The Unfairness of Reviving the Fairness Doctrine
Broadcast "fairness" would have a chilling effect on competition and the free exchange of ideas and information.
The original justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that the limited high-frequency infrastructure of the airwaves justified government control of content provided by licensed broadcasters. (That rationale became less tenable after the Reagan years of FCC deregulation and the subsequent proliferation of conservative talk radio programs.) Newspapers were not held to that same standard, as outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, which held that the print media were not hindered by limited bandwidth, and thus enjoyed virtually unlimited competition. There was no compelling governmental interest to regulate the content of broadsheet journalism.
Yet today’s leftists make no such distinctions (in a sure sign of the Democratic-left’s hunger for censorship and control). Both conservative talk radio and print outlets like Politico are condemned for their success. And if that success is deemed as violating the general interest — or, in Matthew Yglesias’ words, as ignoring the “public welfare” — then the Democrats can claim an allegedly powerful case for renewed regulation of conservative views. Indeed, notice Lindsay Beyerstein’s analogy holding conservative commentary as comparable to “crack” cocaine. In this formulation, a business model touting “performance pay” is dangerous, even criminal. This is the journalistic “drug rush” that goes too far. There ought to be a law — hence, the demand for mass-media “drug-control” legislation.
Take Dave Neiwert’s suggestion at the far left-wing Crooks and Liars, for example. Excoriating conservative talk radio heroes like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, Neiwert moves beyond content regulation to advocate corporate control of the media, suggesting that, “Rather than bring back the Fairness Doctrine … it might be better simply to reform the structure of how FCC licenses are distributed and make diversity of ownership a priority.”
“Diversity of ownership?” Yeah, right. As Betsy Newmark reported, what we’re seeing is the emergence of “a new version of the Fairness Doctrine.” Leftists know that the success of right-wing talk radio over the last couple of decades is proof of public demand for conservative opinion. Since they can’t win that argument, leftists will venue-shop down to the local level, arguing for a compelling governmental interest in regulating state and local communications networks, perhaps even the Internet (oddly enough, given the left’s entrepreneurial prowess on the web).
This tack is particularly pernicious and fundamentally dishonest. The focus on localism is of a piece with the stealth paradigm of Democratic governance under the new Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime. When facing conservative pushback on traditional big-government policies, Democrats stonewall, prevaricate, lie, and obstruct. The faux-debate of the new regime’s economic stimulus-porkulus boondoggle is instructive in its Orwellianism.
The brutal truth is that the left cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. The logical outcome of that competitive impotence is to simply remove the market mechanism itself. This is the essence of state-socialist ideological advocacy. An ideological truth — socialism — that is so frequently resisted by the slow-witted cattle of the leftosphere, is in fact being repackaged, ironically, as “robust, informed, and mature discussion” toward state violence and control of freedom of speech and commerce.
It’s thus important to keep in mind that while some conservatives have argued that the right has bigger fish to fry, that the Democratic agenda is intent to have an orgy on “endless bailouts, runaway deficit spending, nationalized health care, card check,” it all runs parallel. What better way to grease the wheels of big government than by redefining the success of conservative print and radio media as a violation of “public welfare,” which should then be prohibited like “crack cocaine”?
If it’s indeed time for “Some Straight Talk About the Fairness Doctrine,” then let’s put everything on the table, including the Democratic-left’s demands for local content dictates, diversity-of-ownership smokescreens, and public-interest rule-based totalitarianism.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Donald Kent Douglas is an associate professor of Political Science teaching in Southern California.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
36 Comments
1. Craig:“Democratic ambitions toward a progressive “public interest regulatory paradigm.””
With liberals, it’s always THEIR public interest. I’m already paying for NPR- so shut your pieholes.
Mar 5, 2009 - 4:49 am 2. chris in Toronto:You’re not seriously suggesting that the Politico is conservative? That is laughable on its face!
