A 1993 Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum made points (HT to Jay Ott at Maggie Thurber's blog) that have seldom been made in media discussions, like this really weak front-page article a week ago at the Toledo Blade, about reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine. The Blade's Kirk Baird and Rod Lockwood seem to act as if radio is the only communications medium in existence.
Heritage's points are even more valid today than they were 16 years ago.
At the time, which "so happened" to be the first year of the last Democratic administration, there was legislation in Congress called the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993" that would have restored the doctrine, which had been overturned by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987.
Here are the three faulty premises highlighted by Heritage's Adam Thierer, followed by why they are even more faulty now:
Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.
Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.
There are exponentially more outlets now. Anyone can start a blog or an Internet radio station, spout off at MySpace or Facebook, or tweet away on Twitter. Whether that person's opinions are worth heeding depends on the content of what they have to say, how hard they work (sorry, libs) to get it out there, and a bit of luck.
Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.
Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.
They're even less capable of determining fairness now than they were before blogs, Internet broadcasting, satellite radio, and other media came along. Will eveyone who expresses a conservative thought on Twitter have to allot 140 characters to a liberal, and vice-versa?
Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.
Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.
No, it would lead to relentless harassment of those who express controversial views. It would go in both directions. Radio stations would abandon talk because it's too much hassle. If the Fairness Doctrine were extended to blogs (which has been mentioned from time to time), bloggers would avoid political opinion rather than hand their bandwidth over to the opposite view.
Beyond that, all of this assumes that there are somehow only two sides to every issue, which is clearly naive.
Again, note that it's all about radio, and only about radio. Heaven forbid that Fairness Doctrine standards get applied to say, the TV networks, or newspapers, or that the AP be forced to publish offsets of the opinions they disguise as reporting.
Anyway, if you haven't heard these points raised in media coverage of those attempting to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, it's largely because most of the press doesn't want you to hear them.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And don't forget ...
February 16, 2009 - 00:25 ET by legacyrepublicanthat the spectrum will eventually go digital which increases choice and variety even more in that you can carry more up to 8 more stations in the bandwidth that used to taken up with one stations analog signal.
I have 3 premises of why they want the Fairness Doctrine
February 16, 2009 - 00:36 ET by caiobabeActually....make that the THREE reasons:
1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Sean Hannity
3. Mark Levin
These 3 dominate the airwaves (because people WANT to hear them) and have proven to be the best counterpoint to all the bizarro world politics that are now being rammed down our throats by a media that has put Obama on par with Jesus.
The best part of listening to these gentlemen is that their shows are vastly entertaining as well as instructional and educational. In my market the programs run consecutively and we get nine straight hours of great radio for free!
AM radio
February 16, 2009 - 01:05 ET by UnsaneRadio stations would abandon talk because it's too much hassle. I highlight this point because I think this is worth noting: AM radio was on its last legs, especially as the 1980s was drawing to a close. As a boy I can remember when pop music was still broadcast on AM. By 1989, those AM stations that I remembered that did that were broadcasting formats of music that had niche audiences or that were heard by those in their twilight (oldies, and typically they were ancient, were quite common).
However, it was discovered that though FM was better for carrying music formats, AM was perfect for talk radio formats. And so it came to pass that various radio personalities - and Rush Limbaugh was among them - began to show up on the AM dial in droves. In fact, the AM station that I first heard as a wee tot as a radio station that had an AOR format was broadcasting talk radio in the early 1990s, to include Mr. Limbaugh.
I shudder to think (beyond the clear issue of freedom of speech) what would happen to those AM radio stations and the people they employ if/when they lose their new lease on life. Radio stations like WOAI are built on talk radio of all sorts of personalities, both local and national. Would this old, venerable San Antonio station face the end if the "fairness doctrine" was brought back?
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! THE HOLOCAUST OF THOUGHT IS DAWNING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
It will go back to just local gardening
February 16, 2009 - 01:39 ET by thebutlerdiditand cooking shows. Or in some areas, hunting and fishing. It will be local talent? and they will announce when the county fair is coming, and which kids are on the honor roll. Hopefully, these AM broadcasters and their stations will be willing to fight hard.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
What about Sunday morning shows?
February 16, 2009 - 09:55 ET by FastEdFrom my very brief exposure, driving from NC back the blues of NJ, I remember the morning sermons on all the stations until I reached Richmond - will there be a need for atheists and terrorists? After all, fair needs to be fair. Then too, will pedophiles have their say? What will happen to "community standards"?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
It's never been about
February 16, 2009 - 07:30 ET by motherbeltIt's never been about fairness; it's about shutting down conservative talk radio.
