The Return of the Fairness Doctrine?

Slithe writes "Last week at the National Conference for Media Reform, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich (a long-shot candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination) stated that the Fairness Doctrine may be reinstated. Kucinich will be heading up a new House subcommittee that will focus on issues around the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC regulation that required broadcast media to present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner. The FCC repealed it in 1987 — Democrats at the time tried to forestall this move but were ultimately thwarted by a veto by President Ronald Reagan. Critics of the Fairness Doctrine have stated that it was only used to intimidate and silence political opposition. At the convention, Kucinich said, 'We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda. We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible.'" In the interest of fairness, here is a Republican, free-market perspective on the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Comments

flamewar comin'

[udderly]

I was going to sit out this flamewar, but I just have to get involved.

Despite quite a bit of disagreement with him, I have a fair amount of respect for Kucinich, if for no other reason than he at least *seems* to be consistent in what he says and does. And like him, I am worried that the media is now in the hands of so few people, but who would police this "fairness?

<sarcasm>Surely politicians are bought and sold by corporate interests. Surely we can trust committees of appointees to handle things in a "present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner."</sarcasm>

It seems like everyone in the political scene thinks that there is a media bias one way or another, and, for all I know, there probably is but I don't see it being made better by putting the politicians in charge of it.

Re:flamewar comin'

[OECD]

And like him, I am worried that the media is now in the hands of so few people, but who would police this "fairness?

Who will watch the watchers of what the watchers watch?

Re:flamewar comin'

[Total_Wimp]

Even worse, forcing "fairness" often gives misguided, scientifically wrong viewpoints the size and weight of thoughtful, well researched viewpoints. It is, in fact, the exact kind of argument that intelligent design proponents and global warming skeptics have recently been using. They say there must be a "balanced" view presented on "controversial" issues, thus we need to give their quackery equal footing with science.

Although it's often harder to tell which the bad side is, purely political viewpoints can be just as factual on one side and bunk on the other. Yet with "fairness," the bunk will be elevated to the same level as the sound. For example, politics is full of economic viewpoints that are either factually incorrect, or basically just guesses. As soon as someone has one of these brilliant thoughts, now we have to give him equal billing to spread his nonsense?

I hate Fox news. I've rarely seen such a wretched hive of scum and villainy outside of the Rush Limbaugh show. They elevate bad ideas and squash clear thinking on a regular basis. Politics takes the place of science and dogma takes the place of thought. Yet I'd rather have them, and Brother Rush, even expand their broadcasts than to force thoughtful networks with good fact-checking to distribute ill-conceived, factually incorrect bullshit out of "fairness."

TW

Re:flamewar comin'

[Intron]

No. Rush is a wingnut, but I will defend to the death his right to be a wingnut. We have a First Amendment for a reason, and the reason is to prevent the FCC from implementing the "Fairness Doctrine" or any other limit on free speech, including equal time, government oversight, or making him wear a yellow star.

If they want to prevent the takeover of the media by single points of view, why don't they enforce tighter limits on station ownership?

Re:flamewar comin'

[Viper Daimao]

The meeting was heavily funded by George Soros and had quite an array of the "Who's Who" of the extreme left:

Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the "illegal" war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush's repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the "right-wing oriented media" were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria.

His answer, a bill titled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.

Hinchey, chairman of the "Future of American Media Caucus" in the House, was introduced as the new chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FCC. For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the "corporate media."

Got that? He wants the Governtment "to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.". Remember, this is the same govt that will at any given time be led by the political party you are against. Do you want republicans to have this power to alter radio and tv science content? Do you want democrats to have this power to alter radio and tv economic content?

"Liberal media"

[rdwald]

You'd think with their constant complaints about the liberal media, Republicans would be all in favor of a law requiring CNN et all to present their side fairly.

Re:"Liberal media"

[Archangel Michael]

The problem isn't fairness, but who decides what is fair. The likes of most major news outlets think themselves fair, but are not. Who gets to decide what is, and what isn't fair.

When Reuters pasted doctored photos and staged photographs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebenon, how would the "fairness" doctrine be enacted. If it weren't for people like LGF and other bloggers who countered these biased lies and propaganda, what would have happened????

