A new Rasmussen Poll quoted on Drudge shows 47% favor government mandated political balance on radio and television (a lower number favors these mandates for the Internet). Of course the mandated “balance” they are talking about is between those hoary concepts “liberal” and “conservative”. Meanwhile, considerable polling data from other sources (including Pajamas Media) indicates the majority of Americans do not identify with either of these ideologies. In other words, more people in reality are political hybrids, American pragmatists, if you will. What about equal time for them? Not likely. Too hard to quantify.
What the absurdly named Fairness Doctrine holds for us then is one long perpetual Hannity & Colmes Show, a tedious debate for the lowest common denominator between two increasingly stultified and stultifying ideas that we have been debating from time immemorial to less and less effect. Genuinely original thoughts under this peculiar doctrine would have little chance because they didn’t fit the tired mold. No fairness. No equal time. Socrates, you’re out. Galileo, sayonara. Al Franken and Ann Coulter, you’re in.
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.
20 Comments
1. Dick Stanley:Even more likely would be the complete end of public affairs programming, since it would be cheaper (and safer) in the long run just to stick to “entertainment.”
Aug 14, 2008 - 6:54 pm 2. PC14:More than likely, many voting in favor of the FD are doing so in reaction to the bias shown in favor of Obama in the MSM and like most issues, don’t have anywhere near a full grasp. Just clueless.
Aug 14, 2008 - 7:17 pm 3. Webutante:This is another step towards government engineering and regulation of society ostensibly for our own good. It has unthinkable implications. I can’t believe anyone who says they’re for it really understands the real implications.
Aug 14, 2008 - 8:34 pm 4. chuck:I suppose the basis of such laws would be that the government owns the radio spectrum. What about cable and other digital means of distribution? What about air? Universities already claim to own the air on campus, hence speech codes. Can the government be far behind?
Aug 14, 2008 - 9:33 pm 5. Charlie (Colorado):What really worries me is that it would be Al Franken and … well… nobody. After all, Dan Rather was on TV when the Fairness Doctrine was in the regulations.
Aug 14, 2008 - 10:57 pm 6. Lem:If by the fairness doctrine they mean HBO’s Bill Maher, NPR’s All Thing’s Considered and NPR’s A Prairie Home Companion? As Bush is later said to have regretted, but at the time cheered for it – Bring’m on.
The beauty of the argument (hoist by your own petard outcome) is that it was always the voice of left crying in the wilderness for openness, freedom of speech and no one left behind.
Now they are against the secret union ballot (as a safety net against intimidation), they are against informing union payers how their money is used (3 to 1 favoring democrat candidates) and (as discussed here) against letting the consumer decide what they listen to via the market place.
Last time I checked, the market (not necessarily all ideological) brought two empires into line. For those of you on vacation – the Soviets and the Chinese.
The reason why this is even being discussed is because our educational system (what’s left of it) is no longer up to the task.
We used to be able to laugh this kind of stuff out of the room.
Aug 14, 2008 - 11:05 pm 7. Lem:It’s like a lawyer ‘friend’ of mine says, ‘You (engineers) are in the business of making society safe, thereby less worried. Where as we lawyers are put on this earth to take advantage of your success.’
I tell what thought, I like her – by golly I like her so.
Aug 14, 2008 - 11:31 pm 8. srlucado:With all the problems facing America and the world, they’re wasting time on this?
An infinite number of voices on the internet, and someone wants to try to regulate them all?
Talk about mission creep–and creepy missions. I shudder at the thought of some government agency deciding what is and isn’t political content and then deciding which side needs to be treated more “fairly”. The TSA of weblogs? Heaven forfend.
Scott
Aug 15, 2008 - 3:58 am 9. tim maguire:If you are addressing an issue where there are a dozen different points of view, do you have to show all twelve, or can you pick two and ignore the other 10? And if you can pick two, which government functionary do you contact to find out which two you need to pick?
Aug 15, 2008 - 6:58 am 10. AlanC:Tim M, yes you only have to pick two. 1 extreme anarcho-leftist and 1 extreme left democrat.
Aug 15, 2008 - 7:31 am 11. Kevin Peters:We should all try to remember back to the days when the T.V. networks would air those absurd public issue shows at 3 A.M. in the morning to fulfill their legal requirements to “fairness” like regulations. No one watched them and the only results of these shows was to provide material for SNL type comedy shows.Let the people decide what they want to watch and listen to.
Aug 15, 2008 - 8:01 am 12. jaimeshawn:[Broadcast MSM in just a few years]
“Are you sure ALL Republicans are scum?”, said the most conservative member of the Hilary Clinton administration
“Yes!”, sobbed the extreme leftist…
[and then cut to another dozen 'male enhancement' commercials]
Aug 15, 2008 - 8:28 am 13. Jay:I don’t know about Hannity and Colmes, but I sure dug “Firing Line.”
RIP, Mr. Buckley.
Aug 15, 2008 - 10:53 am 14. Mike_K:I would think that any attempt to bring back the “fairness doctrine” would be limited to the broadcast spectrum. It’ s Pelosi’s weapon against talk radio but that would simply mean that satellite radio would take over a little sooner than it will anyway. The British are a warning example of the effects of media monopoly. Their society is going to hell as a result of PC run amok and a terrible education system, even worse then ours.
Aug 15, 2008 - 4:36 pm 15. PC14:If I’m picking a political team, I want a Sean Hannity as a starter. The guy is a little terrier. He grabs hold of your pant leg and simply shakes it until your leg comes off. Certainly not a sophisticated or elegant approach.
But if you want a hockey analogy. He’s not Gretzky but instead the guy who keeps the other team honest by doing a decent days work in the corners and steps up when the gloves drop…lunch pail kinda guy.
Aug 15, 2008 - 8:46 pm 16. California Dreamer:I took a poll and found that 47% of Americans cannot understand the questions they are asked by pollsters. It’s tempting to blame the education system, but I think at least half of that 47% is just poor genes.
Aug 16, 2008 - 12:41 am 17. Lem:“Firing Line.”
I would love to hear Fred Friendly decimate “the fairness doctrine”.
Watching those panels there was no doubt that the republic would be in good hands because of people like Moynahan, Buckley and Friendly.
Now that seems like something out of science fiction.
Aug 16, 2008 - 11:38 pm 18. Lem:Friendly did a panel on the first gulf war, just before we went in, about the merits and demerits, about how it should be covered, everything from soup to nuts.
I haven’t seen anything like it on television ever again.
I remember someone trying to spin some relevant historical fact on one of his panel and Friendly disarming the spinner with a better version of the spin breaking up the audience in laughter. Friendly was sharp.
I also remember a panel on speech codes (this was sort of the evolution of “affirmative action”). It was so well done, in the end there was no doubt that such a scheme, no mater how well intended, would do irreparable harm to our constitution.
Aug 17, 2008 - 12:08 am 19. tehag:I’m absolutely in favor of the fairness doctrine and balance on our nation’s airwaves. I’m tired of the limited, ‘a’ to ‘b’ consensus of liberal-conservative-socialist-communist media elite. With government-mandated balance the American people will at last hear from fascists, nazis, monarchists, islamists, theocrats, and libertarians.
tehag
Aug 17, 2008 - 8:09 am 20. Gary Rosen:“With government-mandated balance the American people will at last hear from fascists, nazis, monarchists, islamists, theocrats, and libertarians.”
They’re already hearing most of those points of views (especially the first three) every time Pat Buchanan opens his piehole.
Aug 17, 2008 - 10:33 am