The Fairness Doctrine; then and now

[Lorien]

News reporting today:

"Some say that the so called Fairness Doctrine created a police state that curtailed our first amendment rights to free speech"

News reporting when the Fairness Doctrine was enforced:

"Republicans say that the Fairness doctrine curtails free speech, while Democrats maintain that the Fairness Doctrine is needed to restore balance to opinion in the mainstream media, where conservative voices dominate the airwaves. John Doe from the independent non partisan think tank says " our research into this issue does indicate that there has been a substantial narrowing of opinion in the mainstream media since President Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Conservative opinions on the issues are now voiced nine times as often as more left leaning opinions on both network and cable outlets. The voice of the left is nearly nonexistent on talk radio in most markets, with left wing commentators making up less than 10% of the market share. It is possible that by limiting the Left's access to the media the Right has profited politically over the past 22 years".

Another difference between then and now; political opinion was labeled as such. If Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann read a news story about a woman giving birth to eight children nothing would change. If either went into a tirade about how irresponsible the mother was the word "opinion" or "editorial" would appear somewhere on the screen. Back in 1949 the FCC did understand that television and radio were powerful mediums that do have the capability helping to form public opinion. The fairness doctrine was enacted to ensure that these forms of communication would not become propaganda tools for a single party or group. The FCC understood that it was important to differentiate between FACT and OPINION. Most news programming was broken into two segments; the FACTUAL reporting (see the sample, above) which attempted to present as many sides of a story as possible, as factually as possible, and the EDITORIAL segment; usually at the end of the news hour in which different commentators were given a few minutes to voice their views on a news item while the word "opinion" or "editorial" was left on the screen (usually below the commentator or in the upper right hand side of the screen). This reminded viewers that they were watching a biased take on the news-something that would not even occur to most self proclaimed "dittoheads" today.

Many here maintain that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is not needed as long as media monopolies are broken up. While most would agree that monopolies have caused us harm, it is also important to remember that corporations have historically not done a very good job of policing themselves. Witness the current economic crisis; many different banking institutions of all sizes were involved, and they all engaged in questionable practices because that's simply how business was being done. Bottom line; they could get away with it. Corporate entities will always align themselves with political parties or candidates who will promise deregulation, union busting, lack of environmental oversight and the like, so they cannot be expected to give fair and equal time to those who do not promote their corporations agenda. Like banks, the media requires a bit of oversight. Had it not been for that oversight during the Vietnam war it's hard to say how much longer the war would have dragged on; pressure from the public put an end to the madness. Had the Fairness Doctrine existed during the build up to the iraq invasion would it have been allowed to proceed? Voices were raised against it here and around the world, but were they heard by mainstream Americans? If not, do we still have free speech, or are we all relegated to "free speech zones" where only our neighbors can hear us? The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine muzzled those who would speak against corporate interests, and the results of this censorship has been devastating.

[fascisthunter]

1. corporate media is not free, therefore "Free Speech" doesn't really apply

...everything in corporate media is controlled, therefore there is no freedom of speech. When people insist the Fairness Doctrine stifles Free Speech I tend to believe one of two things...

1) the person listens to corporate media way too much

2) the person is a right winger who hopes to persuade others not to push for the Fairness Doctrine or something similar, because as you highlighted, conservatives and their ideology is most of which we hear and see in corporate media.

[Lorien]

3. One can bet that Rush Limbaugh would back the Fairness Doctrine 100%

if there were no other like minded "pundits" on the airwaves. They know they've got a good thing going now, and Reagan knew exactly what he was doing when he abolished it.

[AndyA]

2. There must be accountability and responsibility for what is reported.

And that absolutely does not happen now.

When Rush says he hopes Obama fails, he should be held accountable for that comment. By stating such a ridiculous thing, he's dooming the American people to years of unemployment, lack of health care, etc. Why Rush hasn't been taken to task over that remark is beyond me.

I don't want to see an opposing opinion snuffed out; I want to see responsibility when people make remarks like that. I want to see them held accountable for what they say.

That will stop Rush from saying many of the egregious things he says.

That will make Ann Coulter think twice before suggesting that a Supreme Court Justice be poisoned.

Dr. Laura will be held liable for any problems caused by encouraging her listeners to jam Democratic voter help lines on election day.

Remarks like that should not be tolerated in the name of free speech. It's not about shutting them up, it's about making people own up to what they say, and being held accountable for their comments, especially when those remarks impact the opinions of millions of others.

When is it factual and when is it editorial? Most today wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and THAT is what must change.

[Lorien]

6. I would LOVE to see the word "Opinion" or "Editorial" under Rush's bloated

head, or a voice over stating "The following is political commentary and does not reflect the views of this station..." the way things once were done. Kind of hard for O'Reilly and Coulter to make "factual" statements that aren't and be taken seriously while the "opinion" banner sits beside them. They've made entire careers spreading outright lies and disinformation-and few people with any sort of authority call them on it! It's time that it ends. I agree; let's hold them accountable!

