Fairness Doctrine

[HollandScotts]

AFAIC, the fairnes doctrine is an unConstitutional, and unAmerican attack on free speech and political discourse.

I listen to talk radio, get a lot of my news from it. Not much other choice for me, since I live so far out in the boonies that I can't get much of any reception, and my internet and computer is so slow it would be hard to stay informed if this was all I had.

I know some people have a warped view of talk radio. They think it's all nothing but Rush and Hannity, whom I don't listen to. They are republican water-carriers, and I just don't like their style.

But a lot of shows aren't like that. A lot of hosts go after te rght and left equally. And the fairness is already there. Most hosts are happy to take your call if you disagree with them and can be concise with your arguements.

And how come the "fairness doctrine" is only aimed at the one venue that is almost dominated by conservative thought? How about a fairness doctrine for college campuses, or newspapers, or cable news? Venues largely dominated by the left?

Does anyone here really support this doctrine, and if so, why? How is it not cencorship? How is it not an attack on the 1st Amendment?

 

[Bootstrap]

AFAIC, the fairnes doctrine is an unConstitutional, and unAmerican attack on free speech and political discourse.

I'm not informed on this - can you give me some starting points?

Jonathan

 

[poohgirl]

I am totally opposed to it and it does indeed take away a said groups freedom of speech or hinders it greatly. That's wrong!

 

[HollandScotts]

The fariness doctrine is a policy that existed about 20 years ago, and was done away with, not sure why. Since then, the talk radio venue has flurished. Before then, the stations that air talk radio mostly aired music.

Reinstating it would force stations to air equal time for both sides. So for every house of Rush, they would have to have an hour with a liberal host, like say, Al Fraken, to be "fair". Now, liberal talk radio doesn't do well in most places, that's why Air America is barely afloat these days. Most stations, if forced to air equal time for both views would have half the day, good ratings, and half the day, bad ratings from when everyone listening to Rush tuned out because they aren't interested in listening to Al Fraken. Most stations wouldn't do that, and would revert back to music.

Of course this "fairness" doesn't extend to the New York Times, or Columbia University, or NBC news, or any venue that is dominated by the left. It only applies to the one venue dominated by conservatives.

 

[Bootstrap]

Hmmm, for me, this requires thought.

There are only so many broadcast channels, the government makes them available, and I don't know to what extent it makes them available at the free market price. So this is a little unlike the Web, because putting up one web site does not make it harder for someone to put up another.

The thing that makes this tricky is that the broadcast licenses are granted by the government, and any administration might have an interest in promoting radio stations that will promote its own political party or point of view.

Haven't read up on this, but let me try to reason about this from the First Amendment concept of a public square, say the lawn in front of the White House. Freedom of speech is guaranteed on a public square. But say I auction off a license to the front lawn, and give it to my political cronies, is it still a public square? If not, all I have to do is find cronies willing to take over every public square and I can limit free expression. And I could certainly do that with broadcast channels in any particular market.

On the other hand, I'd like any one radio station to be able to express itself freely, just as a newspaper can.

I bet the Supreme Court cases in this area make interesting reading! A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests it's been ruled constitutional, but left up to Congress to decide.

Jonathan

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Hmmm, for me, this requires thought.

There are only so many broadcast channels, the government makes them available, and I don't know to what extent it makes them available at the free market price. So this is a little unlike the Web, because putting up one web site does not make it harder for someone to put up another.

The thing that makes this tricky is that the broadcast licenses are granted by the government, and any administration might have an interest in promoting radio stations that will promote its own political party or point of view.

Haven't read up on this, but let me try to reason about this from the First Amendment concept of a public square, say the lawn in front of the White House. Freedom of speech is guaranteed on a public square. But say I auction off a license to the front lawn, and give it to my political cronies, is it still a public square? If not, all I have to do is find cronies willing to take over every public square and I can limit free expression. And I could certainly do that with broadcast channels in any particular market.