Mar 5, 2009 - 4:54 am 3. Mary Grabar:“Public-interest rule-based totalitarianism” is right indeed! This is the scariest aspect of this administration. First, they have direct lines to the young, lost, and impressionable electronically. Then they cut off whatever alternatives remain. And when, when will they apply “Fairness Doctrine” principles to National Public Radio? Great article.
Mar 5, 2009 - 5:24 am 4. Mike Blackadder:After eight years of Bush Hatred it took about 5 minutes before Democrats reached their threshold of criticism.
Mar 5, 2009 - 6:12 am 5. Evidence:“Indeed, notice Lindsay Beyerstein’s analogy holding conservative commentary as comparable to “crack” cocaine. In this formulation, a business model touting “performance pay” is dangerous, even criminal. This is the journalistic “drug rush” that goes too far. There ought to be a law — hence, the demand for mass-media “drug-control” legislation.”
Free association – just shouting out words as they pop into your head – is not the best way to construct a logical argument. Maybe you should cut back on the caffeine.
Mar 5, 2009 - 7:35 am 6. one of my own:#2 Chris in Toronto . . . of course the Politico is not conservative . . . Fox is fair and balanced . . . O’Reilly is an independent . . . The Wall Street Journal is objective, just like the Washington Times. And Canada is the next Super Power, just as soon as they figure out the whole moose thing.
Mar 5, 2009 - 7:41 am 7. The Brutal Truth:“The brutal truth is that the left cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.”
If only there was some mechanism by which we could do a national poll of people’s preferences every couple of years – to see which party they prefer. Maybe we could have some kind of “vote” (a word I just made up!) to let the public choose the ideas they prefer. If we only had a system like that, then we could know for sure.
Alas, we only have elections – which you clowns keep losing. And elections clearly don’t tell us anything about what people prefer.
Mar 5, 2009 - 7:42 am 8. deguello:BRUTAL: “We” did not lose the election;republican moderates did;but since “we” lost, I assume from your post we lose our free speech rights too:is that your point?BTW,the left cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Mar 5, 2009 - 8:23 am 9. deguello:ONE OF MY OWN #6 :You forgot:… and the NY Times’ “all the news that’s fit to print” is true,Teddy Kennedy is not an alcoholic coward,and Obama(the OHOLE),is an expert on economics!
Mar 5, 2009 - 8:29 am 10. McE:“The brutal truth is that the left cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.”
Yes, that’s correct. At least, on the radio. And nothing says 21st century like “radio”.
Of course on TV, in Print, and on the Internet, however…the right’s getting creamed.
For example: How’s that whole Pajamas Media thing working out? http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/01/pajama-media-closes-its-doors.html
I’m sometimes surprised that its not the Right whining about equal time, considering the only media they dominate is that new-fangled radio thing the kids are all talking about these days…
Mar 5, 2009 - 8:43 am 11. Dot:“‘We’ did not lose the election;republican moderates did”
Uh huh. Let’s see. You’re saying the left can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas, yet your own ideas are so unpalatable and weak you can’t even sell them to a majority of people within your own party, much less Americans as a whole. You have to rely on moderate Republicans, who you apparently despise, to win and when you can’t win, you blame them, without any introspection. Because, of course, there is no possibility that you’re wrong. It really defies logic how you can claim the left can’t compete, when the invisible hand of the market has been b*tch slapping you for several years. Or have too many punches to the head made you groggy and forgetful? The truth hurts. People aren’t buying what you’re selling.
Mar 5, 2009 - 9:01 am 12. Southern Values:The American public has historically not been deeply involved in politics. It took 3 decades of conservative policy and the last 8 years of utter incompetence to have the average American think past the wedge issues and start to appreciate the relevant issues. This has culminated in an overwhelmingly favorable opinion of the Democrats and the progressive policies they are forwarding. To date, I’ve heard nothing from the Right but “NO” and their new found fondness of the term socialist. The American public is deeply concerned about the state of their country. If the Right had any cohesive ideas or solutions to these problems, problems the Right mostly created, you would have a willing audience. As such, you have a regional party still consumed with race, god and gays and not focused on the issues that thinking Americans are concerned with. If you don’t come to the table with something, your path is clear.
