Of course, opposition to the Fairness Doctrine is just a thinly disguised attempt to see that Republican/conservative viewpoints dominate in the media. Big money controls the media, and big money is conservative and Republican, for the most part. It’s a huge advantage for them.
After all, which medium is the most liberal? The Internet? Why? Because it’s the only venue where money doesn’t totally control access.
You can’t be booed off the stage if there’s nobody at the concert. If your record sales drop it’s because people don’t want to buy them. The same thing happens to performers who put out records that aren’t very good, or are different from what fans want. Are you telling us that fairness would dictate what every CD owner must buy? That it would dictate that certain groups should be protected from drops in popularity? Or are you saying that noone should have reported what Natalie said? If you offend your fans or forget who they are you will lose them. Fact of life and no way to change that. Strangely enough, I don’t remember anyone from either of the country stations I listen to calling me to tell me I had to dispose of any Chicks albums I own. (Not that I own any, I don’t think they’re all that good.) And I do recall seeing their video almost immediately on CMT when the new album came out. (Stinks, that video.) Market forces at work, I guess. People were buying it, the station played it.
However, that was never true during your golden age of the Fairness Doctrine. The only points of view that got past the “Fairness” filter were those of the Democrats and Republicans–and most of that was watered down to avoid offending the more strident members of those parties. I do not recall any “responses” to State of the Union addresses or similar events from the BlackPanthers, the Communists, the John Birch Society, the Worker’s Party, the NRA, or the KKK during the years the Fairness Doctrine was in place.
Yeh I see that they were given a lot of heat and lost some money.
My memory is not identical but similar. The stress was on the 2 party system ,but I do remember occasionally a 3rd or 4th party getting aired. I think I saw Angela Davis giving her view and Zoltan Ferrency getting time. Cetainly not equal time though.
Except Gonzo, what does that have to do with the “fairness doctrine”?
You’ve proven the obvious, that, yes, the Dixie Chicks did indeed suffer a backlash over their political remarks. And what does that have to do with the topic under discussion?
Ferency was a Democrat for most of his career. I would be curious what venue you saw either of them broadcast, however. Were they put on the air at the end of the newscast to respond to an editorial opinion broadcast from the same station? Or did they get air time when they happened to be in town and made a speech or called a press conference to address a specific issue.
I certainly do not recall such people being given a response opportunity when a network or local broadcaster aired an editorial under the Fairness Doctrine rules. On the other hand, I can recall various Democrats or Republican being given exactly that opportunity.
I have no problem with people objecting to their politics and not buying their music. I do not accept corporations owning large groups of stations banning their songs from the publically owned airwaves They are licensed to use the airwaves. They do not own them.
So the goverment should have the power to order Clear Channel to play the Dixie Chicks? Uh huh.
Exactly how would you imagine this would happen? Dixie Chicks disparage the President, fans object, Clear Channel stops playing the Dixie Chicks, then the presidentially appointed head of the FCC does—what exactly?
http://mediamatters.org/sundayshowreport/
If you want a huge amount of Republican representation on important talk ,look no farther that Sundays important shows. Many times I see Repubs guests on all the shows at the same time.
Wow! Simply Wow! Please tell me, what exactly makes Limbaugh “Junk foood for the mind”? What makes him so dangerous that you actually think he should be kicked off the airwaves? What are the objective standards you have used to come to this conclusion?
I’m no fan of Limbaugh, but I am far less a fan of censorship.
Remember, too, that equal time can chill debate in other ways. I recall from the report on the Fairness Doctrine prepared by the FCC prior to its removal, a radio station owner testified that he planned to do an expose of religious cults, but junked the entire thing when he realized he’s probably have to give the cults equal time. He didn’t want his station used to recruit new cult members.
An obsession with this sort of “fairness” in practice led broadcasters to avoid controversy entirely. THat wasn’t good for politics of any stripe, or our national debate in general.
There’s an old saying that the plural of ‘anecdote’ isn’t ‘data.’ Suffice it to say that it’s even more true of the singular.
Why - were there no other media where persons taking controversial positions could get their voices heard?
