The Fairness Doctrine

[Bam]

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi-support-return-of-fairness-doctrine/

Talk radio’s suspicions of a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were confirmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday June 24 during her comments at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. When John Gizzi, an editor for Human Events asked Speaker Pelosi whether she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine, she told him an unhesitating “yes,” reports Gizzi.

Representative Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

Conservative critics have been very concerned that Congress had supported a one-year moratorium on the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but has not supported the Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA), which would permanently prevent these regulations from returning.

Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced the BFA last June, where it is still awaiting a vote. As of June 25, 200 Members have signed a discharge petition which would force the House to make an up or down vote on the legislation, but an additional 18 signatures are needed.

“And so far, not one single House Democrat has signed our petition for an up-or-down vote on broadcast freedom...and now we know why,” announced Pence in response to Pelosi’s comments. “I say to Speaker Pelosi with respect: Defending freedom is the paramount interest of every Member of the American Congress.”

In his Human Events article, Gizzi recounted his conversation with Pelosi:

“‘So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,’ Pelosi said.

‘Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?,’ I asked.

‘Yes,’ the speaker replied, without hesitation.”

The Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasters to provide equal time for opposing points of view—essentially giving the government the ability to regulate media content.

Ever since I've started taking gov ap this year in high school, I've become very much more involved in politics and current events (or at least learning about them). This came up recently in class, and I thought it was interesting how something like this could even come to be considered by our congress.

Essentially, the Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasting stations to give all different opinions equal amounts of air time, no matter what the station is. From what I've read and learned from my teacher (who is an ex-cop and ex-army, one of my favorite teachers), this could be done in a number of ways: one side can be presented by itself for whatever period of time, and then opposing sides must solely be presented for the same amount of time. Or, the station can air one program for a time before handing off the station to a completely different producer. Finally, from what I understand, stations can remain purely one-sided as long as there is another oppositely-sided station for each and every one.

I find this very interesting since “91 percent of the political talk radio programming on the stations owned by the top five commercial station owners is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive” , and it is only the radio that would be affected by this bill. Note that I am not for this passing in any way, shape, or form, but would be a lot less offended by it if it "made fair" television as well, where I'd say at least 90% of the channels are operated by "progressives". But then I guess that wouldn't be "fair" then, huh =\.

First off, who would decide what is fair? Liberals already decide what is conservative and what is not, because if you're not pushing for new things (I'm not saying that conservatives don't push new statutes, but that's how it's portrayed by the media and liberals do tend to try to push the newer, unprecedented stuff), then you're automatically a conservative. This basically places the left in a position to decide what as fair, because if you don't agree with them you are then conservative, and must grant them more time.

This also bothers me because it's a limitation on the free market of radio broadcasting. For some reason, 91% of the talkshows in the airwaves consist of conservative material, and only 9% consist of liberal material. The few liberal shows there are don't make even a small portion as those of the conservative party do, and forcing the conservative parties to play material that already doesn't make money would lose them listeners, and in effect, profit. This makes me think of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, in which the socialized government forces one of the main characters to only produce as much as his competitors do (and his competitors are all incompetent, unintelligent, and all not surprisingly for this law of "equality").

Meh, my hands are freezing from typing in the cold. Let loose ;)

 

[lati0s]

I really don't see how this could be right at all, media stations are private entities and should be allowed to portray any opinion or bias that they want as long as they are not being slanderous or outright lying.

PS I love your sig bam

 

[yellowfire7]

Funny how nobody mentions freedom of speech. Right now I'm just going to talk about the constitutional right to do this.

I can see how this could go both ways. If your viewpoint is that the primarily conservative radio talk shows supress progressive speech, then you could say that this bill supports free speech.

If these radio talk shows are not supressing progressive speech, then this limits free speech, not by preventing it from being said, but by requiring that much more work be performed in order to give your point of view.

So the issue is whether radio is supressing progressive viewpoints. As I understand it, the broadcasts that gain the most attention are the most successful, and if conservatives are more popular, that's basic economics. Nothing wrong about it. Maybe the progressives watch TV instead of listening to the radio. Clearly, however, radios do not supress progressive opinions, so there is no constitutional precedent or allowance for this.

