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 The FCC repealed it in 1987 — Democrats at the time tried to forestall this move but were ultimately thwarted by a veto by President Ronald Reagan.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'

[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"

[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.

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....

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.

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.

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]

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?