Bill Clinton made the Freudian Slip of the Decade when he said we ought to have more balance on the other side. (emphasis added).
This whole thing operates like Title IX in college sports. If you don't get enough girls to participate in sports, relative to their presence on campus, you just cut the boys' teams until you have parity.
If Air America and other liberal outlets could draw listeners and advertising money, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
A dumb move by the left, simply because...
February 16, 2009 - 07:40 ET by JohnMcGrew...sooner or later, they will be out of power, and it will be the right's chance to arbitrate "fairness" over the alphabets, where some "balance" would acutually be an improvement.
I can't wait for the opportunity to sue NPR.
I suppose it's fine...
February 16, 2009 - 08:47 ET by Reality CheckI am actually OK with implementation of the Fairness Doctrine, because I look forward to filing lawsuits that will force CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC to air an hour of Limbaugh or Hannity for every hour of their own leftist "news" content. That would be, like, SO FAIR!
It would also have the added effect of improving their ratings.
Reality Check
If it actually worked that way
February 16, 2009 - 08:52 ET by Sergeant ROCKBut it won't. They will be declared 'unbiased' by an Obama administration task force on Fairness. You assume the correct logic, but we're talking about Marxists here.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
"There are a lot of people
February 16, 2009 - 09:55 ET by rimsky"There are a lot of people in this market that would rather listen to a food fight from the left than a food fight from the right," but they don't have the opportunity, he said, referring to the combative nature of most talk radio shows.
This is laughable. These poor widdle lefties who, it is implied, can't get a word in edgewise should start their own damn radio station! But why do that when they can just rely on their saviour to make the "change" they desire, which is to eliminate any opposing views.
They want to drive a stake into the heart of the opposition.
It is about Freedom of Speech
February 16, 2009 - 10:07 ET by richb313This whole fairness doctrine debate is really messed up. I do not want the Government, liberal or conservative, to determine in any way what is fair or not. The moment we let the Government decide in any capacity what is allowable speech the Great Experiment would have failed completely. This country was founded on principles at odds with the current thinking in liberal circles. I can only hope that the Supreme Court will slap down any effort of Government Approved speech.
Don't care
February 16, 2009 - 10:49 ET by cvgbuckeyeI don't care about any of the fancy arguments against the Fairness Doctrine. They are ALL irrelevant; they make absolutely no difference.
The bottom line is that it is elimination (not suppression) of free speech and that is the kind of thing that goes on in Marxist/Communist/Socialist dictatorships.
We WILL NOT tolerate it! Don't even think about it.
Fairness Doctrine?
February 16, 2009 - 20:02 ET by bknownstWho is it fair to when you try to force people to listen to something they don't want to? If there was a market for liberal talk radio there would be more stations carrying it. Radio is the ONE place you can turn off the liberal bias and listen to and converse with right thinking Pro - Americans speaking the truth.
First the Fairness Doctrine
Then the Thought Police
Is it really that hard for a Liberal show to get on AM radio?
February 16, 2009 - 10:57 ET by kufir77I mean, have you ever cranked through the dial to listen to what all is on AM radio? There's multiple right wing stations, then a ton of Spanish language stations, and even a Polish station where I'm at.
There used to be Air America but it only broadcast till 8pm and then was replaced by Spanish language music.
Liberals honestly can't find a way to get on the radio? Maybe its because nobody really likes to start with a flawed business model thats destined to lose money....
Keep in Mind...
February 16, 2009 - 20:29 ET by AFBayouPatriotDemocrats are not interested in fairness. They are interested in quashing dissent. If you opinion agrees with theirs, no problem, talk all you want. If your opinion doesn't agree with theirs, time to go against the First Amendment and invoke Censorship. That is what the fairness thing is all about. Since they now have a lock on the White House, the House and the Senate, it's time to take away freedoms, like the freedom to listen to opinions contrary to what the party in power want you to hear. Political dissent is dangerous, just ask China or the Nazi's or Hugo Chavez, or Stalin. The Democrats know this and as they march the USA down the road the socialism, political dissent will not, cannot be tolerated. It is dangerous for the masses to hear the truth. The truth sets people free, and I cannot wait to be set free from the Democrat slavers.
My Personal Fairness Doctrine
February 16, 2009 - 20:36 ET by AFBayouPatriotMy personal fairness doctrine is the CD or OFF button. If I'm in an unfamiliar area of the country and all I can pull up are liberal talk shows, either the CD goes in or the radio goes off. Liberal talk shows suck, just the same rehashed, warmed over BS you read in the liberal rag newspapers and hear on the liberal media (all except FOX.) No one can make you listen to an opinion you don't want to hear. When are the democrats going to open the Political Reeducation Camps?