What’s fair about the Fairness Doctrine?
Written by Tim Higgins | | letters@toledofreepress.comIn a last big push to win the 2008 election, Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama is purchasing 30 minutes of prime time on all of the major networks on Oct. 29. (It appears Fox will even postpone a World Series game if necessary, to participate.) This is expected to be a rather expensive proposition for the Obama effort, estimated at almost $1 million per network according to Ad Age. Such a purchase is not unprecedented but has not been done in a major campaign since Ross Perot did it in his bid for president during the 1992 election.
It is entirely legal and proper for Obama to do so under existing election law, as long as he has the money to do so (and believe me, he does), but that is not the fundamental question here. That question, directed to a liberal political left in light of the fact that John McCain is not buying similar time, is simply this: “Where is the Fairness Doctrine now?”
For those of you who don’t know, the Fairness Doctrine was a policy first created in 1949 by the FCC to insure that media outlets, which it considered public trustees, provided fair and balanced coverage to the most important issues of the day. They later added the concept that such outlets were obligated to seek issues of community importance and air programming that dealt with those issues. The courts however, in the 1987 case of “Meredith Corp. vs. FCC,” stated that the FCC need no longer enforce the doctrine, as it had not been mandated by Congress, and the FCC dissolved it. Before it did so, however, both houses of Congress voted a statutory Fairness Doctrine into law, which then-President Ronald Reagan vetoed.
The liberal left wing of politics has complained in recent years about the influence of talk radio on public opinion and the need for balance and the re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine. They do this while overlooking or ignoring the leanings in their own direction of most of the television networks and newspapers. When liberal voices banded together in efforts like “Air America” that proved commercially unsuccessful and were taken off of the air or reduced in level of syndication, liberals demanded that these voices be broadcast whether anyone listened or was willing to pay for them or not. In fact, re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine sits waiting in the wings for the Congress of 2009, in what is deemed to be an opportunity to once again level the playing field of broadcast political discussion.
If these voices of social justice are to show any consistency in their beliefs, if the playing field is to be truly leveled at a critical moment so close to an election, if the fairness that they claim to believe in is so vital to political discussion, I must therefore ask:
“Where are the cries by those who believe in the Fairness Doctrine to see that the other candidate, Republican Sen. John McCain, be provided with equal time?”
As you might have already gathered, I am not a believer in the Fairness Doctrine. I do not wish to see this government standard of “fairness” imposed upon the American people. I believe that if McCain has the money and would like to buy equal time, he is free to do so. I believe that the government stepping in to impose fairness is more likely to produce the exact opposite as a result of its efforts. I believe that government has no place in the free market and exchange of ideas.
I therefore ask each of you as you watch the broadcast Oct. 29 (or not), to consider not only the rhetoric, but the principles behind the access to free speech in this country in the media. Ask yourself whether the fairness being sought already exists and whether this broadcast proves it. Finally, ask yourself whether those liberal politicians and political pundits, unwilling to provide the fairness of equal time for their opponent when the opportunity presents itself, deserves the right to champion or impose the Fairness Doctrine.
Tim Higgins operates the blog Just BlowingSmoke.com.
Very well put. How do you actually even define fair? If the fairness doctrine were to be brought back to life, the government will be making the decision on how to regulate “fairness.” So whoever controls the government will control the airwaves, which could, and probably would, lead to outright censorship. Does anyone really want Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid to be in charge of the fairness doctrine? Or for you democrats, do you really want John Boehner or Orrin Hatch to be in charge? The fairness doctrine is nothing but censorship and should never be resurrected.
This comment was posted on October 24th, 2008 at 3:38 amMC CAIN COULD DO THE SAME THING IF HE WANTED TO, HE CAN HAVE HIS WIFE PAY FOR IT!
This comment was posted on October 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pmA 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.
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.
Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”
What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.
There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.
Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.
This comment was posted on October 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pmMr. Gallagher,
I am willing to concede some validity in your definition of The Fairness Doctrine and of the potential of abuse by those who operate radio stations; but that alone, as you choose to overlook or ignore the implications of it. While correct in pointing out that Conservative hosts currently dominate the market, you ignore the place of both NPR and Air America in radio. You say that there is nothing democratic in this dominance, ignoring the rights of the listeners to choose what they will hear. These are commercial radio stations whose owners serve their listeners and judge their product by how well it sells. If the market, as defined by the those that listen cannot be trusted to choose what they will hear, who will, you or a government agency perhaps? Is this not the totalitarian horror that you reject? No, if the liberal talk hosts were capable of generating a wider audience appeal, they should easily be able to find a home on the airwaves.
What’s more, like most who cry out for the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine, you seek to limits its affect to radio alone. If this doctrine is valid, should it not extend beyond the radio airwaves? Will we mandate Fairness on television as well? Will cable stations be obligated to follow the same guidelines as those of broadcast television? Should newspapers be likewise obligated to provide Fairness in their editorial policies, and equal space to opposing views? Surely you will not deny a liberal bias in both of these media? Are they to remain in this equally tainted state, or are they exempt because they espouse perspectives more closely aligned with your own? Perhaps then, it is only these extreme Conservative voices the need be silenced?
This comment was posted on October 27th, 2008 at 3:41 amUh, your argument doesn’t make any sense.
The candidate is buying the time.
What does the Fairness Doctrine have to do with it when it’s a Paid Political Announcement and qualified as such?
John McCain has all the right – and money – in
the world to match Obama’s media buy in the deregulated, free-market post-Fairness Doctrine broadcast universe; one in which, the majority of broadcast talk radio is in fact 24/7 extremist Right Wing–and has been for nearly a decade.
So just what exactly is it you’re complaining about again?
This comment was posted on October 28th, 2008 at 2:03 am