The Fairness Doctrine: Just Say No

Alert the Centers for Disease Control: The latest panic over the Fairness Doctrine is becoming a full-blown epidemic.

The hysteria is no longer limited to right-wing radio and the Republican Caucus. Some prominent Democrats are catching it, too.

The Fairness Doctrine is the long defunct federal rule that required broadcasters to present contrasting views on controversial issues. Off the books since 1987, its demise is often (and erroneously) credited with the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the noise machine.

As I've written here repeatedly, there is no chance the Fairness Doctrine will come back. There's no bill to reinstate it in Congress, no public interest advocates are campaigning for it, and the netroots aren't interested. Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps doesn't want it back, and President Barack Obama is unequivocally opposed.

That's why the symptoms of Fairness Doctrine Panic, or FDP, are so scary. Once afflicted, otherwise clear-headed politicians start rambling uncontrollably and putting their feet in their mouths. And FDP (first diagnosed by journalist Matthew Lasar) is highly contagious: When one person starts talking about the Fairness Doctrine, others can't help themselves.

That's the only logical explanation for the recent statements on The Bill Press Show by Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) about restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Now even Bill Clinton seems to have come down with a case of FDP.

Of course, neither of these senators is in a position to actually bring back the Fairness Doctrine, unless the agriculture or banking committees are about to suddenly expand their jurisdictions. And it would seem the current Democratic president's views on the subject are more important than the last one's. But these factors won't keep the Fairness Doctrine from being topic No. 1 on talk radio and Fox News.

Stabenow, Harkin and Clinton must think paying lip service to the Fairness Doctrine keeps their base -- or at least Bill Press -- happy. But it's really just red meat for the other side, giving conservative talkers and bloggers something to rant about, raise money against, and rally their troops

Perhaps I'm missing a more subtle and sophisticated strategy in which these politicians are summoning the ghost of the Fairness Doctrine to keep Republicans so apoplectic that they won't have the energy to obstruct more important issues. I wish the Democrats were so clever.

More likely is that all this idle chatter will make it much harder to implement much-needed media reforms. Feeding the FDP encourages Republicans to attack any sensible media policy as the Fairness Doctrine in disguise.

Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is already slamming crucial issues like Net Neutrality as the "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet. This is ridiculous -- Net Neutrality by its very definition is content neutral -- but that doesn't mean the fear-mongering won't work.

Our leaders in Washington could instead be working to protect free speech and promote more voices in the public sphere. Congress could be moving legislation right now -- with broad popular and bipartisan support -- to rein in runaway media consolidation (the biggest obstacle to diversity of opinion on the airwaves), to increase public media funding and protect it from political interference, and to make sure the free and open Internet stays that way. Or they can keep blabbering about a backward-looking, politically doomed policy that never really worked and has been dead and gone for 20 years.

Fortunately, there is a remarkably effective and surprisingly simple treatment for FDP.

It's easy: When asked about the Fairness Doctrine, just say no. Call it the "not talking cure."

Let's do a little role-playing. Pretend I'm Bill Press:

BILL PRESS: Isn't it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN: No.

BILL PRESS: Don't we need it? But isn't this the only way to keep progressive voices on the air?

DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN: No.

BILL PRESS: Is the Fairness Doctrine ever coming back?

DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN: No. Nope. Not. Nyet. Never.

Wasn't that easy? The beauty is that it also works with conservative hosts. And it has the added benefit of being true.

Just say no to the Fairness Doctrine. You'll be feeling better in no time.

Comments

[stiv53]

If libs could be entertaining on a nationwide radio talk venue, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Some have tried, but failed (Franken, Press, Alan Colmes). I guess it's hard to keep up the snarkiness for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week.

[seanparnell]

Craig Aaron has some good advice for politicians about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - just say no.

This policy would put the government in charge of determining what is "fair" and "balanced" on the airwaves. What does that mean? Only political operatives appointed to the FCC will know, dictating what political speech a station must air. Fabulous - depending Karl Rove or Harold Ickes will be sending their lackeys over to a station near you with their stopwatch and their own judgement about whether they've been "fair" in their treatment of political issues.

Aaron is wrong to suggest this is some sort of "panic" as though there's no serious reason to be concerned. A new "Fairness Doctrine" may have a hard time passing in Congress, but it only takes 3 FCC commissioners to put something into place that either directly or indirectly has the same effect.

Also, House Energy & Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman is exploring ways to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" in disguised form: see here: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/id.817/blog_detail.asp

So instead of continually mocking and dismissing anybody who voices a concern about putting political appointees in charge of political speech on the radio or internet, perhaps Mr. Aaron could offer a constructive critique for the many fans of the "Fairness Doctrine" on why it's terrible policy and counter to the First Amendment?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
www.campaignfreedom.org
campaignfreedom.orgeedom.org

[ImSwiss]

The proof is in the pudding. When Reagan revoked the Fairness Doctrine in 1986 it gave rise to Rush Limbaugh and a host of other Ring wing corporate mouthpieces across the couuntry. If you think they are harmless think again. The Rethuglicans rightfully gave Limbaugh credit for making the difference in their take over of congress, the undermining of the Clinton presidency to the extend that they could ( they didn't count on a man like Clinton being as strong as he was ). and the Bush presidencies. So in my mind they swayed their ditto head audiences who live on a daily diet of right wing propaganda and never change channels to their lies and gave us the tragedies we are experiencing today in America.
The Fairness Doctrine would have allowed at least a little balance on these media outlets so that the
mindless hords would have been exposed to a little truth. I felt this happening since about 1990 and have felt so helpless to do anything. They have been somewhat discredited now but at a huge cost.

