The Fairness Doctrine Serves No One
Liberal columnist and former liberal talk show host here, so you can assume I am…a liberal. More than once I’ve written about the need for the Fairness Doctrine - a policy that would require the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced - but yesterday I had a change of heart. While listening to talk radio in my non-satellite radio car yesterday (I live in the Philadelphia area so if you want to listen to political talk it has to be conservative), I heard Sean Hannity speak of how unfair a re-institution the Fairness Doctrine would be. The light and lilting tones of the powerhouse hunk of conservative talk must have Hannitized me for it finally hit me that there was no reason for the FD, especially on talk radio.
I’d love to be able to tune in the likes of liberal hosts like Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann while on the neighborhood streets of South Philly or the beautiful countryside of Bucks County, PA without having to go on the Internet or purchase Sirius, but in reality, that’s not why those on the Left are calling for the FD. 
Of course, the right wonders why Katie Couric isn’t being Fair Doctrine’d. You know because Katie’s reporting is so liberal. See, that’s one of the most successful effects from years of conservative talk. They have so successfully defined anything infinitesimally left of Rush, Sean or Bill as leftist. The center no longer exists. To talk radio, moderate Republicans are leftists or has Rush has already said, “If you are a moderate Republican you stand for nothing.” To the far right, Katie Couric is a communist mouthpiece.
And they’ve done this with the willing consent of the mainstream media. The liberal mainstream media. The liberal mainstream media so intimidated by the Lords of Loud that they think the balance to the truth in news is to make room for right wing spin. Shows like The Today Show bring on right wing shills like Bill O’Reilly and give them a platform, not for their take on the news, but for their twist of the facts.
Democratic politicians have been calling for more of a balance on the radio airwaves. Why? If you don’t buy what Rush and Sean are selling, don’t listen. Then only those who wouldn’t buy anything from the left anyway would be paying attention.
Let those on the right listen to what they want to. It’s not going to change any minds. If those on the left want entertaining talk, let them listen to NPR. I’m only kidding about the NPR being entertaining, but the idea is, right now, conservatives own talk radio, just like the left owns Hollywood. Most films are already barely watchable. Do we really want to legislate half the films to be made by Fox News producers? Did you see “An American Carol?” Even Sean Hannity passed on appearing in that.
In a broadcasting world that works hard at branding (an implied promise that the expected product will continue), mix and match programming rarely works. In 2005, Philadelphia’ WHAT AM 1340 radio, not exactly a bastion of conservative talk, sandwiched in liberal talkers Al Franken and Randi Rhodes between their regular programing and they tanked. If liberal talk is to work, they need their own stations. That probably means they won’t be heard everywhere today, but for that blame the market not the success of right wing talk.
Steve
Comments
17 Responses to “The Fairness Doctrine Serves No One”
Leave a Reply
-
Special Message For You...
If the Fairness Doctrine was in place, we’d have saved over a Trillion Dollars since Bush couldn’t have gotten away with lying about Iraq being a unique and immediate threat — for which military invasion and occupation were the ONLY resolution.
But, of course, the ability of The Public to express responsible opposing opinions on THEIR OWN AIRWAVES had been curtailed — and 4000 American soldiers are now dead.
steve, as bill press recently, and others, have pointed out the right has been protecting its monopoly and ‘normal’ market forces aren’t operating. some progressive talkers are successful on an even playing field but are excluded from blue markets where they logically would be expected to be successful. it makes no sense that RW blowhards who have been wrong on everything important would outnumber liberals 9 to 1 in blue states. demonopolization? yes, but how long will that take after going through the courts.
we are in this mess because reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine 20 years ago. something like it is needed. the monopoly exists to sell war, deregulation, global warming denial, and tax breaks for billionaires. a new Fairness Doctrine won’t shut them up. it just has to make sure there aren’t large sections of the country (with a disproportionate number of senators) dominated by one message, as is the case now. just turning it off is not an option if it is dominating public airwaves with one-party propaganda. it effects every aspect of local and national politics- it makes real democracy impossible and enables flat earthers we don’t have time for anymore. we’ve lost 20 years action on global warming alone.
as far as hollywood goes that’s a no brainer. comedy is basically a liberal thing- it comes from that part of the brain. sex? compare to less sexually inhibited countries. ever present violence? what politics is that? hollywood seems liberal because it relies on creativity but the money people are still influenced by the right’s definition of acceptability, a lot of which is reinforced by the biggest censors and political correctness cops in the country- limbaugh and sons- some real paragons of virtue there.
