The Needless Doctrine
By Staff -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/28/2007 7:00:00 PM
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) always has positioned himself as the people's politician, and that's how he'll sell himself for 2008 as he embarks on his second bid to win the Democratic nomination for president.
Luckily for him, though not for defenders of the First Amendment, Kucinich, as the new head of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee in the Democratic Congress, has vowed to hold hearings to revive the fairness doctrine. He says that pulling the plug on the old rule in 1987 allowed merely large media companies to become colossal ones. (Big media controls everything we see, hear and read, but if you don't believe us, there are at least 1,000 Websites that can give you details.)
On the surface, the fairness doctrine sounds, well, fair. While it existed, broadcasters were required to air multiple viewpoints on controversial subjects.
That doesn't sound so alarming, but making it a government regulation inhibited discussion of public affairs. Broadcasters had to represent every point of view or risk sanctions. As a result, station editorials opposed kicking kittens and minced no words urging the city to fix those potholes. Indeed, managers were so careful to be non-controversial that, when it came to real issues, they opted to be—fairly— boring.
It's tricky for us to oppose a rule with such a self-righteous title as the fairness doctrine. But it was a stricture that the printed press has never had to live by. Indeed, it's not a rule an American person has to live by. In our personal lives, we're under no obligation to consider all sides and discuss them with our families or to read even a few pages of books we don't want to read. We can think—and say and write and read—whatever we please.
Yes, broadcasters use public spectrum, but government content control is not a fair price to pay for the privilege. Nor is inhibiting free speech.
Media reformers should know better than to pine for the return of this antique rule, especially at a time when a rather average cable package picks up 100 channels, and the Internet offers tens of thousands of other places to get information.
Everyone who loathes the bile that oozes from some talk hosts is convinced that reviving the fairness doctrine would stem that flow. Rush Limbaugh calls the fairness doctrine "the Hush Rush Law."
But softening TV and radio is not a good thing, no matter how much you disagree with the politics or collective sense of decency of some notorious ranters.
We would prefer the people take the responsibility to reward the voices they find enlightening and turn back the ones they find repugnant. Big media is only as big as the public's taste lets it be.
-
Fairness Doctrine??
First of all the name is wrong .... it would be proper to call it what it was and is: "Censorship Doctrine"! It would allow the government to stifle discussion on issues that can put their actions in a bad light before the public.
Those who believe in and understand free speech will equate such a doctrine with policies of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Adolf Hitler .... not to mention the former Soviet Union and the present policy of China in inhibiting free speech on the internet. There are countless outless available for the presentation of opposing views to every issue under the sun today. It remains the decision of each individual as to where they choose to spend their time listening, reading or watching.
Politicians have demonstrated they are woefully incapable of objective critique, and it is they who would ultimately determine compliance of so-called fairness within the media. Make no mistake - the goal and the outcome are one - "censorship".
Richard C. Dean - 1/30/2007 1:50:00 PM EST -
While I understand the "fear/challenges" of having to do a real job of providing balanced reporting/programming, I challenge all of us broadcasters to step up and overcome. We get the spectrum for FREE!!!! This may require all of us who battle sales departments and subsidized news gathering to check some of the reality with some of the ideology of what a free press means. I'm appalled with the idea that we should "reward the voices they find enlightening and turn back the ones they find repugnant." The whole point of free speech is to provide both extreme points of view, and through discourse, find the middle of the extremes (it is usually where the truth lies).
DShulkin - 1/30/2007 1:30:00 PM EST -
How regrettable that you were unable to find actual experienced broadcasters (unafraid to print their own names) for this article. Clearly none this staff has ever been in broadcasting and worked under the ‘Fairness Doctrine’. Yes big corporate stations looked for softball editorials, however the average station did not. Yes, news and talk show people had to work much harder to present all views and actually know what they were talking about (clearly not a requirement or a benchmark any longer). However, the audience could always be assured of the truth and accuracy of what they were hearing.
And I remind you that the difference between a street-fight and the Super Bowl…is the rules of the NFL.
In the future, try having seasoned broadcasters (with actual names) write some articles instead of a nameless staff who themselves have no such experience. Reading your article is like having Dick Cheney describe what it’s like to be in a war (five deferments...and 'full half glass'later).
Brent Seltzer - 1/30/2007 12:37:00 PM EST
No related content found.
