The Fairness Doctrine: Coming To A Radio Station Near You?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, Law, MediaFor those who don’t know what it is, go here. Personally, I’m strongly against it because I think the marketplace should determine the content we hear, not a doctrine devised by politicians, pundits and lobbyists.
Still, it seems like the country is evenly split on this issue, at least according to a new Rasmussen Poll:
Americans are evenly divided as to whether or not the government should “require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary.� The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% favor that proposal and 41% are opposed.The concept, known as the “Fairness Doctrine� in legislative circles, has been gaining ground on Capitol Hill ever since public opposition forced the Senate to back down on the immigration issue. The news has not attracted a lot of public interest�just 16% say they’re following stories about the Fairness Doctrine Very Closely while another 21% say they’ve been following it Somewhat Closely.
A large segment of the public would like to extend the concept of the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet as well. Thirty-four percent (34%) believe the government should “require web sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints.� Fifty percent (50%) are opposed.
Extend it to the internet? Heh, yeah, okay. Good luck with that.
However, I think it can be argued that the internet and radio are very different animals because one requires a lot of upfront costs to create content and broadcast it, while the other requires some patience, insight and maybe just a touch of web savviness. And since radio programs are broadcast over public airwaves, shouldn’t the content be representative of the public? At least that’s going to be the argument. Again, I don’t agree with it AT ALL.
What’s interesting is that the moderate blogosphere essentially represents the fairness doctrine in action, but without all the messy legislation. But as you can see, the traction here is decent, but nothing like the extremes of the political spectrum. People gravitate towards strong, one-sided opinions. They always have, they always will and no law is going to change that.
This entry was posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 and is filed under General Politics, Law, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Were you to see the “Fairness doctrine” re-imposed I wouldnt’ rule out municipalities that provide wireless service claiming they have the right to “regulate” the internet because of the limited nature of bandwidth.
This is an opening to tyranny for no good reason, except the bruised egos of Democrats.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
The Democrats have an uncanny proposensity to step in big piles of dog shit and this is one. Nothing will activate/mobilize/re-energize the Republican base like an assault on its home — which the Fairness Doctrine does.
It will never happen…but lets assume that it does. The conservative “side” will spend half of its time demeaning the “affirmative action” “side” which can’t compete in the market without government coercion. It would be great.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
If the “Fairness Doctrine” ever had a legitimate rationale – it was based on preventing a monopolistic single perspective dominating a scarce resource (broadcast bandwidth) . That rationale no longer exists. Digital broadcasts transforms a scarce resource into an infinite resource. Competition has created virtually unlimited alternative outlets for communicating political (or any other) perspective. Satellite, internet radio, podcasts – no one is limited by broadcast bandwidth from hearing or seeing any perspective – political or otherwise. I question whether there is even any rationale any longer for an FCC, let alonm the complete nonsense of a “fairness doctrine”.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
And how much does that bandwidth cost to acquire, mw? Have you forgotten that not only must you be able to afford some very expensive equipment but also bid on the bandwidth, a proposition that costs many millions of dollars at the least? You are basically advocating a world where only the wealthy will have a voice. Why? Because the profit motive isn’t quite as pure as libertarians would have it. If someone like the management of Clear Channel or an informal alliance of radio executives wants to make certain that only one message reached large numbers of people they are perfectly capable of doing so in today’s environment and your ideas would only make it easier.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Oh, and as far as the internet being a balance to it did you know that people who oppose the Fairness Doctrine also oppose Net neutrality? Basically, they would leave the power to determine what gets carried without paying a premium price to the backbone owners. Gee, how hard would it be to kill off the little guy if he gets popular enough to consume a fair amount of bandwidth but isn’t a really commercial enterprise and you don’t like him?
July 16th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
These polls are sad proof that a large number of Americans are ignorant of their own Constitution and what it means. We all like words like “fairness” and the idea of hearing both sides of an argument, and we think everybody would agree with something so reasonable. But what many people just don’t get that the government forcing “balance” in the marketplace of ideas is just censorship by another name.
Justice Frankfurter said the answer to speech you disagree with is always MORE SPEECH, NOT LESS.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Chesty, – Well said, and thanks for your service.
“Have you forgotten that not only must you be able to afford some very expensive equipment but also bid on the bandwidth, a proposition that costs many millions of dollars at the least?” -js
Jim, I am not sure what you are advocating but you ought to read Chesty’s comment. Are you saying you have no voice unless you own a radio station? That someone has to pay for your radio station? There is far far more radio bandwidth than there are radio stations to use it. If there is an audience for a station I guarantee someone will build it. The problem with Radio now, is that there is not enough audience to keep the number of stations we have alive. Too many people making free choices and getting music and news and opinion from other sources like ipods and internet and satellite I guess.
BTW, you do understand that if you don’t like what you are listening to you can change the station right? Thats what the little buttons are for. If you don’t like NPR, turn on Rush or vice versa. The most ludicrous element of the “Fairness Doctrine” is that anyone would sit there and listen to an opposing view that they don’t want to hear. Do you really think someone listening to Bill Moyer on NPR is going keep their finger off the button because the Fairness Doctrine says they now have to play a Sean Hannity wannabe? I’d probably break a finger switching channels myself. Good thing I’ve got health insurance.
Perhaps to be really fair we need to expand the concept to a Listener and Watcher Fairness Doctrine, so that the Bill Mahre watchers are legally required to watch an equal amount of Anne Coulter. That would be fair. I know! we’ll install a fairness chip in every radio and TV, then we’ll rate and digitally encode every single show on a right vs. left scale. If you want to watch or listen to a right wing show, then you have to spend an equal amount of time with a left wing show or else the radio/TV will turn itself off. Now That would be really fair!
July 17th, 2007 at 1:09 am
WHile I haven’t really followed the story or the details of the proposed legislation, they way it is presented here offers a couple big problems. One is who determines what is a “conservative” or a “liberal” viewpoint; there are so many areas where it is impossible to determine one viewpoint or one individual’s viewpoint as strictly liberal or conservative. Would that just lead to less moderation in all political viewpoints expressed, or perhaps to attempts at eliminating the expression of liberal or conservative views in order to just get away from the hassle of dealing with the fairness doctrine? Also, I see the idea of a fairness doctrine as reifying current standards of “conservatie” and “liberal.” What do you do when public opinion as a whole shifts to the left or the right? Can the fairness doctrine and associated regulatory framework cope? Will we stymie the natural changing of public opinion–not just in terms of general liberal or conservativeness, but even on specific issues–by defining “conservative” and “liberal” positions and mandating that each be given equal air time in any type of mass media?
July 18th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Do you have any idea at all of what it takes to actually start a station and acquire a license? Are you aware of how rapidly the radio business is being consolidated in a relatively few hands?
The good old “The free market always works and can never be manipulated.” argument. It’s a loser every time.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I repeat my previous question – Do you understand what the little buttons under your radio are for?
July 19th, 2007 at 9:55 am
“Do you understand what the little buttons under your radio are for?” I guess those little buttons represent the “market” that Jim’s friends can’t compete in. Stephen Green, I hope you are prepared to LOSE YOUR ASS.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:44 am
I found this article in the economist on the subject interesting:
An interesting observation there – Liberal radio stations cannot make because their audience is siphoned away be a government subsidized national broadcast. Kind of ironic …. no?
July 20th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D) from NY advocates using the fairness doctrine in order to force television networks to broadcast holocaust denial documentaries.