Over the last years, I and others have lamented the fact the Fairness Doctrine was no longer in effect. Had it not been eliminated the thinking goes, FOX would never have been able to become the Trump/Republican mouthpiece that it has. (In my opinion, FOX has now actually inverted the old trope of 'state-controlled media" - they’ve made it into media-controlled state.)
Political barbs aside, is this really a well founded belief? Even with the Fairness Doctrine in place, couldn’t FOX, or any other media corporation, still have done much the same thing (although, perhaps, in a less inflammatory/militant way)? Seems to me that whatever the ‘rules’ were supposed to be, they could have, and would have been gamed by a network like FOX.
Were there even teeth to enforce the doctrine? And in whose mouth were they supposed to be - politicians, civil servants, political appointees?
Fox News is a cable TV network. Only over-the-air stations were, or could be, required to follow the Fairness Doctrine. (Cable TV networks, like newspapers, aren’t licensed in the U.S.)
Under what authority? The reason broadcast stations had to be licensed (and thus something like the Fairness Doctrine applied) is they use the electromagnetic spectrum, and multiple acts of Congress and legal decisions have decided it is under federal authority to regulate that spectrum. Cable networks have never used it; what legal authority can Congress use in that case?
The justification for the Fairness Doctrine, as installLSC pointed out, simply doesn’t exist with cable television. You might as well argue that the Fairness Doctrine should apply to the New York Times, book publishers, and the Internet.
Years before the Fox News Channel even existed, televangelist and failed Presidential candidate had perfected bombastic right-wing propaganda with his CBN cable channel and its flagship program, The 700 Club.
This Fairness Doctrine is likelier to backfire on the left than the right.
The right only has one major news network, Fox.
The left has CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc.
If you invoke the Fairness Doctrine, then only one right-leaning network has to present left-leaning perspectives, but a whole lot of left-leaning networks now have to present right-leaning perspectives on an issue as well. The net overall result would be a cumulative boon to conservatives.
My politics are left of center but I’m tired of my side wanting the fairness doctrine reinstated. There might have be a reason for it back in the day where there was only one or two broadcast tv stations in a small town.
It belongs in a history book
First of all, “fairness” is a null word. It has no objective meaning. One man’s fairness is another man’s oppression. For example, what is a “fair” tax system? Equal dollars from everyone? Equal percentage from everyone? Graduated percentages? There is no objective answer.
Second of all, government mandated fairness is the most preposterous and contradictory concept I can imagine. It’s like a fox mandating what is fair for a henhouse.
No, the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t need to push left-wing or right-wing anything. The idea is about news, not about political opinion. All that requires is a neutral statement of facts.
You want to have political shows? Fine. You just can’t call them news. And no funny business where you try to mimic the visual language of news. Make it clear that you are presenting an opinion show. I’ve seen it done unambiguously–check out Beau of the Fifth Column. His content is not remotely possible to mistake for news.
Yes, everything is political. But not everything needs to be political opinion. News delivered neutrally may sometimes feel like it neuters some aspects, but at least then it’s clearly news.
I always liked that graph that did Left to Right of politicians on a linear scale but Lenin was right of center and everyone left of center was a crazier and crazier philosopher until you started getting pure anarchists who believes all of society bigger than a family unit should be abolished.
“Facts” as presented by popular news sources have never been anything remotely like “neutral”. Fox is merely more egregious about it than other major networks.
There was always a major hole in the Fairness Doctrine, in that “contrasting viewpoints” were supposed to be presented but there was no compulsion to give them equal time or real enforcement.
It’s too bad none of the networks have the guts to run editorials laying out where they stand. Instead, their positions are insinuated (with varying degrees of blatant obviousness) into their news coverage.
There’s limited electromagnetic spectrum, which means it’s somewhat reasonable to enforce that the limited users of it not be totally one-sided. If you can only get your news by radio and broadcast TV, there’s a reasonable argument that you ought to be able to get news that’s not totally slanted.
But there’s no limit to the number of newspapers you can deliver, the number of cable channels that can be created, or the number of websites that can be created. There’s no good argument for controlling speech on other platforms.
Fox News is horrible. Giving the government power to force people to say what the government thinks is “fair” is worse. I mean, come on. Look at who’s in control of the government! You think they’d censor Fox News, or someone else?
Those commercial networks are run by capitalist corporations; their purpose is to grab eyeballs to sell to advertisers. Follow the money. Fewer eyeballs are grabbed by right wing media sources because fewer Americans are right-wingers. That’s why GOPs can’t win free and fair elections - they’re detested by most Americans and only survive politically by gerrymandering and voter suppression.
By your logic, capitalists are leftists. Try again.
I like non-commercial non-religious media. When younger and in the area, I listened to KPFK, listener-supported Pacifica radio in Los Angeles. The old Fairness Doctrine was in effect then but KPFA went far beyond it, with regular daytime shows by mainstream Dems and GOPs; John Birchers, Minutemen, and American Nazis; various breeds of anarchists, socialists, and commies; and assorted religions and loons IIRC. If you had a political group, you could get an hour a week. Single-viewpoint media get boring.
It wasn’t needed last time around, and statutes already regulate speech in many ways. There are no absolute rights. See if your freedom of speech includes issuing explicit death threats in print or tweets or podcasts. Even if you think the FCC should be limited to regulating wireless broadcasts (and it isn’t), any signal from a satellite is a broadcast (not point-to-point) and thus subject to FCC content enforcement.
The broadcast spectrum is limited resource, of which the US gets a share, by international treaty. You must be licensed, to be proportioned a share. Your license stipulates usage and restrictions, including compliance with the fairness doctrine. Violate the terms, and your license can be revoked. The FCC is a jury that judges whether a licensee is in compliance. You don’t need a license if not using the broadcast spectrum.
Note that satellite signals occupy “broadcast spectrum”. Anything beamed down is in the FCC’s bailiwick.
The FCC is mandated to regulate all wired and wireless communications as I cited upthread. Just how regulation occurs is a statutory matter, and laws are changed. A future US Congress could easily grant FCC authority over ANY electric communication. Signal flags, smoke signals, carrier pigeons, and tin-can phones likely are exempt.