That being said, the constitution really has little effect in national politics beyond the Supreme Court, which would hopefully rule this unconstitutional, so a decision on this would be based on what Congress feels is best.

Surely, we have evolved to the stage here in this century that we can understand some sort of balance, some sort of sense. To me it is a feeling that my country is spilling out hatred and lies on many, many of these stations to people who hear nothing but that, who never believe or hear any countervailing opinion

So government to the rescue, to free the brainwashed masses? These people choose to listen to these stations, and if they aggressively seek conservative talk shows, they will do it elsewhere. So, as government heroicly shoulders the responsibility of freeing and educating these people that choose to hear conservative talk shows, is the next step newspapers? Television? The internet? I see nobody saying anything (besides the statistics) that say this pertains only to radio, and so this can be expanded elsewhere. This may be a bit extreme, but is it that much of a step to go from "You need to listen to this too" to "You shouldn't listen to this, it is dangerous and hateful?" Granted, this is already done somewhat, but not to this extent.

There are other forms of communication besides the radio. While this may be the only one that can be used safely in a car, I would bet that more people spend their time on the internet or watching television than listening to a radio. If you believe that a radio is shouting hateful nonsense about someone, sue them for defamation. If it's an idea they are protesting, they can do that.

Also, who here listens to a radio talk show, conservative or liberal? I just listen to music.

 

[Force Majeure]

The only media outlets I found that mentioned Pelosi’s comments were Human Events, a Washington Times editorial, Cybercast News Service, Broadcasting and Cable, and Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.

I think that just about sums up what I think of this.

 

[Brain]

I would say that the main problems that need to be addressed regarding radio, tv, newspapers, the Internet and information sources in general are the propagation of demonstrably false or misleading beliefs and the "segregation" of viewpoints where a cluster of like-minded sources point to each other in a circle from which alternative viewpoints are virtually absent. It is a real problem since these "dark nets" of one-sided information are large and convincing enough to give people the illusion that they are well-informed, not completely unlike what happens in Scientology. It is manipulation and propaganda under the guise of free speech - a perversion of its intent, if you will (and one which might often be unintentional, since you let complete imbeciles run popular shows).

I do not necessarily think that the proposed solution is appropriate in solving the issue, since it seems relatively easy to abuse (but I might be wrong). Not all viewpoints are worth mentioning, either because they are fringe or discredited, or for other reasons. I certainly wouldn't like regulation that would force a science channel to cover intelligent design in a way that their proponents would deem "fair". Basically, you don't want regulation that's essentially a Trojan horse for bad ideas to be propagated. People should be able to talk about what they want to talk about in the way that they wish.

This said, I can think of two measures that, at first glance, I would deem acceptable: the first would be to force anyone who publishes blatantly false or misleading propositions to publish a "corrective" stating the fact and the exact reasons why it is false or misleading as well as independent sources to check against, just so that listeners or readers at least have an opportunity to think about it. Lying to the public is hardly free speech, it is fraudulent. That way, at least there would be an incentive to not lie or be blissfully ignorant about things. Needless to say this is delicate to handle but at least the criteria could be laid in a clear and objective manner. The second measure I think would be appropriate would be to force programs or journals with a sizeable audience to refer or link to other programs or journals with a sizeable audience which specifically counter (and vice-versa) what they claim so that listeners or readers can get out of the vicious circlejerk of one-sided diatribes, without forcing anyone to say what they don't want to say. This is also delicate to do unfortunately :(

 

[Misty]

The problem is that many people don't *want* alternative viewpoints, and this is definitely a problem on both sides. While I consider myself very well-informed and make it a point to get different viewpoints on an issue (I'm probably one of the few people in the world that reads DailyKos and AEI), I recognize that I am a) a political junkie, which most are not and b) an avowed moderate who opposes red-meat rhetoric, which is definitely abnormal for the politically involved. In fact, one can easily see the problem in attempting to be "fair and balanced" - notice the unpopularity of CNN, as opposed to MSNBC and Fox News. The market has spoken, and the market does not care for lack of bias, or really even the truth in general. This is a problem, and unfortunately it's a very difficult problem to fix. Brain's first suggestion is certainly viable, but in reality most "lies" are really just political spin, which means that the organization producing the "lie" could claim that it has no need to correct the record. The second suggestion is probably worthless; as noted, most people don't want alternative opinions.

