Why I would vote to bring back the Fairness Doctrine

Great Debates
1

Money lacks ideology. Power is its own principle. Given the right mix of resources of power–licences, intellectual property, & control over the dissemination of information, a smart businessman (and really, corporations are still run by businessmen, so let’s not say, “a corporation,” & think that makes it different) can take the money of decent god-fearing people & use it to pay for the broadcast of whatever radical agenda he wants.

A hypothetical:

Imagine a company decides to go into radio in a big way. Let’s say they made their fortune selling carbonated watered-down sweetened stomach acid or something. And they go out & buy insolvent radio stations–they don’t care how much they lose, because the radio’s not there to make money, it’s to influence hearts & minds.

Let’s say they have a radical cultural stance: They want to undermine the traditional values of the people. They start out subtly, with mildly obnoxious but apparently sympathetic jocks that stoke the cultural liberal sentiments of the people while mocking cultural conservatism. They gain listeners, if not a lot of money. In time, they grow more strident. In ten years, they’re calling for forcing Baptist churches to perform gay weddings or be burned to the ground.

(Why would they do this? It’s a project for a poli sci major’s master’s thesis, maybe [You’ll give me that degree now!]. Or a deep-seated hatred of church people. Or the aliens from Stavromula Beta toying with us. Whatever.)

Imagine that this feeds on itself. Imagine further that almost all the money in the media market is in the hands of scoffers at tradition, & it has become a commonplace that those old orthodoxies just can’t win at capitalism. So anyone who stands up for traditional values is mocked as out of touch religious fanatics.

In such a world, would you support rules that try to give time to opposing viewpoints? I sure would.

Or would you say, no, the marketplace of ideas has spoken, we’re all cultural leftists now?

This is the thing. The Fairness Doctrine, the Equal Time Rule, they weren’t perfect, but they certainly were not partisan. To want to bring them back is not about an ideology; it’s about letting debate be free. Isn’t that what we should want?

2

Since you’re conjuring up bizarre hypotheticals with no connection to reality, could you give me a billion dollars and mind control powers while you’re at it?

Yes. If people aren’t persuaded by what the radio says, they’ll stop listening. XM radio is increasingly affordable.

Debate is free. Why do you want to change it?

3

But the reverse is not always true.

4

Just because you’re transmitting a signal does not mean that people will actually listen. Case in point - Air America

5

Would you vote for the Fairness Doctrine if the government suddenly decided that “the public airwaves” included Wi-Fi or cellular bands? They do, you know. That wireless signal doesn’t just materialize out of nowhere. And since Wi-Fi accesses the Internet, I guess they have to regulate that, too.

I mean, since we’re building strawmen and all…

6

Should I explain to you the difference between ‘push’ and ‘pull’ media?

7

But the Fairness Doctrine never gave equal time to ALL viewpoints. For example, a pro-Hitler, pro-holocaust person couldn’t demand equal time on the CBS Nightly News.

In your scenario, what is to prevent the bureaucrat in charge of such things from saying that the Baptist Church is being so bigoted as to not warrant airtime? Impossible? Many posters on here believe that opposition to SSM is bigotry.

8

I remember when it was in place. It was not a big deal. When a commentary was given time was offered for an opposition viewpoint. Sometimes I would think, thats a pretty good answer . I did not know that was why they objected .
You can conjure all kinds of goofy scenarios to back up your preconceived dislike if you wish, but it was not a big deal and it did help educate the people.What the hell is wrong with letting people have access to other ideas? If yours are so solid, you should not object to other viewpoints being offered. They will stand by themselves.

9

If Liberals dominated the air waves like the Conservatives do now, would you still be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine?

Liberals get their asses kicked on talk radio. In that world ‘money talks and bullshit walks’.

10

I’m not taking one side or the other in this thread. I’m just responding to the OP that the problem he posits would exist with or without a Fairness Doctrine.

11

I think any person spending company money on swaying voters is committing fraud. He should spend his own money. Corporations are not extensions of the officers’ or board’s personal pocketbook, to be rifled for their own reasons. Saying it’s for the good of the company is bogus. If the company as a whole would benefit, let them get volunteers from the ranks to contribute. Oh, not so easy now, is it. Nobody farther down the ladder can see the good of pollution for profit or less strict controls on corporate gambling.