Mar 5, 2009 - 9:25 am 13. David W. Lincoln:Leave it to those who want the “Fairness doctrine” to receive an invitation to debate Rush Limbaugh, and treat it like an invitation issued to Al Gore by those who arrive at different conclusions when it comes to climate change.
They are interested in power, and the price others have to pay for their human rights being trampled (the right to free speech for instance)
Mar 5, 2009 - 9:26 am 14. Pat J:- Well, a few eggs have to be broken to make an
omelet is something they would use by one of their heroes to justify themselves.
The Fairness Doctrine is irrelevant. Instead let’s support LPFMs to allow more diversity on the airwaves. That and roll back the amount of radio stations any one group can own, and disallow a media entity to own a newspaper in the same market it owns a radio or TV cluster.
Mar 5, 2009 - 9:52 am 15. Peter the Bubblehead:10. McE wrote:
I’m sometimes surprised that its not the Right whining about equal time, considering the only media they dominate is that new-fangled radio thing the kids are all talking about these days…
Peter writes: Please explain then why the lefty-libs seem to think it is so important to crush radio under their censorship thumb is it’s not all that important?
Mar 5, 2009 - 11:07 am 16. commie atheist:“Please explain then why the lefty-libs seem to think it is so important to crush radio under their censorship thumb is it’s not all that important?”
Well, let’s ask our friend Wikipedia:
“The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced…According to Steve Rendall of the progressive media criticism group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, ‘The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.’”
Wow, that certainly sounds like “crush(ing) radio under their censorship thumb.” And Obama is just like Stalin and Hitler combined.
Why are conservatives so afraid of allowing differing viewpoints to be heard?
Mar 5, 2009 - 11:26 am 17. Steve P.:Every week, like clockwork, some wingnut writes another article identical to this one, despite the fact that this is a fabricated issue. Don’t the Republicans have enough things to worry about, like the collapse of their party, to be fabricating causes for worry?
Mar 5, 2009 - 11:57 am 18. Dick Hertz:Why do conservatives hate their fellow Americans so much? Why are they so afraid? Is it the combination of ignorance, arrogance, and misplaced self-confidence?
Mar 5, 2009 - 11:59 am 19. Southern Values:Case in point. Fairness Doctrine is not even on the radar of the Obama Administration. Righties insist that it is. But it’s not. Some lefties and centrists wish it was an option, or that Clear Channel didn’t own all the radio stations. Sad fact: only poor people listen to the radio anymore. Middle class people have ipods, tape decks, and cd changers. Most people aren’t interested in talk radio anyway, except maybe long haul truckers. How can the industry call attention to itself? Right wing persecution fantasies! Now the righties are all in a tizzy because they have convinced themselves of their own conspiracy theory that is so fiendishly clever that Obama must be some kind of super ninja man.
IN the meantime, the memos that the Bush II administration were going to use to crush our constitution under the heels of its Gucci shoes have been released, revealing that the real conservatives are frikking royalists who want a king. That’s conservative!
I’ll restate some of my points from Comment 12 – the Right has nothing but anger and identity politics to present. Look at what came out of CPAC? I didn’t heard one true response / solution to the profound set of problems this nation faces. There is far more detailed information available today, mostly Web based, that provides the ability for individuals to become better informed and truly understanding of the cause and effects of policy decisions. It the Right does not engage the American people at this level, they will be relegated to a regional party focused on regional issues. Listening to Rush is intellectual suicide. He’s the fast food of information sharing. A titillating initial favor, but ultimately bad for your mental health. The D’s won the election and approval of the American people because the R’s were inept. I honestly believe you can get the attention of the American people if you field legitimate concepts / policies not already shown as being unproductive. If your style is patterned after Rush, Fox, etc, and no real commitment to addressing the problems, you’ll make the D’s work very simple.