On the other hand, I'd like any one radio station to be able to express itself freely, just as a newspaper can.

I bet the Supreme Court cases in this area make interesting reading! A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests it's been ruled constitutional, but left up to Congress to decide.

Jonathan

On the other hand, MSNBC is so far in the Obama tank that the CEO is making little kids perform Obama songs.

 

[eldermike]

Fairness is a foolish idealistic concept, it's like the concept of happiness.
In this case where it only speaks about left and right it's also hoplessly simple and stupid. There are more than 2 points of view. Not to leave out: If this idea simply addresses the political power distribution of today, then it's also restrictive and short sighted, and an attempt to control the watch dogs of power.

Be afraid of any call from the seats of power for control of the media that watches them.

 

[Bootstrap]

Fairness is a foolish idealistic concept, it's like the concept of happiness.
In this case where it only speaks about left and right it's also hoplessly simple and stupid. There are more than 2 points of view. Not to leave out: If this idea simply addresses the political power distribution of today, then it's also restrictive and short sighted, and an attempt to control the watch dogs of power.

Be afraid of any call from the seats of power for control of the media that watches them.

This is true - but it looks like the fairness doctrine originated when someone was criticized on radio, and asked for the right to respond to that criticism on air.

That much seems fair, no? Especially when people who listen to that radio station may not use other news outlets.

Still feeling my way on this!

Jonathan

 

[Mystman]

From reading the wiki, I'd say that the Fairness Doctrine is in fact a bad thing. Both because it forces people to speak about things they may not wish to speak about, and for the reasons Eldermike states.

A healthy mix of available radiostations should be a good thing though.

We here in Holland have a system where the government has a number of radio and tv stations. The broadcast time on those stations is divided between various groups. If a group has reached a certain treshold of members, it will get a certain broadcast time. Moreover, every major religion is also granted some broadcast time (I'm not sure wether this is such a good idea btw... would prefer it if they also used the "group needing members"-model.. oh well). We got a thousand Christian denominations making programs, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, humanists, enviromentalists, youngsters, elderly, people who like culture, people who like history, and a few educational organisations.

So yeah. the free market decides most of the channels on both TV and radio, but the state also ensures that you can listen to some more differing viewpoints, as long as those viewpoints are represented enough in society to earn themselves some broadcast time.

edit: upon investigating the wiki/lawbook, it seems that my initial idea of how the broadcast time is divided was well.. wrong. Learn something new every day. =)

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The fairness doctrine made a lot of sense when there were only three TV networks.

There is such a diffusion of media now that it may no longer be necessary.

 

[Bootstrap]

The fairness doctrine made a lot of sense when there were only three TV networks.

There is such a diffusion of media now that it may no longer be necessary.

In my market, there's only one serious FM news channel - lots of AM, but I never listen to them.

So I wonder if it might make sense in my radio market, for instance.

Jonathan

 

[ArnautDaniel]

In my market, there's only one serious FM news channel - lots of AM, but I never listen to them.

So I wonder if it might make sense in my radio market, for instance.

Jonathan

It might.

I think when a small number of people dominate the market then the fairness doctrine is probably sensible.

Now that said, I might have to take back what I said.

When we look at how many groups ultimately own our various media, we find it is much much smaller than expected.

The point of the fairness doctrine is to prevent a group which dominates the media from controlling an election.

 

[mont974x4]

It would never make sense.
Would you think it's OK to demand a A christian book store to sell porn? Hindu books?

We're talking about businesses owned by people smart enough to give their customers what they want. Let's say a radio show has a listening audience of 10,000 people for the hour it's on, it's popular in its area so businesses buy ad space during that hour. Well this "fairness doctrine" comes along and says, you know you're doing well with an hour of conservative talk radio but we demand you split it with a half hour of liberal talk radio. They immediately lose half their listeners and then start losing sponsors. Keep in mind the shows already have liberal guests on and liberal callers making points, asking questions, and joining the discussion.

It messes with peoples livelihood in a legal marketplace. It is an attempt to shut down conservative media because liberal media can't compete.

