FCC Says Fairness Doctrine Not Needed
from the indeed dept
We don't always agree with FCC chair Kevin Martin -- and there are plenty of times that we find his positions laughable or disturbing -- but he's certainly correct when he says there's simply no need for the reinstatement of "The Fairness Doctrine," which would require broadcasters to give "equal time" to the opposition on controversial topics. Of course, that makes the incorrect assumption that controversial issues have two (and only two) sides, which is rarely the case. It also ignores the huge increase in outlets for anyone to get their views across. However, some politicians have been pushing hard to reinstate the doctrine, which actually feels a lot more like media restrictions than anything to get a message out. As some have pointed out, those who can't get heard shouldn't rely on some unnecessary fairness doctrine to get their message across. They should learn to formulate a better message.
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
Filed Under: fairness doctrine, kevin martin
Companies: fcc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: MSNBC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You don't give a single reason why the Fairness Doctrine is actually harmful. Who does it hurt?
There are more than 2 sides to an issue? So what? Air them all. Who would that harm?
Have a better message and everything will be ok? That's the "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" argument. It was never true in business or politics, and still isn't.
Want proof? Answer this: why is it necessary to raise so much money to run for office if all you need is a "better message"?
One of the (hoped for) benefits of the the Fairness Doctrine is to reduce the importance of big money in elections. You shouldn't be able to buy them.
All us techies forget that most people still don't get that much info on the web.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think it may have served it's purpose back in the day, but damn near everyone has access to views outside of their local newspapers and tv stations now... and if they don't, they probably aren't interested much in politics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's telling a commercial entity what it needs to talk about. That goes against free speech.
And you're wrong that it allows equal time for all viewpoints. It allows equal time for ONE viewpoint, which is the one that is chosen as being the opponent to the viewpoint presented.
It's a total restriction on the freedom of the press to decide what they want to cover. There are tons of different ways for anyone to get their message out there now. There is no reason for something that interferes with the judgment of a newsroom as to what belongs on the air.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Better in whose opinion?
It's sad to say this, but the networks are not there to be an arbiter and distributor of the "best ideas". I doubt they sit in meetings and decide which ideas have the most merit and facts to support them, and in many cases what constitutes "best" is a matter of opinion. I think they mostly go with what their bosses tell them to say, and their bosses are creatures of business and politics, not journalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1) There's such a thing as fairness over time. If you have the bosses on your show one week and the unions the next week, you've still been fair, you just haven't tried to cram them both into one show.
2) If you force media organisations to include "both" sides of the story or not put the story to air, you immediately give factions veto power. If the unions don't want the bosses' viewpoint to get aired, they don't have to counter it, they can just refuse to take part.
3) There are two sides to the evolution "controversy": science and religious nonsense. Nobody should give the religious nonsense people a platform, but they claim to be the "other side". Where will it end? Every time NASA shows a shot of the earth from space, I demand equal time for my belief that the world is flat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ambrose - the evolution
Evolution is science vs. religion - not a political issue.
Of course, the people who want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of try to make it a political issue - even though the Constitution forbids it.
I sincerely hope further postings avoid this off topic issue and stay on the Fairness Doctrine subject.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's telling a commercial entity what it needs
In America, corporations are dictating foreign and domestic policy by buying politicians and controlling the media. It's the Golden Rule joke made real - "He who has the gold makes the rules."
It's not exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Typical libral response...
I can guarantee one thing, if Hillary Clinton gets elected, the Fairness Doctrine will rise from the dead again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, if there are more than two people involved then there are likely to be more than two sides involved as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ambrose - the evolution
I guess you can hope all you want, but there are few controversial issues that don't get politicized and thus fall under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's telling a commercial entity what it n
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Typical libral response...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Typical libral response...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah, can't wait until broadcasters have to give equal time to supporters of creationism and female circumcision (two very controversial issues).
As for the decency rules...exactly...we should be eliminating FCC content regulation of the airwaves, not increasing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Fairness" Hmmm.... what a strange concept!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fairness Doctrine, or excuse not to carry anything
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Fairness" Hmmm.... what a strange concept!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fairness
> free speech?
By practical effect.
If the doctrine is revived, then a station that airs Sean Hannity for three hours will be obliged to devote three hours to "the other side" of the debate (whatever that is-- as if there are only two sides to every issue), which based on past history is a ratings loser. Not many stations want to devote a huge chunk of their broadcast day to something that won't make them any money nor would enjoy having to deal with the increased bureaucratic requirements that the doctrine would impose on them. So the easiest thing to do is just avoid the issue altogether and stop airing Hannity and switch formats to something that's both lucrative and safe-- like country music or pop music.