My general suggestion is to not worry too much about it. On a national scale, the agenda is set by the center, which probably has enough well-informed people to keep things running smoothly.

 

[b0b3rt]

It is:
a) Unquestionably an unconstitutional control of private speech;
b) Not going to affect TV broadcasts because only radio has a majority of conservative talk-shows

edit: Lying is covered under the 1st amendment as long as you aren't making any money off of it and you aren't commiting Libel/Slander, etc.
Obviously most radio broadcasts make money of advertising, but we don't need a new law to sue them for fraud.

 

[Forlong]

So far nobody's mentioned that airwaves are owned by the public, and as such the government can regulate them. You don't have a Constitutional right to free speech on airwaves; the government can restrict it. There are a limited number of channels to broadcast on, which is why the government has total control over who gets broadcasting licenses and who doesn't. The first amendment does not state "if you buy a broadcast license from the government, you are allowed to broadcast whatever you want without any rules at all," at least not when I last checked. Broadcast media is not like a newspaper or cable TV, where you can say basically anything short of death threats because of the First Amendment. Broadcast media gets regulated; social conservatives have made sure that you're not allowed to use naughty words, for example. The government has the ability to regulate broadcast media. It is not in any way a violation of the First Amendment.

That said, I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is necessarily needed anymore. When it was created, it was very important, because there were only three ways to get television news (ABC NBC CBS) and it was critical that they all present equal time to issues to keep the two-party system working. Nowadays we have many more ways to get news so if you don't like what you see on ABC (regulated) you can just turn on Fox (free). On the other hand, it'd all but certainly increase the education of the public (imagine a liberal talk show running after Rush Limbaugh to present opposing viewpoints) so the idea is has some merit.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Regardless of whether you think conservative talk radio is full of shit or that msnbc propagates lies on a daily basis, ANY governmental regulation of ANY political speech WILL become politicized in favor of whoever holds power at that given moment and there is absolutely positively nothing you can fucking do about it because that's how politics works.

GOP in power = Air America and Keith Olbermann get nailed if they talk for 31 mins and the conservative response talks for 29 minutes. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh can talk for 55 minutes and he won't hear a peep from the FCC.

Dems in power = Exchange Sean and Rush for AA and Keith.

Remember free speech zones against Bush protesters? Remember the general tone of "if you're not with us you're against us"? People in power will always look to curtail the rights of those they disagree with.

 

[Deck Knight]

The FCC is one of the most fascistic agencies to ever call itself an arm of the United States government. The less the FCC regulates anything, the better the end product.

@Ancien Regime:

Wouldn't Air America have to actually maintain a signal in order to provide content of any sort? They can't just keep stealing from schoolchildren for their funding, after all :D. And you can only listen to so many Bush/Cheney assassination fantasies after they've been out of office for nearly a year.

Honestly, unless they are subsidized (NPR, PBS) modern liberal icons just cannot seem to hold anyone's ear for any extended period of time. Thus the fairness doctrine: If they can't compete in the free-market, get big daddy government to roll his fat interloping all over the air waves. In fairness to them, they are much more fun to watch scripted than to listen to unscripted, thus the magic of Hollywood.

First off, who would decide what is fair? Liberals already decide what is conservative and what is not, because if you're not pushing for new things (I'm not saying that conservatives don't push new statutes, but that's how it's portrayed by the media and liberals do tend to try to push the newer, unprecedented stuff), then you're automatically a conservative. This basically places the left in a position to decide what as fair, because if you don't agree with them you are then conservative, and must grant them more time.

I disagree with this only to a small degree. Liberals (well, Progressives really, I like liberals, but they need to stand up to the fascists in their midst.) do not push unprecedented things, they push vintage 1930's political and economic systems and vintage 1960's social systems. Conservatives (not to be confused with Republicans) push principles with a vintage ca. 1776-1790. There are very few ideas presented that are unprecedented, although I like this bit from Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech from 45 years ago:

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down—[up] man's old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

 

[b0b3rt]

Forlong:
Technically, you're correct that there's a limited infrastructure in regards to airwaves.