 

[Bootstrap]

It might.

I think when a small number of people dominate the market then the fairness doctrine is probably sensible.

Now that said, I might have to take back what I said.

When we look at how many groups ultimately own our various media, we find it is much much smaller than expected.

The point of the fairness doctrine is to prevent a group which dominates the media from controlling an election.

There's been a HUGE consolidation in radio.

To me, this is a complex issue, and it's hard to figure out what protects freedom of expression best without looking at LOTS of factors.

Jonathan

 

[ArnautDaniel]

It would never make sense.
Would you think it's OK to demand a A christian book store to sell porn? Hindu books?

We're talking about businesses owned by people smart enough to give their customers what they want. Let's say a radio show has a listening audience of 10,000 people for the hour it's on, it's popular in its area so businesses buy ad space during that hour. Well this "fairness doctrine" comes along and says, you know you're doing well with an hour of conservative talk radio but we demand you split it with a half hour of liberal talk radio. They immediately lose half their listeners and then start losing sponsors. Keep in mind the shows already have liberal guests on and liberal callers making points, asking questions, and joining the discussion.

It messes with peoples livelihood in a legal marketplace. It is an attempt to shut down conservative media because liberal media can't compete.

A democracy has an interest in ensuring that things necessary to the survival and functioning of democracy trump other considerations.

This is a matter of civic duty and civic responsibility.

Your example is not relevant.

 

[Bootstrap]

It would never make sense.
Would you think it's OK to demand a A christian book store to sell porn? Hindu books?

Certainly not - it's not a public square, for one thing.

Now, don't get me started on Southeastern Promotions vs Chattanooga ....

Well this "fairness doctrine" comes along and says, you know you're doing well with an hour of conservative talk radio but we demand you split it with a half hour of liberal talk radio.

At first blush, I see no evidence that the fairness doctrine has ever been interpreted this way. Can you supply some?

It messes with peoples livelihood in a legal marketplace. It is an attempt to shut down conservative media because liberal media can't compete.

For what it's worth, when I said there's only one serious FM news talk station in my radio market, I meant NPR.

Jonathan

 

[Sketcher]

A democracy has an interest in ensuring that things necessary to the survival and functioning of democracy trump other considerations.

This is a matter of civic duty and civic responsibility.

Things like freedom of expression, right?

 

[HollandScotts]

It's not the government's job to make sure all viewpoints are equally heard. There is free speech in this country. You can say what you want, you can not have the government force people to listen to your opinions, which is what the fairness doctrine is.

I bet the Supreme Court cases in this area make interesting reading! A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests it's been ruled constitutional, but left up to Congress to decide.

The SC also said it's Constitutional for the government to come in and take your home and give it to Walmart for a bigger parking lot even though the Constitution clearly states that eminent domain shall not be used to take land from people and give it to private entities, but only for public use.

So even though the SC may be the official arbiters of the Constitution, I would trust my own reading of the document over their's in a heartbeat.

 

[mont974x4]

A democracy has an interest in ensuring that things necessary to the survival and functioning of democracy trump other considerations.

This is a matter of civic duty and civic responsibility.

Your example is not relevant.

Businesses do not exist for civic duty.


Keep in mind that all sides are available for peoples considerations.

What has happened is the public (the customer) has voted by changing stations and the "fairness doctrine" is an attempt to undo that.

What will happen? People will turn the TV and radio off, they will still avoid the things they do not want. Which will eventually cost jobs, lower tax revenue, and not be fair at all.

 

[mont974x4]

Certainly not - it's not a public square, for one thing.

Now, don't get me started on Southeastern Promotions vs Chattanooga ....



At first blush, I see no evidence that the fairness doctrine has ever been interpreted this way. Can you supply some?



For what it's worth, when I said there's only one serious FM news talk station in my radio market, I meant NPR.

Jonathan

radio and TV stations aren't exactly public square, they are businesses owned by people, not the government.