Fairness Doctrine

[eldermike]

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

There is a single factor that defeats it, IMO. It makes the seats of power comfortable.
It's designed to limit ideas to the number two. It to closely matches the power structure of government. It's dangerous when bad ideas have two methods to be presented, we quickly forget they are both bad.

The media is a watchdog, right or left or center or center/left or center/right makes no difference. The idea is to watch them and make them uncomfortable, no matter if we agree with the point of view. Conservatives watch government more closely than liberals. Liberals tend to generalize while conservatives pick the fly specks out of the pepper. Left alone there will be more conservatives watching out for folks than liberals, but that's not all bad.

 

[Bootstrap]

I should also mention that although NPR has not said much about the fairness doctrine, it has been very loud about the consolidation of radio and television into just a few companies. It is generally in favor of the rules that limit the total number of broadcast outlets one company can have, and limit any one company to no more than 10% of the channels in a given market.

That makes sense to me - publically controlled channels for free expression should not be given to just a few to express their views.

Jonathan

 

[Bootstrap]

There is a single factor that defeats it, IMO. It makes the seats of power comfortable.
It's designed to limit ideas to the number two. It to closely matches the power structure of government. It's dangerous when bad ideas have two methods to be presented, we quickly forget they are both bad.

I agree that we need a broad range of opinions, not just two sides. I hate the polarization into liberal / conservative, I think it keeps us from thinking clearly. (And FWIW, I don't consider myself either.)

The media is a watchdog, right or left or center or center/left or center/right makes no difference. The idea is to watch them and make them uncomfortable, no matter if we agree with the point of view. Conservatives watch government more closely than liberals. Liberals tend to generalize while conservatives pick the fly specks out of the pepper. Left alone there will be more conservatives watching out for folks than liberals, but that's not all bad.

I definitely agree that we need the media as a watchdog. And we need the whole spectrum for that. The journalists that did the legwork on Watergate were liberals.

And if we want to protect our constitutional rights, it's always worth remembering that different interest groups are primarily interested in protecting different parts of the constitution. So we need enough watchdogs, coming from enough views, to protect the whole thing.

Here's one danger that scares me: good investigative journalism is time consuming and expensive, and news outlets have severely cut back on this. I tend to think that solid investigative journalism is a more effective watchdog than talk shows, so this concerns me.

Jonathan

 

[eldermike]

I agree that we need a broad range of opinions, not just two sides. I hate the polarization into liberal / conservative, I think it keeps us from thinking clearly. (And FWIW, I don't consider myself either.)



I definitely agree that we need the media as a watchdog. And we need the whole spectrum for that. The journalists that did the legwork on Watergate were liberals.

And if we want to protect our constitutional rights, it's always worth remembering that different interest groups are primarily interested in protecting different parts of the constitution. So we need enough watchdogs, coming from enough views, to protect the whole thing.

Here's one danger that scares me: good investigative journalism is time consuming and expensive, and news outlets have severely cut back on this. I tend to think that solid investigative journalism is a more effective watchdog than talk shows, so this concerns me.

Jonathan

There was a time when serious journalism was left leaning for the most part, and the counter right wing view was a hit and run bit put in, right at the end of the news hour. But overall it was balanced. Today, the left has very few if any journalists, IMHO. The problem with fairness today was created by the left, IMHO. The numbers of people that flock to right leaning media outlets is not due to mass insanity, it's just better news.
I agree we need serious journalism but I don't read the fairness doctrine as requiring it, what's it's designed to do is give us more hit and run talking points bits but in equal time slots.

So, the actual problem will not be solved by this doctrine. In fact things get worse.

 

[Steve Petersen]

This wouldn't even be an issue if Pelose and Reid had not said that they will re-examine the doctrine in the next Congress.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/06/25/pelosi-i-want-bring-back-fairness-doctrine