Mar 5, 2009 - 12:15 pm 20. Marc Malone:Wow, look at all the Lefties commenting on this subject. There’s a clue for y’all.
It really comes down to two things: Who gets to make the determination; vulnerability.
Even granting the absurdity that a balanced viewpoint must be presented time to time, who gets to make the determination as to whether something was balanced or not? Some Leftist ideologue who perceives a Centrist to be a right-wing whackjob? Isn’t this just censorship, in the end? Acting in the “public welfare” is just typical fascist justification.
The real danger is not that the government will shut you down. They won’t have to. Their proxies will do it for you… via the courts. They’ll sue, claiming you aren’t being balanced. Whether you are or not, you lose, because you can’t afford to stay in business when all your profit is going to pay lawyers. THAT is how they will suppress conservative talk radio.
Mar 5, 2009 - 1:16 pm 21. Pat J:17. Steve P.:
————-
It’s the typical Republican playbook, Steve. They can’t handle truth and logic so they manufacture a nonexistent “threat” like the Fairness Doctrine.
“Obey the great Limbaugh or suffer.”
Mar 5, 2009 - 1:47 pm 22. commie atheist:Even granting the absurdity that a balanced viewpoint must be presented time to time, who gets to make the determination as to whether something was balanced or not? Some Leftist ideologue who perceives a Centrist to be a right-wing whackjob? Isn’t this just censorship, in the end? Acting in the “public welfare” is just typical fascist justification.
So, I take it you’re saying that the government is run by “Leftist ideologues” (funny!) and that Rush is a “Centrist” (even funnier!)? And that’s true no matter which party happens to be in charge? Or are you just afraid that right-wing Republicans will never win another election, now that Americans have seen how bankrupt your political philosophy is?
You’re all a bunch of whiners. Talk about a “culture of victimization”!! Grow up, already.
Mar 5, 2009 - 1:59 pm 23. Mike Blackadder:Hey Commie Atheist, Pat J and others; check that wikipedia link again and see which Democrats are advocating a need to reinstate “the Fairness Doctrine” over the past 3-4 weeks ie. Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi. Tell me that’s not a reaction to Rush’s (and other conservative) criticism of Obama’s outrageous ’stimulus plan’ and the fact that many Americans are moved by these arguments.
And no the Democrats do not have any rational ideas to share in the public debate. That is why they play political games like closing Guantanamo Bay (despite their investigation that cleared Guantanamo of wrongdoing) and spend their time attacking Rush and other conservative personalities since Democrats are clearly suffering from Bush-hate withdrawal.
It seems to me that the predominant ‘idea’ put forth by Democrats to solve America’s problems today is to do things differently than George Bush and to destroy the free market. That does not qualify as a policy idea, in fact it is not even rational in itself. Besides, it seems to me that this whole problem started not due to the free market, but due to Democrats interfering with the markets through legislation for sub-prime mortgages (since evil capitalists would only lend money to people who could pay it back). Bush spent the past eight years trying to push for greater regulatory powers against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, while Democrats insisted everything was fine.
Conservative ideas are right for the United States. But they lack leadership, and unfortunately the Republican party does not always represent conservative ideas.
Mar 5, 2009 - 3:12 pm 24. Dr Zen:I think you may have it the wrong way round. Mr Limbaugh is not broadcast because of the strength of his ideas. He’s broadcast because the person who employs him is a cryptofascist. HTH.
Mar 5, 2009 - 3:24 pm 25. Dr Zen:And hey, I note that in this “marketplace of ideas”, one of the salesman gets to censor the others!
One wonders why, given the profound strength of rightist ideas, rightist blogs have moderated comments?