It’s hard to see how a medium where the wealthy corporations that own the stations determine whose voice gets heard over the airwaves we own in common, is an improvement over their being a mostly controversy-free medium.
And especially in this day and age, where anyone can post their views on the Web, I really can’t see the need for broadcast TV and radio to be a political medium at all.
I’m just pointing out that the fairness doctrine applies in ways other than political. And if you were a broadcaster doing a news story on Scientology, I doubt you’d want to give them the microphone for an equivalent amount of time.
Failing to do so, though, wouldn’t be fair, would it?
True. So you’d sell the story to a cable channel, or put it on your website as a streaming video or a straight download, or whatever.
I mean, sure, it applies, but the repercussions in terms of not being able to get a ‘different’ message out are more trivial than ever.
Update: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin says the FCC has no intention of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
I’ve got to jump in on this. If you read one thing in this long screed, read and understand the following statement:
The public does not own the airwaves. They never have, and never will.
Here’s the logic behind that statement: Did you, as a member of the public, spend the money to obtain a license, procure broadcast equipment, antennas, consoles, sign licensing agreements for networks and syndicated programs, and spend the money to finance the employment of station personnel? If these stations were to go bankrupt, would you be financially impacted at all? Not in the slightest. The companies who own the stations take all the risk. Who owned the airwaves before KDKA signed on the air 87 years ago? The public? If so, then what did the public do to bring about broadcasting? Not a lot.
The FRC (now FCC) was not formed to bring ownership of the airwaves to the public through the government. It was formed to bring order to chaos. Before licensing many stations were signing on and trying to broadcast on the same wavelength as others. It was a big mess. The government formed the FRC to deal with this problem. Not to bring ownership of the airwaves to you, John Q. Public.
(satire hat on)
You know, in thinking about this, I think that The Fairness Doctrine might be a good idea. But only if shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and Michael Reagan are allowed to take 50% of the time on your local NPR affiliate. How does that sound?
(satire hat off)
See, commercial radio all boils down to this. What will sell the best? Fortunately or unfortunately (as your viewpoint may be), what sells today is conservative bluster at this point in time. Liberals don’t seem to have much to be controversial about, and when they do, they don’t seem to get too excited about it.
It’s the same way your local newspaper works. We have a Gannett newspaper here in Southern Utah. Gannett has a reputation as a liberal newspaper group. Don’t believe me? Google “gannett liberal.” But here in St. George, our paper is very conservative, promoting Republican ideals, and poo-poohing ideas such as global warming and Democrats winning elections. Should the newspaper have a Fairness Doctrine to bring opposing viewpoints into the community?
No. Why not? First Amendment rights. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press, and the freedom of speech.
I hear you now. “The radio comes into my house over the public airwaves! It’s not at all like newspapers!” Well. let’s see. You can publish your newspaper with your views. But who will read it unless you can get it into the public’s hands? And to do so, you will have to form a distribution channel, right? And how will the newspaper be delivered?
Over the public roads.
It is so very much easier to make the case for public ownership of the roads and highways than it is to make the case for ownership of the airwaves. Unlike the broadcast frequencies, we actually paid for those highways through our tax money. And we continue to pay for their maintenance year after year!
The Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea. It all boils down to this: Liberals feel threatened by talk radio. They tried to fight back with Air America, and all the money that was thrown at it by rich liberal backers couldn’t save it. The general public simply would not listen. Don’t try to tell me that it worked in one or two markets. That’s not what they’re after in the broadcasting business. You can’t sell a national advertiser on your program because you are hot in one or two markets in the USA. Mass appeal is the only thing that will sell today.
In the Liberal world, the feeling is “if at first you can’t succeed, use the government to destroy your opponents.” Is that what we’re about?
I say no.
This last paragraph is absolutely correct. The FRC wasn’t formed to fix a nonexistent problem, but to fix the problem of chaotic airwaves by acting under the assumption that the public did already, in fact, own the airwaves.
Unsnipping:
Of course not, because the public owns none of these things.
What the public owns is the authority to grant the license that you refer to.
Glad we could get that cleared up.