Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWho’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Fairness Doctrine?
Of all the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our biracial president hates white people, that global warming is a hoax, that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals socialism - the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech.
Nonsense.
The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check.
If you don't believe me, consult the historical evidence. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Because the airwaves were both public and limited, the FCC wanted to ensure that licensees devoted "a reasonable amount of broadcast time to the discussion of controversial issues,'' and that they did so "fairly, in order to afford reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints.'' That's the whole shebang.
Pretty terrifying stuff, huh?
Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio's business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues.
Would talk radio's bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there's nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.
The real shock is that journalists haven't supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of "mainstream media'' outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, "Does this story serve the public good?'' they ask, "Will it get ratings?''
This is how fake controversies (death panels, the birther movement, etc.) have pushed aside real issues, such as how to fix health care, or address climate change. It's quite a racket. Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage, then their "mainstream'' brethren cover this ignorant rage as news.
In so doing, the Fourth Estate has allowed the public discourse to devolve into an echo chamber of grievance. The result is a body politic incapable of recognizing the true nature of its predicaments, let alone potential remedies.
And herein lies a tragic irony. This is the very reason the FCC installed the Fairness Doctrine - not to silence extremists who broadcast inflammatory lies, but to force them to share their microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not childish forms of denial.
Barack Obama arrived in Washington determined to lift our civic discourse above the din of the echo chamber. But he appears determined to ignore the very tool created to serve this end. Forget about bickering with Fox News, Mr. President. If you want "fair and balanced'' voices on the public airwaves, convince Congress, or the FCC, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
If Obama and his congressional counterparts don't have the guts for that fight, Americans of all political persuasions will continue to seek out "news'' and opinions that merely reinforce their biases, rather than forcing them to question those biases. America will continue to limp along as a nation of enraged dittoheads, rather than free-thinking citizens who may differ in our politics, but share an honest desire to solve our common plights.
Which brings me to a final mystery: If today's conservative talkers are so sure they're right about everything (and they certainly sound sure), and if they believe so ardently in the First Amendment, why don't a few of them screw up the courage to invite me onto their programs to discuss the risks and rewards of the Fairness Doctrine? No shouting or cutting off microphones. Just good, old-fashioned freedom of speech.
Actually, consider that a dare.
19 Comments so far
Show Allalways ask these questions to your conservative friends if they persist in their argument that there is a liberal media: why is it, then, that 2 right wing extremists, arguably the semi-lunatics ann coulter and glenn beck, have recently graced the cover of time magazine when the intellectual, sane, and formidably articulate liberal noam chomsky will never appear there? why will he have name recognition in europe of about 60%, but be known by only about 5% of americans? watch the buckley/chomsky debates on you tube. it wasn't even close!
always ask these questions to your conservative friends if they persist in their argument that there is a liberal media: why is it, then, that 2 right wing extremists, arguably the semi-lunatics ann coulter and glenn beck, have recently graced the cover of time magazine when the intellectual, sane, and formidably articulate liberal noam chomsky will never appear there? why will he have name recognition in europe of about 60%, but be known by only about 5% of americans? watch the buckley/chomsky debates on you tube. it wasn't even close!
always ask these questions to your conservative friends if they persist in their argument that there is a liberal media: why is it, then, that 2 right wing extremists, arguably the semi-lunatics ann coulter and glenn beck, have recently graced the cover of time magazine when the intellectual, sane, and formidably articulate liberal noam chomsky will never appear there? why will he have name recognition in europe of about 60%, but be known by only about 5% of americans? watch the buckley/chomsky debates on you tube. it wasn't even close!
always ask these questions to your conservative friends if they persist in their argument that there is a liberal media: why is it, then, that 2 right wing extremists, arguably the semi-lunatics ann coulter and glenn beck, have recently graced the cover of time magazine when the intellectual, sane, and formidably articulate liberal noam chomsky will never appear there? why will he have name recognition in europe of about 60%, but be known by only about 5% of americans? watch the buckley/chomsky debates on you tube. it wasn't even close!
always ask these questions to your conservative friends if they persist in their argument that there is a liberal media: why is it, then, that 2 right wing extremists, arguably the semi-lunatics ann coulter and glenn beck, have recently graced the cover of time magazine when the intellectual, sane, and formidably articulate liberal noam chomsky will never appear there? why will he have name recognition in europe of about 60%, but be known by only about 5% of americans? watch the buckley/chomsky debates on you tube. it wasn't even close!
always ask these questions to your conservative friends if they persist in their argument that there is a liberal media: why is it, then, that 2 right wing extremists, arguably the semi-lunatics ann coulter and glenn beck, have recently graced the cover of time magazine when the intellectual, sane, and formidably articulate liberal noam chomsky will never appear there? why will he have name recognition in europe of about 60%, but be known by only about 5% of americans? watch the buckley/chomsky debates on you tube. it wasn't even close!
The fact that this piece has attracted only eleven replies up to this point tells a sad story.
Please read the first post I wrote at 8:00 am.
Then click the "Boston Globe" link at the top of this page and read the replies on their website.
The right-wing responders outnumber the supporters of the Fairness Doctrine at least 40 to 1. And they're vicious and relentless.
Until progressives are willing to fight as intensely for control of the media as the regressives we'll continue to LOSE EVERY ISSUE.
