing view, there are 100s, 1000s of oposing viewpoints and the Fairness Doctrine taken to its conclusions would require every person with an oposing opinion the opportunity to respond to any comment put forth on the Radio/TV land.
End of news coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the Fairness Doctrine is brought back, I
If the fairness doctrine is re-enacted, and the news outlets are forced to spend so much time a week covering the 1000's of differing opinions that they simply stop airing political news, it could be a very good thing.
If the news stops airing political coverage people would be forced to go out and LEARN something about the candidates before going to the polls and blindly voting for whichever candidate has spent the most on FUD/Propaganda.
Just an idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be fair now
I agree with your statement about taking it with a grain of salt - Limbaugh has been talking about it for over a year and that it is coming - and only Dennis the Menace is supporting it. Pelosi has more important things on her mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be fair now
That's silly. Pedophilia would be a criminal case, not political. This is simply a move to provide equal airtime so both sides can give their opinion on the same political issue.
I don't see why this is a bad thing. If one politician says they are for the media to have unlimited rights, of course the media is only going to show that opinion because it benefits them. With the Fairness Doctrine they would also have show why it would be a bad thing to give the media unlimited rights. This would lead to a better informed voter rather than one being spoon-fed by the media.
I think this would also stop some corruption among the media outlets. There have to be some politicians and organizations lining a few pockets to make sure their viewpoint is the only one reported on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Be fair now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Be fair now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, as a free speech crazy, I do think that the doctrine itself doesn't hold up to scrutiny very well. I don't think it should be reenacted. It might be a decent idea though, to see congress pass some kind of resolution to the FCC asking them to encourage "greater diversity or balance of viewpoints" in reporting or some other BS like that. Might just be nice to see them tell the news outlets to cut out the "some say" reporting and get back to using actual sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC Appointments
I don't think it is possible to create a "Fair" newscast to everyone - if a cross is burned in someones front yard we will have to have the KKK explain why it is important to do such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairness? Doctrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairness? Doctrine
Of course, if I'm in the minority it only makes sense why I am denied the right. I would rather the government spend it's time on more important issues than this if 80% of the people out there are against the Fairness Doctrine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fairness? Doctrine
The free market determines the success/failure of radio, and no "fairness legislation" will ever change that.
...This is the kind of intellectualism and rational thought that "Dem Denny" has to offer? My suggestion to Denny would be to go back to focusing on the "impeachment of Dick Cheney."
Yeah, that'll get you elected, Chum(p).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fairness? Doctrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are not the customer of ad-supported media
It's not a liberal/conservative issue. If you're OK with the current slate of slanted broadcasters, great. Would you be OK with a slate that featured people that you didn't agree with? Think about it.
What you like to listen to has ZERO to do with on-air longevity. Witness the spectacular fall of Imus: They got to him by getting to his sponsors. You are not the customer of ad-supported media: The advertisers are. Your preferences are merely fodder for advertising rates.
Caveat: I'm old enough to remember how the Fairness Doctrine was implemented. The station owner's preferred speaker got lavish production, prime time, and every other advantage that anyone could think of. The other speakers who claimed their equal time (doesn't happen automatically) got one camera, one mic, a table, and a metal folding chair.
Think it over. It's EXPENSIVE to own/operate any kind of broadcasting station. Don't you think the owners feel entitled to something? Like influence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rationale for the Fairness Doctrine is that airwaves are publicly owned space and that they are leased (not owned) by private interests with the understanding that they will be used responsibly. Think how you would feel if your local public park would only allow Communist-sponsored events to be held in it and wouldn't let conservative or free market groups hold any events there? This is essentially what Fox and Limbaugh and some others, including Air America, are doing. I think it has had a corrosive effect, just as the public park scenario I described would. I don't want my public airwaves to be monopolized by either political party.
Another distraction that's being thrown out by folks who oppose the Fairness Doctrine is that somehow, the news would have to provide alternative "facts" to any controversial issue on which they reported. Not so. The Fairness Doctrine only applies to editorial content and using pejorative (slanted/spin) language, not factual reporting.