Not to mention the "unbiased" Dan Rather and the forged documents by a political hack being reported as "fact". How would the "fairness" doctrine handle that? I suspect that Dan Rather would still be reporting from CBS news.

I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.

So, who actually benifits from this "Fairness Doctrine", why the only people Truly interested in censorship, who gets to decide what is, and isn't fair? Don't agree? Too bad because you don't get a say.

And how does one actually deal with the "new media", the internet and blogging? Does LGF have to hire a leftwing blogger in order to be "fair"?? How about MoveON.org? Do they have to hire right wing wackos?

The only reason why people are looking for a "fairness doctrine" is because they cannot compete in the world of ideas (AirAmerica???); nobody really wants to listen to Al Franken.

I always found it very interesting that it is the liberal, left wing people were the ones needing "fairness doctrine" to get their ideas out. I wonder though if the would allow a third viewpoint (Libertarianism), or if they would rather just keep it Al Franken vs Rush Bimbo.

Re:"Liberal media"

[TheFlyingGoat]

As a Republican, I'm far more interested in keeping government as small as possible than requiring the FCC to try determining what is a balanced news report. People with a decent level of intelligence will realize that most media outlets aren't giving balanced news reports and should be smart enough to get their news from a variety of sources. That's for individuals to do themselves, though, not something that should be regulated by the government.

Here's a little exercise for you: some Republicans fret over the media's use of "insurgents" for the bombers in Iraq. They want the media to call them terrorists, which IMHO is slightly more accurate, but nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. So, should the FCC step in and require news outlets to call them terrorists? Should they require Fox to call them insurgents too? Who decides if something is balanced? Where do you draw the line.

Besides, with everyone complaining about the FCC being overly cautious after the Janet Jackson nipple incident, you'd think that everyone would realize that we don't want/need the FCC to try deciding things like this.

Re:"Liberal media"

[TopSpin]

You'd think with their constant complaints about the liberal media, Republicans would be all in favor of a law requiring CNN et all to present their side fairly.

Bzzt, wrong. Nice uninformed try, however.

Repeal of the "fairness" doctrine basically made conservative talk radio. Limbaugh has been pointing this out for years. Prior to the repeal, AM was good for commodity price reports (cattle, wheat, etc.,) NPR and not much else. After, hundreds of radio shows ranging from psycho wackjob militia types to mainstream conservatives (yes, there are differences) appeared across the US.

Clinton et al tried the same thing in the early 90's. The Right labeled it the 'Hush Rush' bill. It died on the vine after the '94 sweep of Congress. They're back I guess, and for the same reason.

Legislating "fairness" in political discourse is bad. It doesn't matter which side is doing it, mkay? It's just wrong. If DeLay had tried to pull this you'd be apoplectic with hysteria about fascism. It isn't OK because it's coming from some left wing incumbent like Kucinich.

Re:"Liberal media"

[phantomlord]

You assume that the democrats were elected on their ideas... instead, they were elected because they were the biggest name that weren't republicans. 2006 was more of a revolt against corruption than it was buying into ideas. Since taking office, the dems are already starting to try to ram legislation through without input from the republicans (despite complaining about the republicans doing just that while they were in power), the CBC gave a standing ovation to a Congressman who was pretty obviously taking bribes just a year ago, Pelosi wanted to seat a democrat instead of the republican who won the district in Florida, etc. The next two years, the dems have to do something since they have control - they can't just sit back and complain that everything the republicans do is wrong. Thing is, they weren't elected because of their agenda, so the harder to the left they push, combined with the maturation of their own scandals over the next two years, the harder 2008 is going to be for them to keep control.

Factor in a super-polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton in 2008 and you will see the republican base come out in droves. About the only thing that has a chance to keep the republicans out of power is if the republican nominee is a socially liberal candidate. Even then, a ton of democrats would rather vote for a Rudy Guilliani type over Hillary.

Re:"Liberal media"

[theStorminMormon]

This:

Funny thing, that. In the 2006 elections not a single Republican congressman won against a Democrat.

Has nothing to do with this:

Yet we're led to believe that there's "no market" for radio with a liberal viewpoint.

