According to a recent poll done by Rassumessen, nearly 47% of Americans seem to support some version of the Fairness Doctrine. I am shocked that almost half the country feels that it is fine for the government to regulate Free Speech. My guess is that if folks actually understood what was being proposed, we would see that number drop dramatically.
For those too young to remember, The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.
The new version would be specifically targeted at talk radio, and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levine. The Democrats are unhappy that talk radio is dominated by Conservative shows, without a balanced number of Liberal shows. Radio stations argue that they cannot generate ad revenue with Liberal shows, that they just are not popular with their audience. Apparently, however, they are conformable with the Liberal TV news media (ABC, NBC, and CBS). They are only suggesting that radio should be regulated, for now.
Having the government regulate the content and views of radio stations seems like a step backwards in terms of free speech. If a station had a guest on talking about the importance of good child nutrition and the dangers of child obesity, would they than have to also have a guest that advocated McDonald’s? Who makes the decision on what is “honest, equitable, and balanced”? Nancy Pelosi or George Bush?
Do you think the Fairness Doctrine an infringement of Free Speech?
| 4.1 (4 people) |
18 Comments
You know, I think it may be the title. “Fairness Doctrine” sounds so . . fair. Maybe if it were actually called the “Equal Time for All Parties” Doctrine or something like that it might be easier to debate and its negative and positive features.
Patricias last blog post..A Teacher Talks About Student Cheating
I’ve been mistaken for years. I thought the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to be a watchdog over the gatekeepers of news, to prevent slants and reduce the influence of the media owner’s favoritism — ? I wasn’t aware that it dictated content.
While my blood pressure has been raised many times by at least one of these radio talk show hosts, censoring them is not the answer. This would definitely be an infringement on Free Speech and I say Let freedom ring!
surviving the circuss last blog post..Exquisite Corpse Poetry Game
I have learned that the liberals only want fairness when it doesn’t apply yo them. As far as they are concerned, its OK to dictate to the rest of the country..
The liberals are questioning why consertative talk radio is so popular… maybe its because people don’t want to hear their liberal crap.
Mar Matthias Darins last blog post..EC Giveaway back in action!
I see no conflict between supporting free speech and the fairness doctrine, at least the original definition of it.
As you note, “nearly 47% of Americans seem to support some version of the Fairness Doctrine”
I certainly do. I don’t support a version that limits people’s speech. Instead, I support the requirement that “the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced”
Are you opposed to honesty or equitable or balanced reporting?
In particular, this requirement was for broadcasters licensed to use the public airwaves.
Yes, I believe that the use of public spaces, whether it is government owned land, or airwaves, in which the government acts as a trustee for all of us, needs to be fair and balanced. I don’t believe that the government should play favorites and give unfair advantage to one group over another in the use of public spaces.
Aldon @ Orient Lodges last blog post..Help Send Bloggers to Denver
Aldon - So does that mean you would require ABC, NBC, and CBS to be “honest, equitable, and balanced” as well? Who decides what is honest, equitable, and balanced?
Mar - I think you are right, although I listen to both conservative and liberal talk radio.
Circus - I like the free market system as well. If there were NO choices on the airwaves, I would buy Aldon’s arguement a lot more.
Prodromus, to the extent that ABC, NBC, and CBS use the public airwaves, they absolutely should “present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.”
As to who decides what is honest, equitable and balanced, there isn’t a great answer. I would suggest that the FCC with the courts as a course of appeal, similar to what is done for decency is the best possible course. It may not be a great choice, but it is sort of like democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Personally, I would love to see a true free market system, if I believed that it was truly free. However, given that FCC auctions are competing for a limited resource that should be used for the good of the nation, I worry that our current system, with extensive media consolidation is very far from a true free market system, and is, instead, run by large corporations, acting in concert, with practices very similar to monolopies.
Personally, I don’t view the choice between ABC, NBC or CBS as being a real choice. They are too much of the same thing.
As a final point, I applaud you for listening to both conservative and liberal talk radio. We need more “honest, equitable, and balanced” debate about “controversial issues of public importance” and too often, it seems like people on both the left and the right are too willing to listen to just people that support their own views.