However, you could say the same thing about the internet (just under 255^4 different IP addresses available). Now, while it's on a different scale, it is limited. Does that mean we should regulate political content on the internet?

 

[Deck Knight]

Forlong:
Technically, you're correct that there's a limited infrastructure in regards to airwaves.

However, you could say the same thing about the internet (just under 255^4 different IP addresses available). Now, while it's on a different scale, it is limited. Does that mean we should regulate political content on the internet?

It isn't like they haven't tried.

Ever heard of Net Neutrality?

 

[Force Majeure]

It isn't like they haven't tried.

Ever heard of Net Neutrality?

Can you read? Net neutrality has to do with internet access, not what political opinions are on it.

Of course, the phrase "neutral" strikes fear into the hearts of neo-Facsists nearly as much as "unions", "taxes", and "freedom".

 

[Deck Knight]

Can you read? Net neutrality has to do with internet access, not what political opinions are on it.

Of course, the phrase "neutral" strikes fear into the hearts of neo-Facsists nearly as much as "unions", "taxes", and "freedom".

"Neo-Facsists[sic]"?

Is that the new "word of the day" in your universe? Nevermind that one of those things is not like the other things, as an increase of the first two bring inherent reductions of the third.

The FCC is ultimately a regulator of content, not access. They have their grubby claws on enough, thank you. Giving them yet more things to regulate cannot lead to anything good. All it takes is one "well-intentioned" Congress to start restricting access to "hate sites," blocking them off entirely, and various other methods of repression hiding in the ever-expanding fat folds of Uncle Sam. Just call anything objectionable a spam packet, Ctrl Alt Del Enter.

 

[b0b3rt]

See, Deck Knight, while Network Neutrality is technically regulation of a private business, it proposes to force ISPs to drop discriminatory filtering/throttling practices.

Yes, they are a private business and technically have the right to do whatever they want as long as they aren't violating the contract you signed with them. eh more to come later gtg right now

 

[Brain]

The FCC is ultimately a regulator of content, not access. They have their grubby claws on enough, thank you. Giving them yet more things to regulate cannot lead to anything good. All it takes is one "well-intentioned" Congress to start restricting access to "hate sites," blocking them off entirely, and various other methods of repression hiding in the ever-expanding fat folds of Uncle Sam. Just call anything objectionable a spam packet, Ctrl Alt Del Enter.

You do realize, I hope, that net neutrality legislation precisely aims to make sure that nobody can restrict access based on content, right?

 

[b0b3rt]

You do realize, I hope, that net neutrality legislation precisely aims to make sure that nobody can restrict access based on content, right?

The problem Deck Knight has with it is not the goal, but the principle behind it: government regulation of a private company. Now, while it's strange to see de-regulatory regulation, for lack of a better term, it's not necessarily a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
"...encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered..."
>>>
"...encourage regulated internet service providers to meet the bandwidth and download speed needs of the local communities in which they are chartered..."

Not the best analogy, but..

 

[Force Majeure]

"Neo-Facsists[sic]"?

Is that the new "word of the day" in your universe? Nevermind that one of those things is not like the other things, as an increase of the first two bring inherent reductions of the third.

More unfettered, naive bullshit, but this is a red herring. The real issue is your complete lack of knowledge about net neutrality. It's no secret that the new right hates freedom, but perhaps I should qualify this statement: the new right hates freedom for anyone but themselves.

The FCC is ultimately a regulator of content, not access. They have their grubby claws on enough, thank you. Giving them yet more things to regulate cannot lead to anything good. All it takes is one "well-intentioned" Congress to start restricting access to "hate sites," blocking them off entirely, and various other methods of repression hiding in the ever-expanding fat folds of Uncle Sam. Just call anything objectionable a spam packet, Ctrl Alt Del Enter.

So, more of this paranoid delusion. Channeling Beck tonight, are we? What other simple government regulatory agencies are out to get you? Is the SEC poisoning conservatives' soup so Islamo-Gaycorp can ruin poor Betty's dream of staying home, making pies and spewing out offspring? Does the FDIC have a special list of people to whom they won't refund money?

All of these things make about as much sense as what you have posted. It's 1:40 AM on the East Coast, Deck. Get to bed.