Have you never heard of the Blue Dog Democrats? The Democrats gained a lot of traction in this election:
a - by moving way to the right in a lot of districts
b - by profiting from the usual 6-year itch.

Give me a break, if this election had anything to do with liberalism then Lieberman would not have trounced his democratic (and liberal) opponent. That was the real message of the election. Blue dogs win. Left-wingers try to take over by bouncing moderates out at the primary level, then get utterly slaughtered at the general polls. Yet some how, left-wingers think that they speak for the democratic party. Like most left-wing democrats you're cheerfully oblivious to the facts. The left-wing of the democratic party only helps win elections when it goes away. I wish you nuts would stop running your raving left-wing lunatics in serious elections, it makes it easy for the GOP to get Bush elected. Twice. As far as I'm considered, that's your fault for not giving serious opposition. The dems did way better than in 2006 by not by running liberals. If the dems take '06 as a license to move farther left you might as well not show up in '08.

Also: You're not "led to believe" anything. No one listens to Air America. And it's no wonder why - I tried several times and it was awful. There's no talent there. And what are the #1, #2 and #3 radio shows in America? Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. Conservatives one and all (although Beck is more libertarian than republican). If you call stating the obvious "being led to believe" something, then yes, the country is being led to believe no one really likes far-left liberals. (Not that they love right-wingers either.)

Wake up. Extremists are extreme because most people think they are nuts. That's what it means, by definition to be at the edge of either wing of politics.

-stormin

Unintended Consequences

[Kelson]

Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner.

Now every story on global warming will need to be 1/3 saying it's happening and humans are at least partly responsible, 1/3 saying it's happening and it's 100% natural, and 1/3 saying it's not happening at all, and things like arctic melting are just a hoax manufactured for leftist propaganda.

Meanwhile, any show on PBS or the Discovery Channel that deals with evolution in any way shape or form will have to cover not just the scientific consensus that natural selection has been at work for millions of years, but also Intelligent Design and young-Earth creationism. Similarly, anything about geology will have to include both the old-earth consensus and the idea that, for instance, the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood.

Let's see if we can find Velikovsky and von Daniken a place while we're at it.

And let's not get started with making sure the Viet Cong's point of view is presented with equal weight to both the hawk and dove sides of the American point of view....

Racism more troubling that "fairness"

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that there serious problems with the way controversial issues are presented on the major television channels in the USA. I'm not convinced that the problem is fairness, per se. Instead, the problem seems more related to a tendency to present extremely complex issues in a simplistic binary manner (e.g. that the USA will either "succeed" or "fail" in Iraq).

I am even less convinced that legislation can solve the problem. The only solution that I see is to let people who care about being informed move to other more complete sources of information such as the internet.

The one thing that does bother me is the implicit racism in many of the entertainment shows on the major television channels. I wouldn't mind seeing a rule that the racial/ethnic/religious affiliations of the villians has to be chosen at random. Essentially, if it wouldn't be OK to portray Jewish people in a particular role then it shouldn't be OK to porttray any ethnic group in that role.

Free market - hardly

[Registered Coward v2]

The Republican free market viewpoint presented isn't - a free market approach would be to allow anyone who wanted to provide cable or television without requiring government approval; since that would result in chaos the governmnet licenses rights - once you agree to that you have a new partner - the government.

Exactly.

[SatanicPuppy]

Treating every issue as if it has two sides means that often you have to go out and invent a second side.

This is why debates like global warming and evolution loom so large, because in the interests of "fairness" views that are held by very small minorities of people are given the same amount of play as views that are extensively proven and supported.

Rather than this, I'd rather see a standard of truth applied to non-opinion mass media...Make them cite their numbers, and post the credentials of their "experts", and make them admit to errors of fact that appear on their broadcasts.

Forced, Uninentional Bias

[digitalhermit]

Requiring a "balanced" view can be just as bad as being completely one-sided. For example, say that there's an issue where 95% of the poll participants agree. In order to present a balanced view containing the opposing side, a new journalist may take the majority opinion and a minority opinion. When presented as opposing sides it may give the impression that people are evenly divided. This occurs quite often with scientific, religious and economic issues. It's not a case of intentional deception, but the effect can be the same.