I was a TV producer/director during the 50’s and early 60’s so I’m very familiar with the now defunct Fairness Doctrine. At the local station where I worked we provided a significant amount of free air time to both state and national candidates because we felt it was our obligation to support the democratic process. For example, I recall introducing JFK to a panel of reporters prior to a 30 minute show during his presidential campaign and offering the same opportunity to Nixon’s people. How things have changed. Today, because of the need to buy a lot more air time, politics has become all about raising money and selling favors. And of course, the broadcast media is raking in the bucks.
Steve, your way off base here. We do need a fairness doctorine. Clear Channel and its ilk have posioned the airways with propoganda that is taked for the truth. There is no push back for Rush, Hannity etc. They twist the truth at best and outright lie at worst. This has caused the problem this country is in. There is no room for the middle because of these guys. The airways are public domain and must provide broad opinions not the indoctrination of the right wing. License should be reviewed by the way the station serves the public trust in hearing the truth.
Steve, I’m 100% positive we don’t agree on politics, or much of anything. But I agree 100% with you on this issue. The “Fairness” doctrine would help no one. Just more government meddling where they shouldn’t be meddling. Let the free market decide who’s being listened to. Why should the government control what ideas go into my head?
I am not sure about “blame the market”. In San Diego the liberal station was bought out to add to an oversaturated sports market already. In Alanta the liberal station was silenced for another bible station. Money talks and if you have enough you can crush out the opposition. Just monopolize and propagandize the dim witted masses. No liberal stations in DC? Really. It’s not that they wouldn’t sell. It’s that they are being silenced.
Steve,
Points well taken but there is a need for programs that make a genuine effort to provide legitimate opinion on both sides of an issue.
I suggest that the FCC puts out a limited number of licenses requiring the stations do just that and see how the market responds. And if the market responds we get to see how the concept is abused for political purposes. Nevertheless I wouldn’t mind tuning into a show that legitimately airs both sides.
The, “FainessDoctrine”, is a loser because its title is misleading. As I recall, the original intent of licensing was to provide public services such as, weather, time, and local public service announcements. Included in this was a limit on commercial time.
Because radio and television broadcasts rely on public airwaves, stations were required to make available any violations or misuse reported by the public. A yearly review of the stations management of this resource by the FCC could result in loss of license. Aside from trying to prevent monopoly by station owners, I think a rewrite of Public Interest issues should be instituted without censoring legitimate thought.
The Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the right to free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. AM radio is the place where the political right has gained a foothold to explain their ideas while the political left has television stations like CNN and MSNBC. If you only squelch one of these sources, AM radio, then that is attacking a political point of view that you do not agree with. This is exactly the purpose of the first amendment to the Constitution, to guarantee the right to disagree with the current political party in power. Silencing the opposition is what Stalin and Hitler did, not what we do in America.
Good article Steve, the comments above are in response to the other posters.
Mr. Young,
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, the NEW Fairness Doctrine would be anything but fair.
To those of you that want it, think about this:
1) The left HAD Air America, they WERE NOT squeezed out, the fact is that with CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and all the other left leaning “News” outlets that end of the market was FLOODED. People were JUST NOT LISTENING.
2) If something like that is enacted this very forum MAY NOT be here for you to express your views, not very fair sounding now is it.
The human race in general is a visual race, meaning that we as a people find its easier to understand what we see opposed to what we hear.
Monopolies are constitutionly illegal, and without talk radio or the internet the way they currently are thats exactly what the left would have.
In my opinion those that want the fairness doctrine are just like spoiled children who want all the toys for themselves.