[KharmaTrain]

9. The Fairness Doctrine Never Would Have Done Such A Thing

The issue isn't fairness its access. It's one thing for a Rushbo to scream his vile over 600 radio stations and an Ed Schultz or Mike Malloy who is on a fraction of that number. Guess whose voice is louder. And that's the game here. The right wing knows it can make the noise and does..it's a little thing called freedom of speech and while we may not agree with it...and it is a pile of lies and bullshit, it's still protected by the constitution. Sadly, one can't legislate against stupidity and that's a majority of what hate radio spews.

When you claim fairness...then who has the right to respond? One person or everyone whose offended? And then does the other person get to rebutal the rebutal. What your concept of fairness may not be the same as mine or anyone else. Thus the term is vague at best and a stalking horse at the worst. Many right wingers want their own "fairness doctrine" that would force hate stations never to change format no matter how bad their ratings or even if the station is sold to another owner. Again...the game here is access.

The original Fairness Doctrine only applied to Public Affairs shows...that are no longer mandated by the FCC and to ensure all political candidate could purchase advertising time at the lowest rate...preventing a station from favoring a candidate or trying to screw all the candidates with high advertising rates. It never had anything to do with a show like Rushbo or Dr. Laura...those are considered "entertainment".

[Lorien]

10. Umm, no-the original Fairness Doctrine applied to everything on the airwaves

because the public owns ALL the airwaves. The media owners have a lease to use a portion of the airwaves, which can be revoked by the FCC at the end of the leasing cycle. The Fairness Doctrine did exactly as I described; it labeled opinion as opinion and required all news agencies to give both sides of an issue equal time while remaining as objective in the reporting of a story as possible.You are confusing the Fairness Doctrine with the equal time rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

[KharmaTrain]

11. Wrong...

I worked with the Fairness Doctrine...part of my job for four years was compliance. The doctrine is what I stated above, it had NO affect on talk programming that was considered "entertainment". It applied to public affairs programming that was mandated in those days and commercial advertising. It didn't cover news, either.

I don't know where you've come up with this dream Fairness doctrine. There never was any strict or fast rule as to what "fairness" was...it was discretionary to the station. For example, we would interview candidates for public office and made certain each candidate on the balot (certified by the county clerk) was sent a certified letter about appearing. That was the limit to our "fairness"...and then we had plenty of candidates who wouldn't respond to these letters until the last moment...trying to get on the air the day or so before the election claiming "equal time" over something someone had said weeks earlier. The last thing this rule was giving was "fairness".

The Fairness Doctrine was unwieldy and broadcasters universally were glad to see it go.

Also, the licensing rules of those days are a lot different than now. Thanks to Telcom '96, the large coporates DO all but own the public airwaves. I can't remember the last time a station's license was revoked...especially one that belonged to a large corporate. The FCC became a wholy-owned subsidiary of the National Association of Broadcasters who wanted more "deregulation". It led to the large corporates dominating those airwaves, eliminating both local programming and access...and with it the grassroots political discussions and avenues for the free flow of information that once existed.

[MisterP]

4. the "let the market decide" arguments, even without Murdochesque monopolization of media,

would still restrict the air to "successful" and popular voices, meaning that profitability and commercialism would determine who got on the air, and would ensure that unpopular voices and ideas would be quashed (though there are, of course, many who assume that unpopular ideas shouldn't be heard)

[Lorien]

5. In places like Columbus, Ohio Air America was very popular

and profitable, but it was still taken off the air by station owners and replaced with conservative talk and sports. If given the choice between a profitable conservative program and an equally profitable liberal program, a station owner is obviously going to choose the one that promotes ideas that directly benefit him or her (such as tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of lower income workers).

On the other hand, Bill Moyers will always be less popular then say, "Extreme makeover: home edition", but that doesn't mean that there isn't a market for his show. His Journal will never make it to network TV (even a Sunday morning show) because he challenges the status quo and the corporate elite far too often for their comfort-that, and he's not trashy enough for prime time network TV!

[depakid]

7. A textbook example of market failure

Which is why it's so astonishing to se DU'ers arguing for "free" market solutions in this situation.

It's as if they;ve neither taken a basic economics class- or more likely, never spent much time in other countries and so don't have a clue what responsible media looks like.

[Lorien]

8. And most are far too young to remember the media before the late 1980s

they never have heard news stories that were presented in a way that allowed them to digest both sides of an issue then make up their own minds on the matter. We are now simply given sound bites that are framed in such a way that one can only easily come to one conclusion. It's a great way to control a society, but it certainly isn't a democratic one.

[LDB]

12. Hits the Nail

Right on the head. Control of information -- not access to information, but rather the information itself, is the elemental control of a society. Hitler knew it, Stalin knew it, and Cheney, Rove, and the whole crew of glad-they're-gones sure knew it. Information itself is at once tenuous and tangible. Remember too that in this country there was once a necessity to formulate and sign into law a thing called the "Freedom of Information Act". The pop-culture quote says, "the truth is out there" -- but today, it's not heard, seen, read, viewed, or otherwise known by millions because their sources are adulterated. Entertainment shows are taken as News and News broadcasts are made into entertainment designed to appeal to a seven second attention span. People should be indignant about losing their right to have information itself, otherwise the entire broadcast spectrum (not to mention the pablum of so much supermarket print-medium) is the "vast wasteland" that E.R. Murrow said it was.

Just my 2-cents.