Fairness Doctrine silences right talk radio

[dfenstrate]

Which is why democrats love it so much. The talk radio explosion came after the fairness doctrine ended. Before that if a radio station offered a right leaning talk show, they'd have to offer time to a left leaning one as well.

The trouble is that left wing talk radio doesn't sell ads, because no one listens to it. So radio station operators had to chose between a few hours of right wing talk radio that was profitable, balanced by a few hours of left talk that wasn't, or just filling the airwaves with silly pop songs that generated decent revenue consistently.

You don't have to believe me, you can go check for yourself the respective popularity & profitability of Air America vs Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly, Mike Savage, etc.

Left wing talk radio doesn't sell. So forcing radio stations to carry equal amounts of right wing and left wing radio makes them lose money, so they drop it altogether.

Now like most internet forums, Slashdot is teeming with lefties. I imagine most of you will be fine with this cause talk radio is just a bunch of right-wing hate mongers, right? Eh? No harm in silencing that, huh?

Unless, of course, you happen to think freedom of speech and property rights stands for something.

The obvious counter is that the airwaves are public property, and you're right. You're also ignoring that the leftist point of view permeates most broadcast TV quite thoroughly (Yes, except for Fox). If you don't realize it, it's for the same reason fish don't realize they're wet.

Truth is the elimination of the fairness doctrine made the airwaves more fair, because presenting a right wing point of view became profitable when you weren't burdened with the left wing. It wasn't be the first government policy that had the precise opposite of it's intended effect, and it won't be the last.

If you support the return of the fairness doctrine after actually paying attention to the history of it, you might as well say "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

Re:Fairness Doctrine silences right talk radio

[demachina]

Obviously you DIDN'T READ MY POST. Because I SAID hardcore journalists ARE very left leaning. They are also intelligent and well educated and liberalism is well correlated to advanced education and intellect. The key point is the big corprate entities they work for aren't left leaning, many of the editors they work for aren't left leaning, and many of the talking head celebrities that dominate talk TV and talk radio now are VERY right leaning. There is a lot more to the modern media mix than grunt "journalist". You are conveniently choosing ignore that fact and to focus on the only one part of the mix that is liberal and ignore all the powerful parts that aren't.

Its also a fact that many journalists today, especially talking head TV types are going to abandon their personal beliefs in favor of whatever view point drives their ratings the best so most are blowing with the wind, Anderson Cooper being a sterling example. They will also generally do and say whatever their editors and bosses tell them to, since most of them will sacrifice their ethical position personal beliefs to stay employed and to get ahead in a very competitive business.

doubtful constitutionality

[Petrox]

While the media has clearly been irresponsible in recent years and all-too accommodating for the abuses of power with which the country must now grapple, I tend to doubt that the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine would be either constitutional or even a good idea.

The constitutionality of the 'fairness doctrine' was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) on the basis that the FCC content-based regulation of broadcast television programming was appropriate in light of scarce broadcast resources and its mandate to act in the public interest for limited broadcast airwave frequencies. In other words, with only so many frequencies to dole out, it made sense at the time for the FCC to have some role in ensuring that a diverse array of viewpoints had access to broadcasting.

In this day and age, where over-the-airwaves broadcast TV is mandated to be replaced by digital TV receivers (where interference and broadcast scarcity are much less of an issue) quite soon, and where cable, satellite, and the Internet have opened up innumerable avenues for mass and niche media and communication, the rationale for Red Lion just totally falls apart. This was essentially the rationale of the FCC in the 1980s when it did away with the fairness doctrine for precisely the reason that it felt it was no longer justified in light of the then-contemporary media environment (an environment that has only become more numerous and fragmented than it was then, and certainly compared to the days where all there was were the 'big three' networks).

Plus, do we really want FCC bureaucrats editing TV programming for political content? That just seems like a system ripe for abuse.

IANAL (though I very recently passed the bar exam and so I'm very close to being one...)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My fellow Slashdotters

[Dachannien]

Fox News is not broadcast media.

That is all.

What does the Constitution say?

[pentapenguin]

What ever happened to the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

What part of that is so hard to understand for modern politicians?