An earlier comment pretty much sums up why people wont listen to liberal talk radio.
“Just monopolize and propagandize the dim witted masses”
This sort of elitist liberal view of people is such a turn off that people who dont share your view wont even listen because you’ve insulted them from the git go.
People aren’t stupid if they dont see things your way. Try a different approach.
Left radio programming tanks because of its entertainment value, which is nil. It’s shrill, repetitive and boring. We had Jerry Springer replace Glenn Beck a couple years back in the Cleveland market. He was just plain boring. He didn’t compel anybody to do anything. Whether you love or hate Limbaugh, he is very entertaining. He also has liberal listeners because of the entertainment value of his show.
The movie example Steve used in his editorial clearly demonstrates how the market works. About 9 anti-Bush, Iraq war movies came out in the past few years. Nearly all of them were box office failures.
The market will dictate what is entertaining. No amount of big money funding is going to make a sow’s ear into silk purse. Neither will government censorship.
Some form of fairness is necessiary for this simple reason.If people like Sean Hannity,Rush LImbaugh,Laura Ingraham,Mike Levine and a host of other right wing pundits would tell the truth and stop using the air waves as a propaganda tool and on many occasions use the air waves to separate the races, there wouldnt be any need to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
People tend to get trapped into a particular way of thinking. This goes for both “liberals” and “conservatives”. The biggest influences of political opinion are parents and religious institutions. Re-instating the “fairness doctrine” would not move the political dialog measurably, unless it was applied across a broader spectrum than broadcasters. The FCC barely regulates cable, but a “fairness doctrine” would be useful since cable beats broadcasters when it comes to the volume of news delivered. However, one can easily argue that it’s not needed on cable. Even with the filtering power of the cable companies, moderate and liberal viewpoints are still well represented. People can choose MSNBC for liberal talk shows or Fox News for conservative talk shows. Balanced reporting is done by CNN. All have a voice for as long as they are comfortable with the profits.
Profits are the main drag on viewpoints. Liberals, I think, are less susceptible to advertising than conservatives. It’s the personality of those who identify as liberal. They’re less likely to care about other’s opinion about them and more interested in helping others. Help others, by necessity, leaves less time for entertainment, shopping, and playing with toys (the focus of most advertising). Those who aren’t helping others frequently are not able to listen to the radio during the day and are too tired to do it at night. It’s not that people aren’t interested in a liberal viewpoint. It’s that they don’t want to get it from talk radio outside of “drive time”.
This is not an issue of market forces “choosing” the right. It’s an issue of the left choosing a different market. The Washington Post experimented with talk radio in the nation’s capital last year. Their experiment was a commercial failure. Some might point to it as an example that truly balanced reporting doesn’t sell. I saw it that their audience had exited the market and needed more time to come back.
Bottom line is that the “fairness doctrine” as it was should not come back. Campaign fairness, however, is in desperate need of help. In Virginia, where I’m a Democrat, we have a choice of voting for a candidate who would do better in office or one who can outraise and outspend the entire Republican party combined. I know who I want to see in the governor’s mansion, but I’m afraid he’ll get outspent on his way there. Until candidates are guaranteed equal time, money will always win the day.
AM radio is the only media that conservatives have to provide balance for all the other media.
Its popularity derives from the fact that there are no conservative alternatives.
Why would anyone want to silence the voice of the “opposition” unless they do not want any opposition?
Does anyone want to live in a country where there is only one political point of view?
Those countries exist, and they jail and/or execute anyone that disagrees.
Are you people insane? Ya, no commentator on the major networks lie. Its only right wing talk radio.
If liberal radio worked then they would be heard nationwide and NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN would pay the money necessary for the programming. They don’t because it would lose out. Besides, they already have plenty of airtime on television.
The Fairness Doctrine is not fair. It takes away from the free market that has made the shows popular. Air America failed even when all of the television networks advertised for them. Liberal radio doesn’t work. I listened to Air America in Miami and it was horrible even when I agreed with them.
Mass Media manipulation, it’s all about, influence, idelogy hijack, it’s no longer about information …