12

No one said they were extensions of officers pocketbooks. Corporations have interests, why shouldn’t they be allowed to express them? Force the rank and file to pay for it? Why? They aren’t the owners of the corporation. They don’t have as much interest as the owners do. The owners hire the executives through the BOD. They’d be negligent in not pressing the corporations’ interests, that’s what they’re supposed to do.

13

This is easy; corporations aren’t citizens, and so shouldn’t have a voice in goverment.

It’s much harder to protest if corporate owners do it with their own private money, of course, but that’s not what you said.

14

Should unions be allowed to use member’s dues to donate? That’s where some of the biggest moneyin politics is…

15

This is easier. Corporations have legal rights. They have the right to lobby the gov’t for one thing. If you don’t like it you need to change the way courts have ruled on this matter.

Do you think your life would be better if big bad corporations weren’t ruining everything for you? It’s just a bogeyman, it’s ridiculous.

16

Even conceding your point, corporations are at least a collection of citizens with a common interest. Why should they be prohibited from promoting their agenda anymore than the NRA or the ACLU?

17

Yes, please do. And please go into lots of detail on the differences between using WIFI to access an internet news site is different from using a TV to view a news show.

18

Remember kids, there are always two sides to every story. And only two sides. And they are always equally valid. Whenever a liberal makes a comment, you must give a conservative exactly the same amount of time to make a comment–because every position has a liberal side and a conservative side. So whenever you have someone decrying child abuse, you should have someone supporting child abuse. Whenever you have someone advocating that the earth floats on the back of a giant turtle, you must have someone from the opposing side to advocate that the earth floats on the back of a giant elephant. And so on.

It sure makes journalism easy, doesn’t it? All you need to cover a story are two guests, one says black the other says white and you let the viewers at home make up their own mind. No need for journalists to find out the facts and tell the viewers the truth.

19

How about starting with this simple ‘fairness’ reform:

Every time a news media outlet hires an on-air personality who worked for a politician of a given party, the outlet must hire an equivalent on-air personality in an equivalent position from the other party.

So, since Chris Matthews worked for Carter, perhaps he could share his show with someone who worked for Reagan. George Stephanopoulis worked for the Clinton administration, so perhaps ABC should air a show hosted by Ari Fleischer. Or Karl Rove.

If we want to get really ‘fair’, I think we should analyze the party affiliations of all the on-air personalities at the major TV networks and newspapers. If you’re 70% Democrat, you can’t hire any more Democrats until you’ve balanced it out with conservatives. Maybe a good place to start would be to look at campaign contributions - in the last election, out of 143 mainstream media journalists surveyed, 125 donated to Democrats or liberal causes, while 16 donated to Republican or conservative causes. That’s some major league bias.
Then we could analyze the editorial positions of the major newspapers, and demand that every liberal op-ed be opposed by a conservative op-ed.

Here’s another one - every time a news source presents a ‘factual analysis’ that they received from a liberal think tank, they must present the opposing analysis from a conservative think tank.

The fact is, talk radio is an oasis for conservatives, because just about every other media source they are exposed to has a liberal bias. Fox news is an exception. Do you know why it kills in the ratings, despite being populated with a cast of lunatics and morons? Because all the other networks have to fight between themselves for the liberal viewers, but for conservatives, Fox is the only game in town. So half the nation splits between MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, while Fox gets the other half of the nation all to itself.

By the way, if you think the tea parties are a worry now, just go ahead and throw the fairness doctrine into the mix. If you’re a liberal, I don’t think you quite realize how frustrated conservatives are at the domination of the rest of the media by liberal voices. Hollywood makes movie after movie about liberal heroes, and none about conservative heroes (or if they do, it’s to mock them or highlight their flaws). The newspapers are generally liberal. Mainstream TV news and opinion is slanted to the left. Many major news figures in mainstream TV have close connections to the Democratic party or previous Democratic presidents. The comedy news shows are all liberal (With the exception of Red Eye on Fox). They send their kids to schools filled with liberal teachers, and college is increasingly becoming a place where liberal indoctrination takes place.

And in the last election cycle, the mainstream news outlets dropped any pretense of being fair, and basically became an arm of the Obama campaign. People noticed.
But the conservatives have talk radio, and they hold their own on the internet. Try to take any of that away from them, and you’ll be in for a real fight.

20

B-b-b-but, they’re talking about “Fairness”, not “fairness”, the way it’s defined in the dictionary. What the hell is wrong with you trying to conflate the two?!!!

Excellent post, Sam. I’m eager to see what the responses will be.