--------
Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.
I agree that the FD needs to be brought in but it also needs to be updated to include the Internet where needed. One historical note about FD though is that it did not stop Nixon or Raygun from twice winning the presidency even when it was alive and swinging. We also need stronger progressive talk show hosts rather than the same old type who only react to Republican talks and actions. We need ones who will go on the offensive and motivate the audience into advance the progressive agenda. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc... never give up trying to seduce their listeners into accepting the bankrupted "conservative" ideology.
I'm not sure how the FD would apply to the internet, and I don't really think it's necessary. As long as Net Neutrality applies and no one ideological side has its websites load faster than another, I don't think it's needed on the internet.
And yes, we need better progressive talk show hosts. I like Ed Shultz's passion for progressive causes such as health care and labor, and Maddow is awesome, but they do devote way too much time to making fun of and refuting the right-wingers. They rarely, if ever, provide a vision for progressives to get excited about.
Then again, that's not quite the role of the media, although that's exactly what the right-wing media has been doing.
"Then again, that's not quite the role of the media, although that's exactly what the right-wing media has been doing."
Giving them a taste of their own medicine might just make them cry for restoring the FD short of literally twisting those arms and legs of those creeps. :)
P.S.: I almost forgot about Net Neutrality. Thanks for the refresher. I have to see what is happening there for what it is worth. My only fear is that Big Telco could ask for a "bailout" in disguise and then get their wish of sabotaging Net Neutrality.
Actually, Bill Moyers also is not in favor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine [one of the few things I disagree about with Mr. Moyers]. He stated his reasons on his Bill Moyer's Journal show several weeks back.
The repeal of a Fairness Doctrine [by Reagin and the Repugs] is one of the reasons for all of the hatefullness and one-sided shouting we now must endure. Also, the fat gasbags on the right, might see a dent in their show's revenues if they were more respectful of others. I, myself, usually tune into PBS and watch Charlie Rose, Nova, BBC, Washington Week or NOW for a more thoughtful, respectful and provoking discussion on the issues of the day.
I too, wish the Fairness Doctrine would be bought back, so maybe all the shouting the right does to everyone would lessen. Shouting and bullying does not make right, but you would never know it from the lack of leadership we have in the WH and Congress.
"Barack Obama arrived in Washington determined to lift our civic discourse above the din of the echo chamber."
________________________________
One must examine every forkful of so many of the articles posted here and pick out fishbones like this before swallowing.
I realize that it's the sort of mostly-rhetorical statement writers use to build to a larger point, but it's an epistemological and metaphysical surd.
Such passing assessments are made far too readily and carelessly; if one extrapolates from the cumulative evidence, the only safe statement of this kind is, say: "Barack Obama arrived in Washington determined to be elected to a second term."
· Yr Obd't Servant
Good luck getting on their shows. They're deathly afraid of genuine debate. All they can do is throw out stupid lies and claims that can't really be addressed because they're made up or irrelevant, and it's all they focus on.
Democracy cannot work without (among other things) an informed public. However, the ruling corporate classes benefits from an ignorant, misinformed public.
There is no serious attempt or effort to restore the fairness doctrine, anyway. So feggatabout it, our fearless leaders have no incentive to do so. The author says:
"...If Obama and his congressional counterparts don't have the guts for that fight..."
Guts? Wrong metaphor. Incentive? Interests?
Both Republicans and Democrats have a vested interest in never allowing the Fairness Doctrine to see the light of day. That would mean that third party candidates would get equal time in political campaigns on radio and television. Oh, the horror! That there could actually be ideas that differed from the plutocrat-vetted talking points of the two dominant parties exposed to the public! Can't allow that, no sir!
Yes, why would the Duopoly give up their exclusive priveleges? Besides the MSM makes way too much money from the pasty-faced, fat, jowly, racist old men anyway.
What is at the root of the fairness doctrine? That we as the public own the airwaves and that there is a public good to be served by airing all sides of an issue. We have 3 full time sports talk stations in Pittsburgh and 2 full time right wing spewers of venom. When their liscenses come up for renewal the owners state in a single sentence without further elaboration or defense that what they are doing is a public good because it has a commmercially viable audience. That's The American way. The cost to buy an FM station in Pittsburgh is at least $12 million. Anyone wiling to put up the money to allow a countervailing voice? Could the FCC entertain a challenge to one of these licenses because the market has crowded out any other voices which might represent another significant part of the local Pittsburgh community?
Too late.
Obama's FCC head, Julius Genachowski, a person more powerful than a Supreme Court Justice and Federal Reserve Chairman combined, doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine.
And in the ultimate irony he was appointed to that position with almost no media coverage.
If you wonder why President Bush was able to get every item on his agenda passed when he had a 20% popularity rating consider a more important number...He had 95% of the media in his pocket.
There's a reason the right defends its dominance of the media with more tenacity and venom than any other issue.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Bailouts, Israel, Vote Fraud, Climate Change, Green Energy, Israel, Venezuela, Torture, War Crimes, Spying, Health Care...all have been won by the right by using their media dominance as a weapon of mass deception.
When will the left wake up and realize that fighting for control of the media should be PRIORITY NUMBER ONE?
------------
Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.