'Fairness Doctrine' Advocate Identified

As I've mentioned before, one of the singular concerns of the Right since the election of Barack Obama is the paranoid fear that the "Fairness Doctrine" -- an ineffective and widely disliked policy relic from the mid-20th Century -- would be reinstated. The "Fairness Doctrine" was conceived in 1949 as a means of ensuring that the ideological opinions on the then-scarce radio airwaves remained precisely balanced. The measure proved difficult to enforce, and it was done away with in 1987. For some reason, people like George Will are terrified that it might make a return.

These concerns are as fanciful as anything I've experienced on a mescaline-induced spirit walk, but in the spirit of, uhm...fairness, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that there does exist at least one person who backs the measure. That person? Anna Eshoo. I know! Who is that? Well, she's the U.S. Representative from California's 14th District, and according to the Palo Alto Daily Post, she's all for the "Fairness Doctrine," saying, "I'll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it."

So there you have it. The leading advocate of the return of the "Fairness Doctrine" is an obscure Representative who's not yet passionate enough about the matter to warrant it a single mention on her website. Her efforts will be opposed by media-reform advocates, about three-quarters of the House, presumably all Senate Republicans, a slew of Democratic Senators who are mystified by how they've come to be seen as advocates for the measure, and President-Elect Barack Obama, who opposes it.

Comments

[kassandrasduplex]

The media monopolies were made possible by the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine. That's precisely why so many media outlets are against it and why the search engines have filters directing you to only negative websites about it. Something that was a fixture of PROGRESSIVE New Deal American life for almost 50 years (the inception part of the FCC's creation in 1934 as a response to the yellow journalism of Hearst's day) cannot be as bad as all these media people say it is. There is another motive at work, namely control of public opinion.
BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[research]

Check out "republican Noise Machine" It's details how the right created a vanity press and think tanks, and used the fairness doctrine to get on the air.

It may be a flawed concept, that needs updating. It assumes there are Two competing ideologies. There are multitudes of points of view. It has no polling mechanism to determine what views are popular and should get air time. Thus the right got disproportional air time to thier representation. Now the right OWNs 99% of the media, and they are moving in on the internet.

Media Ownership and control is the biggest problem. We need big time antitrust to break up the media one per owner.

[billkarwin]

This is really timely -- The Onion is now reporting that The Weather Channel shamelessly overreports stories on hurricanes and weekend forecasts at the expense of other news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKj35xhkNE

Clearly the Fairness Doctrine should be invoked in this case!

[research]

Most democrats and liberals don't want the fairness doctrine back, because it was the wedge the GOP conservatives used to to get on the air when they were unpopular.

The real need is to break up the media conglomerates to one media outlet per owner.

[jsgaetano]

Never let the truth or reality impede on being "fair and balanced".

[Teritt]

And all this time I thought the Fairness Doctrine was actually the Mission Statement for Fox News :-)

[rayworth27]

Rep. Eshoo isn't obscure -- she is a high-ranking member of the house committee with jurisdiction over telecommunications issues and known to be a close ally of the Speaker of the House. I am not in any way in favor of the conservatives purporting the ridiculous notion that the fairness doctrine will be brought back in this day and age, but Eshoo is an important congresswoman. Another thing to keep in mind is that the fairness doctrine applies to broadcast media, not cable. O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs wouldn't be afected, at least on cable.

[Bushwillresign]

Just saying the word "FAIRNESS" makes republicans cringe with fear. They would be nothing if everyone insisted in "FAIRNESS".

[simplysimon2]

I agree totally with Ashoo.

I voted to get the "liberal" MoveOn.Org to make the "Fairness Doctrine" a priority this year, they had a "popular" election and I was ignored. They think majority rule trumps common sense when prioritizing. They don't get it that the media sets the conversation for the nation, for the world. You can't get all the pretty things they want like health care reform, ending military domination, you name it, without public support. Who leads the cheers for the crap is the media who are still in the throes of the "YELLOW JOURNALISM" of Rupert Murdoch and his henchman, Roger Ailes and Rush and Bill and Sean. All the news media bow to the rule of "If it bleeds or stinks, it leads", thereby sinking all that's positive and helpful. Everyone wants clean air, clean food, clean politics but you need a megaphone to awaken the better angels inside each one of us. The "Fairness Doctrine" lowers the negative noise and gives hope and peace a chance.

