Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Fairness Doctrine is not fair
Doctrine, which would require broadcast media to present alternative
viewpoints on controversial topics.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the Fairness
Doctrine in 1949 to ensure the "right of the public to be informed" by
presenting "for acceptance or rejection the different attitudes and
viewpoints" on controversial issues. The policy was upheld in 1969 by
the Supreme Court because the public airwaves were a "scarce resource"
that needed to be open to opposing views. However, a 1974 Supreme
Court decision stated "government-enforced right of access inescapably
dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" and a 1984
decision suggested that the regulation was "chilling speech" and
didn't apply in the face of expanding communications technologies.
Thus, in 1985 the FCC concluded the policy in fact inhibited
broadcasters from handling controversial issues and was no longer
needed because of the growth of cable television. In 1987 when
Congress passed a law to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, President
Reagan vetoed the bill.
The Fairness Doctrine was not really fair. Its purpose when
established was to provide opposing viewpoints on the air, the premise
being that the broadcast waves were limited and belong to the public.
The problem is with the notion of opposing viewpoints. It's a fallacy
that there are only two viewpoints. On most issues there are many
viewpoints – not just two. So when implementing a Fairness Doctrine,
do you allow only the two dominant viewpoints or do you allow all
viewpoints. On some issues there is certainly not enough time for all
viewpoints. How does a radio station decide? Radio would become like
C-Span, dull and boring.
Thus the enforcement and administration of the system would become
unmanageable. Who decides and by what mechanism? What does this do
to the profits of the station, if all of its time is devoted to the
airing a multitude of opinions, that most people don't care about.
These were the problems that were recognized in the 1980s – and they
still exist today.
Because of limited time and market factors it makes it impossible to
implement a process that would give equal airtime to all viewpoints.
Implementing a fairness doctrine is a two-edged sword. Conservative
talk shows may not want to implement a Fairness Doctrine, but then
neither would the liberal networks.
Diversity of viewpoints is important in a free society. More
information and education allows society to understand issues and
makes it better able to make decisions. One of the first things that
tyrants and dictators do is to manage education and information for
fear that the truth will out. Truth sets people free. In America
today we don't lack forums to express our viewpoints. What we lack is
knowledge about how to use them. The Internet has opened up
tremendous possibilities for the dissemination of information, using
podcats, blogs, YouTube and who knows what else will come. Cable has
made television available to almost everyone and satellite radio has
expanded the possibilities for radio.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
