Fairness Doctrine

[NeTrips]

The concept of the Fairness Doctrine is in the news once again as our elected pols wrestle with the concept of forcing broadcasters to offer equall airtime for opposing opinions. Is this ethical?

One argument is that the public airwaves are just that, public. Therefore government has an obligation to ensure that everyone gets equal time. Well, our public highway system is also public. What if one trucking company has more trucks than another? Should we demand that the government impose some control on how mnay trucks a company can place on the public roads or maybe we can force the more successful trucking companies to pay for other trucking companies to have more trucks....

 

[JGG]

The concept of the Fairness Doctrine is in the news once again as our elected pols wrestle with the concept of forcing broadcasters to offer equall airtime for opposing opinions. Is this ethical?

One argument is that the public airwaves are just that, public. Therefore government has an obligation to ensure that everyone gets equal time. Well, our public highway system is also public. What if one trucking company has more trucks than another? Should we demand that the government impose some control on how mnay trucks a company can place on the public roads or maybe we can force the more successful trucking companies to pay for other trucking companies to have more trucks....

It seems to me that all companies are offered the same amount of public road for their trucks in any event. I don't get the comparison.

 

[NeTrips]

It seems to me that all companies are offered the same amount of public road for their trucks in any event. I don't get the comparison.

Is there a lack of public airwaves? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Conservative talk radio, for example, has been successful. Liberal talk radio has not (e.g. Air America). Should the companies that offer conservative talk and make money doing so be forced to offer liberal counterpoints and make no money doing so?

 

[Voegelin]

Everyone is offered the same access to the airwaves. Some views are not popular and do not receive customer support.

One could say the same about roads. Everyone has the same access but certain trucking companies dominate the roads because they attrack a customer base.

The analogy holds. Should losers in the public arena be able to force the sucessful to subsidize them? (which in the case of both trucking and talk radio, would mean the sucessful would go out of business).

 

[IzzyPop]

The concept of the Fairness Doctrine is in the news once again as our elected pols wrestle with the concept of forcing broadcasters to offer equall airtime for opposing opinions. Is this ethical?

One argument is that the public airwaves are just that, public. Therefore government has an obligation to ensure that everyone gets equal time. Well, our public highway system is also public. What if one trucking company has more trucks than another? Should we demand that the government impose some control on how mnay trucks a company can place on the public roads or maybe we can force the more successful trucking companies to pay for other trucking companies to have more trucks....

I agree with the principle of what you are saying, but there is something to be said about the Fairness Doctrine. There is a radio bias against left leaning programs. This has more to do with the parent companies that own the radio stations and the advertisers on said stations not wanting their spots to air during programs that are ideologically opposed to them. You can look at an ABC memo (I think it was ABC, but I could be wrong) that had a list of advertisers that refused to pay for spots on Air America stations or during shows that came from Air America. Many of these companies originally stated that they did that for any political radio show, but were later proven to be liars. They would run ads during Rush, O'Reilly, or any of the other rightie talk shows.

When you look at the ratings for many of these shows, it makes no sense that advertisers would not want to air during the show. In many large metro areas, Al Frankin was beating the pants of anyone other then Rush Limbaugh, but the money the stations could charge for the ad spots didn't even approach what Hannity's (one of the lowest rated rightie radio talk shows) program could charge. The big businesses didn't want listeners associating them with the left leaning programs.

Couple that with the outright lies that many of these pundits throw out there, it makes for a powerful tool that can and does unbalance the political landscape. Should the government do anything about it? No. But I can understand why the Dems would want to.

 

[JGG]

Conservative talk radio, for example, has been successful. Liberal talk radio has not (e.g. Air America). Should the companies that offer conservative talk and make money doing so be forced to offer liberal counterpoints and make no money doing so?

No, but Air America should have equal access to airwaves to be able to broadcast their program. Whether they take advantage of that is up to them.

Let's say Michael Moore is running for governor in California, and goes on a nightly news program takes the position that his opponent, Charlton Heston, is too conservative, and therefore, not fit for office. Would it be ethical to refuse Heston airtime to refute Moore's position?

 

[chaz345]

No, but Air America should have equal access to airwaves to be able to broadcast their program. Whether they take advantage of that is up to them.

Let's say Michael Moore is running for governor in California, and goes on a nightly news program takes the position that his opponent, Charlton Heston, is too conservative, and therefore, not fit for office. Would it be ethical to refuse Heston airtime to refute Moore's position?

If we're talking about paid advertisement no, not only unethical but illegal. But if we're talking about a news program where Moore was an interviewee, no the station has no duty to set up an interview with Heston to allow him to refute.

 

[NeTrips]

No, but Air America should have equal access to airwaves to be able to broadcast their program. Whether they take advantage of that is up to them.

Let's say Michael Moore is running for governor in California, and goes on a nightly news program takes the position that his opponent, Charlton Heston, is too conservative, and therefore, not fit for office. Would it be ethical to refuse Heston airtime to refute Moore's position?

No it would not be ethical to refuse him airtime, but he would have to generte the same revenue that Moore generates in order to have the same time.