Simply, Simon

[zippy2112]

The Fairness Doctrine is a violation of "Freedom of Speech" if you on't like what you hear change the channel.

[onlinesavant]

Written like someone who does'nt know what the @@ck their talking about. The Fairness Doctrine stipulated that opposing point of view must have an equal hearing over THE PUBLIC airwaves. What part of that don't you understand?

[Bushwillresign]

The way it works is: Rush or Billo will say something and someone on the other side will be able to say "He's lying and here's why". It would put them all out of business cause lying is their business.

[Paisano]

On the publics air waves...we need the Fairness Doctrine. All shows against this can go on cable...

[Quinty]

But why has Huffington launched a campaign against the Fairness Doctrine?

Anyone listening to radio nowadays is fully aware of how the far right, and I do mean the far right, dominates the airwaves. Here in southern New England there is virtually no presence of progressive voices on the radio, or even of moderate voices.

Why bring back the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it?

Free speech!

Now those rightwingers who dominate the air will tell us corporate speech is free speech. Oh? When there is nothing but a far rightwing point of view to hear on the air that becomes "a free exchange of ideas?" That allows for rebuttal and an exchange of facts and points of view?

Only in America would corporate profit driven speech be seen as an expression of free speech. For those of us who would like to hear a different point of view, bring back the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it!!! The airwaves belong to us.

[jamugge]

The problem with the media is the ownership. Too few own too much of the media. And the owners tend to be corporate interests which serve the ruling oligarchy.

We need a moratorium on mergers in all areas of the economy, but most especially in the media. Without the corporate propaganda there would not have been a war in Iraq. And let's start breaking up the big companies. Like Bernie Sanders says, "If they're too big to fail they're too big."

[VikingQuest]

Media ownership and the fairness doctrine are 2 very different things.

A massive corporation like Clear Channel will put on anything that people want to listen to and will get them money in return via advertising.

Liberal radio isn't there yet in 95% of markets.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Teddy Roosevelt felt that way 90 years ago. Corporations that are to big to fail are dangerous and surpresses competition. In the Albany NY radio market CBS broadcast every right-wing liberal bashing talker you can think of, one big echo chamber, just a matter of degree. Ed Shultz, would play really well in the rural areas around Albany. Ed's down to earth style would certainly play better than Savage's foaming at the mouth shotgun, pissed off Jew from the Bronx action. Upstate New Yorkers think of everything they don't like about New York City when they here a down state acent.

[Beka13]

Why are those people so scared about everything all the time, but fail to take the steps to prevent real dangerous situations?

[grf67]

republicans are terrified of informed voters.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Keep them stupid, read those talking points.

[Bushwillresign]

It worked with proposition 8 in California. People like Lisabeth on the "VIEW" stated that if Prop 8 passed "your children will be taught about Gays in grade school". That's the power of the airwaves. People voted to "save their children" when prop 8 didn't have anything to do with "your" children.

[totalliberal]

Why is the right-wing so terrified of fairness. Hmmm.

[zippy2112]

Why is the left-wing afraid of fairness?

[BPCentrisAmerican]

In what way?

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Because AM radio is only media they truly own, for propaganda purposes.

[donbrown]

The thing you have to realize about conservatives is that they are not genetically disposed to recognizing shades of grey. They see the world in black and white and believe everyone else should too.

This explains their disdain of "nuance" or anything that suggests on has changed one's mind. Thus the flip-flop charge against Kerry was very effective for their mindset.

They equate a willingness to listen to opposing views as weakness, and therefore disdain both PBS and NPR.

It takes a certain level of intelligence to appreciate more than one point of view, and most conservatives lack the smarts to even conceive of such a thing.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

It takes creative thinkers to hear "nuance".

[cam]

Extremists of all stripes are poor at "nuance". Right wing media has become the engine for interpreting all events in such a way that they support an extremely narrow mindset. Perhaps the fairness doctrine is unworkable, but there is a need to expand the range of opinion available to people, to challenge thier preconceptions and misconceptions so they form their own opinions instead of being propagandized into an opinion.

Currently the commercially successful media outlets are also the most ifluential. Perhaps it is time to apply some anti-trust law?