I always thought of myself as an intelligent human being. I went to HS, graudated with a B.S. and B.A. from college, have a great job...but for the life of me I can't understand the fairness doctrine.
It's one of those programs/laws that originally had a great benefit (like the unions in America) but has now gone to the point of limiting free speech. I am a free market person. If a radio station is making money through advertising to put on the air shows like Rush, Sean, Bill O, Levin, Beck, etc...I dont understand why the government would make stations like this put Franken back on the air.
Prime example - Air America was tried. It failed. If George Soros hadn't pumped boatloads of money into it...it would've failed even earlier. Rush and Sean and others have made a lot of money developing a political program that attracts millions of listeners. Why is the government's role then to make stations put someone on their station that listeners either don't want or would cause them to lose revenue. All in the name of "fairness".
I know PJ is a big free speech advocate...so I am curious as to his and others reply. My simple theory is this - if radio stations want to offer a balanced approach...let them. BUT it's a business and if putting Alan Colmes on the air will cause them to lose revenue in the name of "fairness"...who benefits from this?
It's called the off button. If you dont want to listen to it...turn it off. This is why I dont put MSNBC on my TV.
The Pajama Pundit - Founder/Editor
9 comments:
I think there is some context missing. If the government is forcing a station to put Franken on the air so he can go back to his day job (commedian) than they are crossing the line. No station should be forced to broadcast shows they don't want to any more than I should be forced to watch Bill O'.
If however it has something to do with the election campaign or the recount there are laws governing equal air time requirements. Which I've never totally understood, because it seems like only the Republicans and Democrats get offered equal time (even if they don't always accept) while all the third party candidates get nothing. I've always believed that debates should all ways include the third parties.
I, admittedly, don't know enough about this 'Fairness Doctrine' issue. I will reserve judgment on it until I can be further educated.
However, I will say that -- if Diddy's context is accurate -- at first brush it sounds completely stupid.
My view is this: if you don't like something, you turn it off. This has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or the free market -- it has EVERYTHING to do with the First Amendment. I believe that the ONLY purpose for an organization like the FCC (as it relates to content in broadcast) is to categorize programming so that viewers can make informed decisions (i.e. this show is too obscene for my kids).
The idea that the government can tell you what you can or cannot watch and listen to incenses me. I believe that networks should be allowed to broadcast porn... if the choose to.
I know, I know -- this opens up another realm of debate, but the bottom line here -- in reference to Diddy's post -- is that the government should not dictate what networks, cable stations, radio stations, etc... are programming. Period.
And, for the record, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Obama administration would enact some kind of limitation on broadcasting. I saw Sean Hannity griping about losing his job 'if Obama becomes president'. My guess is that Fox News is not going to let someone like Hannity get fired.
In addition, I would bet that Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al are secretly rejoicing because an Obama presidency gives them fodder for their shows for at least another four years.
Wow, I'm rambling a lot today...
I think there is a good arguement to reinstate the fairness doctrine to NPR stations (with a stipulation that if it is imposed, the stations are better funded as well), but I believe it is fair for privately owned stations to pick and choose their own content.
We shouldn't force broadcasts of Air America, Limbaugh or anyone for that matter.
Just like we shouldn't force Comedy Central to air "The Half Hour News Hour" to even out "The Daily Show".
Wikipedia tells me Obama is on record saying he won't support the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, if that's any food for thought.
From what I understand, the Fairness Doctrine used to be an FCC regulation, but was dropped in 1987. I think that is what Vast is remembering about equal time. It is not required any more, although most major networks do offer it. Pelosi and Reid are on record as wanting to bring it back, but as legislation rather than FCC rule. So, RA, even if Obama doesn't support it, the question is will he veto it if the other Democrat leaders support it? Since it seems to be clearly against the First Amendment, I hope we don't have to find out.
I dont know who this cubbiechuck person is...but I like their appearance on this blog!
Thanks Diddy.
I'm just a libertarian-type southern boy from the Memphis area. There's really not that many of us around here. I found this blog a few weeks ago, and really like the way things can be discussed respectfully.
There is a difference between the equal time rule and the Fairness Doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000315----000-.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
While the equal time rules requires networks to give equal time to opposing candidates running for office the fairness doctrine required networks to give equal time for all sides of controversial issues. It would be like giving equal time between a half hour program against a ban on smoking and a half hour program in favor of a ban on smoking.
Oddly enough the fairness doctrine has been invoked against candidates for public office as well. For example...
"[Goerge] Takei emerged as an influential political force. In 1973 the actor ran for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council and lost by a small margin--during his campaign, his oppenents insisted that, per the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, they be allowed equal television time when Takei's "Star Trek" episodes aired--in a single episode Takei was on air for 17 minutes, prompting each of his 14 opponents to claim equal time--the local station airing "Trek" reruns ultimately had to dedicate an entire evening to airing the other candidates was prompted to shelve all episodes featuring Sulu for the duration of the race (thus depriving Takei of his residual income)."
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800023561/bio
I can't see Obama letting something like that go through regardless of Reid and Pelosi's wishes. He isn't their puppet, as has been suggested in some of the cable "news" shows. Personally I'd love to see Hannity and Bill O' loose their jobs at Fox but that's just a personal day dream and I would have serious issues with any administration that attempted to tell a network they had to get rid of someone or be forced to air something that they didn't want to.
However, one thing to remember though, the networks don't own the air waves. They lease them through their licenses from the government, so technically the people own the airwaves, and as such I really do believe that networks should give equal and free air time to all political candidates during elections. It would really cut out a big chunk of the need for the nearly billion dollars the last election cycle cost.
Diddy, I agree with your general assertion. Stations, programs, viewpoints, etc., should be able to rise or fall on their own merits.
Like others, I was not overly familiar with the term "Fariness Doctrine" when I first read this post. But after reading these comments, researching on the ever-true Wikipedia ;) and recalling some points from memory, I, amazingly, have something to say about this topic.
I'm taking a cautious, dare I say, conservative, approach to this issue. I don't think there needs to be an immediate revert to the pre-1987 law.
That said, I do think it is worth reviewing the necessity for FD law. Since '87, communication conglomerates have been allowed to consolidate stations and have larger market shares in regions (think ClearChannel). Also, stations that receive federal funding are far and few between (think NPR/PBS/Armed Forces Network). This limited access to diverse station formats/holders can reduce the viewpoints heard by an audience.
The old FD law had, I believe, a scope of only limited bandwith areas (think network TV v. cable TV, which still have different regulations). The pro-FD argument can best be summarized by Justice Byron White, "It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
The middle ground is sustained when the viewer has ample access to different viewpoints and accurate information. If the viewer's access is limited by government funding, corporate monopoly/collusion, or other means then I do believe there is a need for a regulation like the FD.
I would say that in the current environment that we are still in the middle ground area and there is not a current need to reinstate the FD. However, I think that many people see the proverbial pendulum swinging dangerously close to the edge of the middle ground, thus the renewed talk of this legislation. Obama is on record, as pointed out by CC, that there is not a need to reinstate the FD legislation.
The rumors that there will be a big push from Obama (or any influential Dem) to bring back the Fairness Doctrine are just that - rumors.
Quite frankly, it's just not going to happen. This article breaks it down pretty well:
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/the-paranoia-of-the-right-redux.html
Post a Comment