As to the Constitutionality of the doctrine: The Fairness Doctrine has been challenged and was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1969 in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC. Here is a quote from the Supreme Court ruling in that case:
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Air America Radio was destined to fail for one simple reason, it was crap radio. It wasn't funny, and it was rarely informative without getting hysterical. I've been listening to the Stephanie Miller show for over two years now and I still laugh, and learn, whenever I listen to it. That's good radio.
If Clear Channel lineup planners would quit replacing shows like Miller's (which is highly successful in the ratings fights in every location it's available) with low-ratings conservative programming 'just because'... maybe then you'd believe a liberal radio program is possible.
This whole "the market has spoken" crap is just that, crap. The "media execs and planners" have spoken should be more like it. Get a good show like The Stephanie Miller Show in a market and it does well; but it's hard to do well when the higher ups in charge of programming lineup refused to allow it in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an example of corporate censorship in the media
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
I should preface this by saying I do not buy organic milk and drink milk with bovine growth hormone (BGH) almost every day. I also have done consulting work for Monsanto in the past and think that, by and large, Monsanto is a great company. I also think that genetically engineering food is an important technology with many potential benefits and support research in this area. But on to the story:
Two Fox News reporters working for WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida, uncovered evidence related to the potential health risks associated with drinking milk with BGH in it. Initially the Fox News producers were very enthusiastic about the story. Then Monsanto, the company that produces BGH, stepped in and threatened legal action if Fox didn't edit the story beyond recognition. They demanded that Fox not include information in its report that was important and verifiable.
The reporters refused and were fired. A Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) "a false, distorted or slanted story" about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement.
Fox News appealed the case. During their appeal, Fox asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
Fox then filed a series of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. So much for corporate interests as the watchdog for free speech...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AS if Dennis Kucinich mattered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just an attempt to kill off opposing views
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, who will determine what's "fair"?
Plus, this 'fairness' doctrine and free speech are not both possible to have at one time.
Doesn't matter, I'll listen to what I want anyway. Until I guess they REQUIRE us to listen to them, perhaps on loudspeakers in our houses or a single state-run radio station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just one more step to a third world country
But this is just the latest attack. We've been losing our first amendment freedoms for some time. Americans can't put their Wii's aside long enough to think about their government.
McCain Feingold campaign-finance law prohibits criticism 90 or 60 days before an election. It would make Stalin proud. Our imperial Supreme Court agreed. There was no outcry by the citizens who much protect our constitutional republic.
America is ruled more each day by the elitists and experts. We deserve what we get because the average American doesn't care and won't start caring until they lose it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is about damn time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Question
Does anyone remember how the Nazis came to power? It wasn’t just the government stepping up and stomping own on dissent. The one-party government and large corporations co-opted each other, because they both had a very strong interest in a compliant, obedient workforce that didn't have the information available to them to question what was going on, much less change what was going on.
It is in large multi-national media corporations' interest to not have real debates and not present multiple sides of the issue. Part of a functional democracy is that citizens get to hear more than one side of an issue. The government should facilitate this. Left on their own, most people (and conservatives especially, although not exclusively by any means) want to hear someone who has their viewpoints reinforce the opinions they already have, and this is exactly why conservative talk radio thrives. Their "news" programs don't really report or analyze, they pump up the base.
If the fairness doctrine had been in place in 2002 and 2003, the broadcast media would have had to air the dissenting views on WMD and the Iraq-Al Quaida connection. These views were being voiced, but just not in the broadcast media. If the broadcast media had been required to air all sides of the political analysis, people would have been able to see that the reasons for invading Iraq were specious at best and falsified at worst, and we probably could have avoided this big mess we're in now in Iraq.
