Fairness Doctrine

[Sisyphus]

There has been some rumblings lately, mostly from Congressional Democrats, about reviving the Fairness Doctrine. For background, it was an FCC policy that existed from the 1940s up through 2000, that stated that broadcasters had to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. In 1969 it survived a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment grounds with an 8-0 decision, with the stipulation that it could never actually restrain speech, it merely had to give a "chance to respond." It would also only apply in cases of "limited channels." In other words, it applied to radio and broadcast television because there are only so many frequencies, but not to newspapers, cable TV, or the internet.

 

Personally, I'm firmly against it, and I hope Democrats don't try to revive it. We already have libel laws, and it just doesn't seem necessary, especially in the internet age, while being needlessly constrictive. I also agree with critics that the interest in revival is mostly just a partisan attack on conservative talk radio, which is precisely not the kind of shit they should be pulling right now. Still, it has prominent support, including the likes of Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, as well as (according to a recent poll) 47% of Americans, with only 39% opposed. There are no current plans to introduce a bill.

 

Barack Obama, for his part, is not a supporter. Said his press secretary:

 

Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Senator Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

 

That being the case, I think we're probably safe. I don't know whether he would actually veto legislation (as GWB vowed to do), but without the President's support, it probably won't get off the ground. And if it did, I doubt they'd get a majority in Congress.

[ecoli]

The airwaves should be dictated by the free market. If conservative talk radio dominates AM, maybe its because that's what people want to hear.

 

Anything called the "fairness" doctrine to enforce some arbitrary measure of equality is almost certainly not bound to be fair. Afterall, by this logic, there should be one liberal station, one conservative station, one libertarian station, one socialist station, one of everything. There aren't enough airwaves out there or people to run the stations. The free market can dictate what's fair much better than the government can. And more efficiently and cost effectively too.

[doG]

IMO, the Fairness Doctrine is a driect violation of the 1st Amendment, i.e.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

None, zero, zip, nada...

[ecoli]

I wonder if Pelosi and Reid realize that their partisanship is really obvious right now... and it's against the very thing Obama spent the last year campaigning against (supposedly). Are they trying to ruin Obama's afterglow? Do you think they misinterpreted America's desire for change to mean team up against the republicans?

 

they seem to forget that 47 percent of american voters did NOT vote for the democrats, even if Obama is the first democrat to win more than 50% of the vote since Carter.

[Pangloss]

I agree, and what you're looking at is one of those areas where Obama will be more moderate than many in Congress. They want to legislate a move to the left that is neither desirable nor good for Democrats.

 

The airwaves are much more diverse and balanced than they were 40 years ago, so this is a very partisan thing, intended to silence opposition. And they're not going to fool anyone with their "when we have"'s and "when you've got"'s.

[bascule]

I don't know about you guys, but I think for the most part that liberals have moved to new media sources and don't much listen to the radio. I say this as someone who's involved in radio broadcasting. I love the radio, but most liberals these days are probably either getting their political banter from TV or the Internet. There's a reason conservatives dominate talk radio: conservatives are the ones who still listen to talk radio.

 

I mean, seriously, The Savage Nation has something like 5X as many listeners as Rachel Maddow's show on Air America...

[Pangloss]

It's not just liberals, it's all young people. They don't watch TV anymore either; they play video games and mess around on the Internet.

[ParanoiA]

There's a reason conservatives dominate talk radio: conservatives are the ones who still listen to talk radio.

 

Man, you nailed it. I've always thought it was funny that the left even try to infiltrate such an old fashioned market. The fact that conservatives dominate it sort of validates their non-progressive nature. It would be akin to perceiving a threat from communist dominated ham radio. (not to insult ham radio hobbyists).

 

I listen to talk radio in my truck, because I don't have satellite radio yet, and only when I don't have a good CD to listen to instead. It has its value, but its really, ultimately on the way out.

[bascule]

It's not just liberals, it's all young people. They don't watch TV anymore either; they play video games and mess around on the Internet.

 

I watch plenty of TV, I just watch it on the Internet as opposed to through a dedicated Pay TV system.

 

I listen to talk radio in my truck, because I don't have satellite radio yet, and only when I don't have a good CD to listen to instead.

 

I listen to Pandora on my iPhone over the 3G network here.

[Pangloss]

Exactly.