I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[benhocking]

Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on evolution vs. creationism?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on climatologists vs. global warming deniers?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on the "Moon hoax" or Cydonia?
What about Timecube?
The JFK assassination?

I have no idea how this could be implemented and not have it backfire.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[JavaLord]

Right, because the current system of 9+ hours of conservative talking heads all in a row on radio and tv is a perfect system.

Outside of Fox News, the only time you see a 'conservative talking head' is if they are a guest. CNN, MSNBC news, CBS, etc all lean to the left of American Politics.

There is certain media that the right has a monopoly over, AM radio being one of them. Pretty much all of the desirable media (ie movies, television, network news) is fueled by people who's politics lean to the left. Want to talk about how many college professors lean to the left? Will a fairness doctrine apply to them?

The fairness doctrine is silly, both sides get their messages out in different ways, over different media. Some of it is subtle, some isn't. If you are looking for a democratic talking head at 8pm EST, turn on MSNBC. Are you looking for someone who leans to the right? Turn on Fox News.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[dangitman]

Who determines what constitutes a controversy and what doesn't?

I do.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[JavaLord]

Utter nonsense. If you actually look at who the guests are, and include all the channels, about 60% are conservative and about 35% are moderate. Liberal voices account for only about 5%.

That really depends on your point of view. To me, Rudy Guliani, McCain, Bush, etc aren't real conservatives. Buchanan, Tancredo and such are. However I have the sense to realize my bias accounts for that, and most people do percieve Guliani, McCain, Bush as conservatives. Unfortuantly, you haven't grown into that point.

Just a hint: Joe Lieberman doesn't count as either a Liberal or a Moderate. Joe Biden doesn't count as a liberal, and Hillary Clinton doesn't either. Barak Obama does, sometimes.

Sure, just don't count O'Reilly, Bush, etc as conservatives then. Deal?

That's hardly a fair counter-example

[cfulmer]

So, the Fairness Doctrine was rooted in the idea that if you're using the public airways, you needed to do so in a manner that benefited the public. It's the same basic idea that forced TV and radio stations to put on public interest shows that nobody watched. It's a bad idea for a number of reasons:

(1) The public has already chosen what they like to listen to and watch -- the market can, and does, give people what they want.

(2) This is really just a back-door attempt to squelch a format where liberals have been unsuccessfully trying to penetrate for years: talk radio. The idea is to FORCE radio stations to pick up the next "Air America" if they're going to continue to broadcast Rush Limbaugh. But, (going back to #1), if nobody listens, is there a benefit? To Liberals there is -- by forcing "fairness," a Radio station will have to silence about half of its conservative voices.

(3) It's not like there's a paucity of available opinions -- the Internet has made it possible for every side to get its message out, with very little budget. Plus, things have changed since the days where CBS, NBC and ABC rules the TV airways. There are now hundreds of television stations.

(4) What about the First Amendment? Sure, the fact that they're public airways means that they are subject to some restrictions, but do we really want to add more limits on speech?

(5) Despite what Commissioner Copps said, it's not going to get rid of garbage TV (I'm thinking NBC's "Fear Factor" as a great example), because those shows don't espouse any political opinions.

The Democrats are beginning the process of making sure they're not re-elected in 2 years. Did any candidate run on the Fairness Doctrine?

Incidently, the differences between the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality are: (1) one is content-based and one isn't and (2) Net-Neutrality regulates the information pipes, not the sources.

It's not "Right Wing" that sells...

[StressGuy]

It's "assholes with access to microphones" that sell. "Political Radio Shows" these days are to "intelligent discourse" as "Professional Wrestling" is to "Combative Sports". Rush Limbaugh was not popular because of his knowledge of political matters (which he may well have had), he was popular because he made controversial and obviously inflammatory statements on the air. Apparantly, he was better at it than Al Franken.

For another example - intentionally taken from other than the "talk radio" arena to help emphasize my point, "Judge Judy" might be a well qualified judge...or, she might not. The reason she has a TV show, however, is because she's a "bitch on wheels".

Contraversy, imflammatory statements, and being a general cynical asshole might make you popular to the lowest common denominator, but it doesn't make your point of view better or inherently more popular.