Let's see what that would have saved America:
- More than 3,000 soldiers' lives (and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives)
- Half a TRILLION dollars in taxpayer money that we are borrowing and on which we will have to pay interest
- American international credibility, perhaps for when we might really need it to protect us from a real threat to our security (i.e., Iran)
Tell me which of the above is not something that true conservatives would have liked to have saved?
One of the benefits of the Fairness Doctrine is that it helps put the breaks on the bandwagon effect. It forces a real, multisided debate on issues of importance and results in better policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There were many more articles against the war than their were for it, yet the one New York Times story proves that the right controls the media?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fox is owned by the large News Corporation (NYSE: NWS) and not privately owned or operated.
The media is generally considered to be to the right and subservient to the government.
The media generally acted as cheerleaders for the administration's rush to war, parroting administration claims without much question. To claim that the cheer leading consisted of only one story is ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Airways are not Private
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairness doctrine
Limbush's career was a quagmire of failure until he attained the protected environment of the post-fairness era to start the ball rolling.
So since many in broadcasting now plagiarize, lie and so on during their shows, shouldn't they be FORCED to acknowledge this? Whether it's a candidate or not, this type of lying can cause horrible effects, as when it was used in Hitler's Reich to keep the masses 'informed'. The gov't knew it was ESSENTIAL to have this kind of thing going on constantly on-the-air.
If Rush and O'Reilly and so on are so knowledgable, why do they rarely if ever show up in a REAL debate? For example, Limbaugh vs, say, Chomsky? He's just a home-schooled guy, and Rush has a degree, doesn't he? So let's see what this would reveal.
It's unfair of ANYONE, liberal, conservative or green, to have this huge power of communication yet not be RESPONSIBLE. Isn't that something we have essentially lost in the past few decades? Why we have TRILLIONS of dollars 'lost' by the Pentagon... just LOST. And the US has spent FIFTY TRILLION dollars it doesn't have. Of course this is painted as OK by captive media unable to discuss the Iraq war in detail, or even 9/11 skeptics' views... why is this?
Oh yes: regarding the deficit: Reagan was the hero who "proved that the deficit had no meaning." This is simply appalling. Nobody I know can live that way, or if they do, they are called 'homeless' very quickly. Nations are completely subject to the laws of physics and even the rules of accounting: if you spend what you don't have, it has to come from SOMEWHERE. Presently, the whole mode of 'thinking' is to shove this down the next generations' throats. The problem is that it will work, since the aggregate of all the current White House policies will be the destruction of the US, the end of civilization, the end of most sea life, and nuclear oblivion. There won't BE a real 'next generation' since the people now 'in charge' of our futures had NO personal experience with war or fighting ANYONE; they ALL are draft-evaders except for one, who is a deserter and went AWOL essentially for a majority of his military term. Yet he calls for OTHERS to serve not only their agreed stint, but many more... coward is a good word here... "bring it on" to OTHERS who fight FOR you.
I want a few things (not that I have much chance of seeing them, unfortunately): RATIONAL discussions with MODERATORS and SCORES kept so liars will be EXPOSED and publicly ridiculed. Then I want a few scientific studies: 9/11 forensics with subpoena power, global warming and environmental commissions studying man's effect on the earth with TEETH to regulate OUR behavior based on the results. More pollution = LESS driving, LESS airplane trips to pollute the upper atmosphere, etc. AND a BINDING study of the Iraq war's causes, goals, and results so far, with INSTANT reparations and rebuilding starting with the UN's help IMMEDIATELY and penalties assessed including DEATH for lying to the American people about causes of a war, being elected with any knowledge of vote fraud involved, etc.
I want peace. It works better than war almost all the time. We always realize it later anyway, so let's just end this war NOW. And STOP the 'war of terror' against the American public using the NSA to tap OUR PHONES illegally.
Then make the Constitution the Law of the Land and make it a crime to abridge, undercut, subvert... hey, that is ALREADY against the law. So why not START PROSECUTING those behind the USA-PATRIOT act, the Military Commissions act etc.
Sorry, it's hard to not be so involved about the horror of what has happened to this country. It was a very fine place once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]