Aldon @ Orient Lodges last blog post..Help Send Bloggers to Denver
Hi - I’m a visitor from EntreCard. I enjoyed your blog post and I absolutely do believe that the Fairness Doctrine is an Infringement of Free Speech. Keep up the good work!
Tiffanys last blog post..When You See a Guy…
Absolutely it is! If you look at the Rassmussen poll - it also indicates that 31% think the FD should also be applied to the Internet that would effectively shut down all the bloggers as well. My understanding is Congress is also trying to tie the Internet in to this new FD package as well.
BTW - I posted up on this same subject last night over at another blog that I am an author on. Great minds think alike!
The BoBos last blog post..“What is the difference between liberals and conservatives?”
The Fairness Doctrine is nonsense and, as you have pointed out, it is anything but fair and equitable. Interestingly enough, the mainstream media can sit back and fawn over Obama and no one says “boo” about it.
But those mean old talk radio folks spouting a conservative agenda? Heaven forbid!
The point, of course, is that the fairness doctrine has never been applied equally and it never will be. It’s best to let the First Amendment do what it was designed to do — protect free speech from government regulation.
The Hawgs last blog post..Show some respect
It is absolutely an infringement on free speech.
AND the time that’s been spent trying to control our communications and dictate our speech should be spent on solving our energy crises.
Aldon, you said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. I think you could use that same logic when explaining free markets, and free speech.
Having the government get in the middle of who or what we can hear on the public air waves will only make the situation worse, not better.
If there was strong bipartisan agreement, I might feel differently, but overwhelmingly this is being pushed by the liberal media and politicians who feel frustrated that conservative listeners now have a place to hear their views, and that they no longer control.
Tiffany - Thanks for visiting, please stop by again.
Bobo - Great minds indeed!
Hawg - Spoken like a true red-blooded American. Love it or leave it!
Viveca - Ah, that hits home for me. While we spend endless time arguing the little stuff, major issues like Energy Independence are ignored, or worse, stifled by pandering politicians like Nancy Pelosi.
Prodromus - If the government were not already in the middle of who gets to be on the public airwaves, I would probably agree with you. However, as it stands, the government is already there. You need to get a license to run a radio or television station from the government. Most cable networks are currently regulated by state departments of public utilities. I am not sure that the FCC or the DPUCs are doing a good job of making sure that the public airwaves, as well as cable right of ways are currently being used as much as they should be in the public interest.
As to the concern about the need for strong bipartisan agreement, I tend to agree with you on that. There is way too much us-them thinking in U.S. politics currently, in my humble opinion.
One of the problems of the current media policies is that it seems to increase, instead of decrease the us-them partisan politics and inhibits the ability of all Americans to work together for the common good of our country.
aldon @ orient lodges last blog post..Social Media Map
The problem with that argument is that you could use it to justify all the over-regulation by the government. They are already doing it, so why not some more. I would prefer that we look at the consequences of any actions, and heaven-forbid, if it treads on our constitutional rights.
But, I totally agree that we are becoming a more divided nation. My personal belief is that a lot of that is due to the two-party system we currently have. We need a strong 3rd or 4th party to really spark new ideas and force our government into action. Hmm, that might be a good topic for a blog post.
… and the problem with your argument is that it could be used to justify all kinds of inaction to make things better. There is a problem, but trying to fix the problem might make things worse, so let’s not try to fix it.
As to 3rd and 4th party, I would love to see your post on that. To what extent do you believe that other forms of elections, such as instant run off voting, Proportional voting, and other voting systems would improve the system?
To what extent would changing voting registration so people could register with multiple parties improve the system?
To what extent do you think fusion voting would improve the situation?
I don’t want to fall into the fallacy that we should have even more regulation of the voting system, or that it is broken, but any fixes might make it worse.
The problem I see is that any changes to enable 3rd or 4th parties would most likely have to be approved by people elected in a two party system who have a vested interest in keeping the two party system intact.
aldon @ orient lodges last blog post..Social Media Map – What does it mean?
P.S. I would like to thank you for engaging in an interesting and serious discussion about the issues. It has been very enjoyable.
aldon @ orient lodges last blog post..Social Media Map – What does it mean?
I did not make that argument however
Thanks for your thoughts on alternative parties, I will respond to your questions in a future blog post, hopefully next week.
And, I too appreciate the discussion, thanks for your participation.
Post a Comment