Mar 5, 2009 - 3:27 pm 26. Mike Blackadder:After 8 years of ridiculous claims from the left: (ie. 911 truthers, accusing Bush and General Petraeus of being liars about Iraq even after events vindicated them, countless personal attacks toward the President), why do you think it is that it is Democrats who try to exert the “Fairness Doctrine” on the American Press? I think this is due to a lack of intellectual honesty.
And the “fairness doctrine” is nonsense. What kind of a story can be considered ‘balanced’. Wouldn’t a balanced report be one that tells you nothing one way or the other?
Aren’t you people all Americans? What is your understanding of the first amendment? Do you even care, or do you think that individual freedom is another one of those dumb old obsolete ideas that don’t apply in the 21st century? You show a real lack of understanding about what is at stake when you open the door for your government to censor the press (especially when censoring the press that criticizes them!).
Mar 5, 2009 - 3:40 pm 27. marymcl:Anyone who doesn’t realize, let alone appreciate, the difference in actual POWER between a popular radio personality and the federal government of the United States is stupid beyond belief.
It’s fantastic, really, how the leftists (and almost all the resident trolls are here – hey guys!) have come out in force on the side of censorship. But that’s the beautiful thing about reactionary partisanship – people nail their true colors to the mast for all to see.
@20 Marc Malone – Exactly. A good example of what you’re talking about would be Peter Matthiessen’s book about Leonard Peltier, “In the Spirit of Crazy Horse”. If memory serves, an FBI agent involved in the case sued the author and his publisher, which kept the book out of print for ten years.
Mar 5, 2009 - 6:23 pm 28. ked5:#16
Mar 6, 2009 - 8:10 am 29. ked5:Peter, I think you misunderstood. McE was saying the right *isn’t* whining about being consigned to radio. He is implying the leftist are complaining their dominance over MSM and print isn’t enough. (hmm, makes me think of a two-year old. I want it *aaaallll*. It’s not fair, wah) They want to control radio too. (after all, it’s the one people listen to while trapped in their cars . . . . though since so many are loosing jobs, there aren’t as many trapped in their cars of late.)
oops, that should have been #15.
Mar 6, 2009 - 8:11 am 30. deguello:#6 COMMIE ATHEIST: Well lied;only a commie atheist degenerate can lie so well using a totally obsolete,meaninglees rule,and pretend it has any relevance to modern communications. Hey CT: have of thought of working for Castro? I could quote you the first amendment, but reading that to a commie, would be like explaining modern sanitation to a mound of excrement.See you at the revolution comrade!
Mar 6, 2009 - 10:18 am 31. deguello:CORRECTION: ABOVE POST SHOULD READ:#16 Sorry #6!
Mar 6, 2009 - 10:20 am 32. deguello:24&25 DR.ZEN: I was not aware that they issued doctorates in tertiary syphillis.Which Ivy League school did you attend? I know other liberals,similarly afflicted, who want to attend. Is there affirmative action for VD patients, under the americans with disabilities act?
Mar 6, 2009 - 10:27 am 33. Blaine:Would the fairness doctrine apply to the White House? Every time they call out Rush will they have to call out a liberal demagogue?
Mar 7, 2009 - 7:14 am 34. Revoltocon:Seriously
Blaine
The White House has been using suppression of speech (and truth) since Mr. Hope-n-Change began campaigning, and the only bigger whiner than Obama back then would be Obama right now!
Mar 7, 2009 - 7:06 pm 35. mimi:But I’m not whining when I say that I have less confidence in him than Wall Street does. I’m just stating a fact about a truly pathetic situation.
Has Ashton Kutcher been here?
Mar 8, 2009 - 8:55 am 36. deguello:RE: 14 PETE: DIVERSITY OF OWNERSHIP: LIBTARDESE FOR FREE SPEECH SUPPRESSION. SCRATCH A LIBERAL’UNCOVER A STALINIST!
Mar 11, 2009 - 9:41 am