A previous poster noted that many advertisers will not support left leaning shows. That is their right and it is also good business sense for them if they feel their marketing dollars are best spent on shows that cater to their customer base. The left leaning shows, in order to compete would have to generate advertising income, something they have failed to do.

If I had a company that sold firearms, i would advertise on a right leaning show and refuse to advertise on a left leaning show. If I sold spanish translation services, i would advertise on a Spanish format station....

It all boils down to which format has the cabability to generate revenue for the stations. Right wing talk radio has proven their ability to do this. Other programming has not.

 

[chaz345]

Is there a lack of public airwaves? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Conservative talk radio, for example, has been successful. Liberal talk radio has not (e.g. Air America). Should the companies that offer conservative talk and make money doing so be forced to offer liberal counterpoints and make no money doing so?

There's not a lack of airwaves but there isn't an overabundance either. There is a finite limit, but one that we haven't reached yet.

On the money thing, it is my opinion that if we are going to force broadcasters to air certain things, things that simply do not make as much money as what they choose to air do, then they need to be compensated for the loss.

Air America didn't have any problems getting aired in any market they chose. That they can't make any money doing it is not anyone else's problem but their own. If it were a widespread situation that there was a lack of available airwaves, AND there was a huge imbalance of viewpoint, then something like the Fairness Doctrine might be necessary. But as it stands now, the only purpose that it would serve would be for one side to be silenced because the other can't play and win on a level playing field.

 

[JGG]

If we're talking about paid advertisement no, not only unethical but illegal. But if we're talking about a news program where Moore was an interviewee, no the station has no duty to set up an interview with Heston to allow him to refute.

Not the same thing. Is it ethical for the station to refuse Heston airtime to refute?

I would state that if it was a journalism program, to be ethical journalists, the station does have to give Heston every opportunity to refute.

No it would not be ethical to refuse him airtime, but he would have to generte the same revenue that Moore generates in order to have the same time.

Let's say Moore did not spend anything, he simply appeared on the evening news to state his position that Heston is too conservative to govern.

 

[chaz345]

Couple that with the outright lies that many of these pundits throw out there, it makes for a powerful tool that can and does unbalance the political landscape.

The case could be made that the inherent right slant of talk radio is what is providing balance against the left leaning editorial opinions of nearly every major newspaper.

 

[chaz345]

Not the same thing. Is it ethical for the station to refuse Heston airtime to refute?

I would state that if it was a journalism program, to be ethical journalists, the station does have to give Heston every opportunity to refute.

I think the example is confusing because it is blending news reporting and political campagining. But in general, no a news outlet is not obligated to allow someone who has been attacked in an interview with someone else to come on and rebut. Why they wouldn't want to though would be a mystery to me, becuase it seems to me that it would be ratings gold.

Let's say Moore did not spend anything, he simply appeared on the evening news to state his position that Heston is too conservative to govern.

Common practice in covering a political campaign would be to interview both candidates anyway. Let's say that Heston was interviewed afterwards and not only refuted Moore's attack against him but counterattacked, calling him a big fat liar that wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the side of the head. Is the station then obligated to re-interview Moore for him to rebut?

 

[Cesspool]

Actually, from what I understand, there are methods for receivers to choose which station to listen to when two of them are transmitting on the same frequency.

Speaking as a licensed operator of a radio station, these methods work well in my experience.

 

[IzzyPop]

The case could be made that the inherent right slant of talk radio is what is providing balance against the left leaning editorial opinions of nearly every major newspaper.

Really? While reporters are largely liberal in political ideology, editors run the other direction. It's a bit late this evening (or morning to be honest)and I don't really want to look it up right now, but I will try to find the study that shows this sometime this weekend.

 

[StawberryCough]

Save for Fox News and the Washington Post, most other media outlets are liberally biased.

I'm against any attempts to screw around with anyone's free speech.

BTW, this has nothing to do with "fairness". This has to do with the recent flux of calls politicians got from their constituents because talk radio got the word out on the immigration bill.

If Trent Lott wants to "do something" about talk radio, let him try, we'll crash their switchboards every single day.

 

[Pepperoni]

Let's say that Heston was interviewed afterwards and not only refuted Moore's attack against him but counterattacked, calling him a big fat liar that wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the side of the head. Is the station then obligated to re-interview Moore for him to rebut?

No.

How would Moore refute that?

 

[sister_maynard]

Each side of the debate has the opportunity to purchase airtime. If one side cannot make money in the current situation, that's that side's problem; slicing away at the other side is a concession that shows that the arguments are weak anyway.

 

[Cesspool]

It's not fair that talk radio is running the country.

 

[Voegelin]

OK...I'm for the Fairness Doctrine.

Liberals dominated TV broadcast news for decades.

Give CBS, NBC and ABC news to conservatives for the next 40 years so they have equal time to rebut Edward R. Murrow, Eric Severeid, Mike Wallace, Walter Cronkite, Daniel Schorr, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokow, Dan Rather, Katie Couric etc...etc...

 

[StawberryCough]

It's not fair that talk radio is running the country.

Talk radio doesn't run anything. That's just complete stupidity right there.