So now the doctrine-- instead of letting everyonehear "both sides"-- has effectively squelched *all* debate of issues of public concern and had the practical effect of removing guys like Hannity and Limbaugh from the air.
And what about TV shows like "The West Wing", written by notoriously liberal Aaron Sorkin, which was a weekly love-letter to the Democratic Party, espousing all sorts of liberal/leftist political content?
Would the renewed Fairness Doctrine have forced NBC to produce and air another hour-long drama with the same quality writers and cast, but with a conservative slant?
If your answer is "no", then you're a hypocrite. If your answer is "yes", then all you would realistically accomplish is that "The West Wing" would be canceled. You'd have only succeed in having an Emmy-award winning show yanked off the air because when faced with the choice, no network is going bleed themselves of hundreds of millions of dollars to produce counter-programming to satisfy some big-government fairness requirement. They'll just pull the show and replace it with another mindless sitcom or reality show.
And won't we all be better off then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Fairness
Case in point, someone will use some details they heard from the news as information to back up their arguments. however, you'll never see an intelligent individual use information from "the west wing" to back up their argument. The average individual is expected to assume that anything in that show can and may be made up. You're not supposed to assume that with the news.
Comparing the news and a television show is ridiculous. If you're going to say that the average individual can't tell the difference between a tv show and a news show, then you may as well conclude they can't tell the difference between a news anchor's opinion and something as fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Fairness
No one who is in favor of reviving this doctrine is complaining about the news-- except maybe Fox News and since they're on cable, they'd be exempt anyway. What they're complaining about is NON-NEWS shows that offer opinion and analysis of current events and politics, like Limbaugh does. And that's exactly what Sorkin did with "The West Wing". He used that show to address current events and politics. The fact that he did it by putting the words in the mouths of fictional characters should be irrelevant to anyone concerned with fairness. If you want to require counter-programming for Rush, you should be just as concerned with providing counter-programming for the next Sorkin. After all, what's the point of having a Fairness Doctrine if all someone has to do to end-run the whole thing is to dress their rhetoric up as a drama and make actors say the words instead of pundits?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Fairness
I would suggest you look at someone like Ed Schultz, whose ratings are superior, but is kept off certain public markets due to his content not following a particular line. This suggests that the free market is not working for the benefit of the license owners -- the public. But, instead, is being manipulated to maintain a status quo. When ever a market is being manipulated it is the government's responsibility to step in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How's this for FairL
You don't get right of way/access to public and private property for free. They've already managed to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine, and are working to get rid of franchise agreements.
Frankly, I don't think the fairness doctrine goes far enough. There should be regulations on anything that claims to be NEWS, ie parrot a press release or fail to fact check, etc. You know put some fear into them, notice if someone is accused of a crime the use the word "allege" but if they're reading some Homeland security press script the lose that objectivity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Fairness
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How's this for FairL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Fairness
And I ask again, what's the point of having a Fairness Doctrine if all someone has to do to end-run the whole thing is to dress their rhetoric up as a drama and make actors say the words instead of pundits?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But there's no law saying you can't run a show of your own with an opposing viewpoint now...
I can't believe they actually did something that can be considered a preservation of free speech...
Well, wonders will never cease.
The concept of a free market is enough of a 'Fairness Doctrine' - everyone has equal rights to compete without government interference.
If some shows are more popular, I suspect it's because the ratings are reflective of that. I'm not saying I agree with any point of view on any talk show - because, for the most part I think *both* parties are corrupt.
But I think people should be free to listen to what they want and talk shows should be free to say what they want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fairness doctrine
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fairness Doctrine
of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.
Contrasting views could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. Even just not hanging up on callers who had a different point of view.
In 1969 United States Supreme Court called it the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest for grant of a renewal of license
So, what does the Fairness Doctrine NOT require:
It does not require that each program be internally balanced.
It does not mandate equal time for opposing points of view.
It does not require that the balance of a stations program lineup be anything like 50/50.
With regard to conservative talk shows, they have always flourished, even when this in force. Not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC has ever concerned itself with talk radio.
While it may be true that it was "a pain to enforce" its main value was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to
present a range of views on controversial issues.
In 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed under Ronald Reagan and conservative radio swept that land as radio stations saw no need to offer a counter point to these opinions. In 2002, Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene,
Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town. He found 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. This was in EUGENE OREGON!
Monks rightly concluded that "Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]