[JTHC75]

"Now, keeping in mind we're talking about the Regulation of a Public Resource the Public Airwaves (the use of which is nobody's right, not first amendment or any other right: there being no right to broadcast on the Public Airwaves, the need of an FCC License being the proof of that)..."

The Internet is also a public resource. Do you think HuffPo should be regulated?

[seanparnell]

Actually, that's exactly what Henry Waxman seems to be proposing.

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/id.817/blog_detail.asp

I'm sure all the HuffPo readers will be just thrilled to see the latest columns by Rush, Hannity, O'Rielly, etc. on the front page of this site, as mandated by some new and perverse "Fairness Doctrine."

Also, from time to time I'm unable to leave the room when my wife insists on watching "Brothers and Sisters" on ABC, and from time to time hear various impassioned calls for gay marriage. I assume everyone here who's in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine" would favor mandating that right after such a call, there should be an equally well-presented and respectable argument in opposition to this view?

Of course, that would never happen - "entertainment" shows would simply avoid such topics alltogether. Get ready for more stories about Lucy as the spokesperson for Vitameatavegamin (which might not be so bad, come to think of it).

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
www.campaignfreedom.org
campaignfreedom.orgeedom.org

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

It doesn't have to be that black and white --the doctrine could be modified to apply to Clear Channel because of its monopoly on our public radio airwaves -- 24/7 right-wing talk aimed at working class people to keep them uninformed and voting against their own interests is exactly the kind of thing that the FCC was created in 1934 to prevent from happening.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/its-time-to-resuscitate-t_b_167331.html

[foxfan]

I try to listen to all sides. I can't stand Coulter and Rush and Hannity is a pain. Keith and Rachel are no better, just on the opposite side. Why do we isolate right-wing talk as keeping people uninformed? And shouldn't that be misinformed?

[liberalNmoderation]

Wow...the rightwingnut troll brigade is out in force on this thread.

[foxfan]

My unserstanding is that the Fairness Doctrine is about 80 years old. It was intended to prevent the government from contolling radio, at the time the only media outlet. I think with the success of Rush and Hannity and control of the government belonging to the Democrats, this is clearly not the case. However, if the Democratic government would use the Fairness Doctrine to push liberal talk shows into contention with conservative talk shows, then the govrnment would be guilty of trying to control the airwaves.

[MajorKong]

I'm not for the Fairness Doctrine, but since it scares the crap out of the right wingers maybe we should run with it.

[lancesjogren]

Demo2020 said:

"Now, keeping in mind we're talking about the Regulation of a Public Resource the Public Airwaves (the use of which is nobody's right, not first amendment or any other right: there being no right to broadcast on the Public Airwaves, the need of an FCC License being the proof of that)... "



Yes, that is the mantra of the Fairness Doctrine advocates. Wherever you can censor freedom of speech without running afoul of the First Amendment, do so.

Is it any wonder tha many consider the biggest threat of a Police State in the US to come from people on the left rather than the right? (I am not saying all leftists are authoritarians, I am saying some are)

[pjburke]

To believe that there is any threat of a police state to come from anywhere OTHER than the reich wing is so utterly deluded, so utterly incapable of recognizing actual facts as they stare him in the face that such a person would have to be considered a danger to himself and others.

"Is it any wonder tha many consider the biggest threat of a Police State in the US to come from people on the left rather than the right? (I am not saying all leftists are authoritarians, I am saying some are)"

No one sentient and rational believes this. Only the media functionairies of the nascent police-sta­te-to-come say it.

No authoritarians are "leftists.­" That is a contradiction of terms, and displays utter misunderstanding of authoritarianism. ALL authoritarians are right-wingers.

[foxfan]

So much typing to say absolutely nothing. So sad.

[Raco]

Ah yes, Mao, Castro and Chavez. Famous right wingers all. The real point is power corupts, and can hit well from both sides of the plate (my spring training tribute).

[lancesjogren]

"With the Fairness Doctrine, any so-called "progressive" media will have to provide an outlet to every conservati­ve."


Wrong. Under the Fairness Doctrine, the bureaucrats in charge of regulating public discourse are free to target only those voices in the media that they wish to silence.

[pjburke]

utter paranoid nonsense devoid of fact or basis.

[lovable]

all u need is for the media to report and correct a lie. the peloci mouse debacle was all over the networks put out by the repubs and a repub admitted that the story was not true and the repubs and the media kept repeating the story as true. thats sad!!!!!!!!!

[foxfan]

But where is the left wing media? There is nothing to prevent the left from finding their "Rush" and putting on a radio show that reaches 20 million listeners. It's not like stations have blocked these shows. In many locations where conservative talk radio rules, liberal shows would not be economically viable. Likewise the conservative shows in locations where liberal radio rules.

[JohnLloydScharf]

With the Fairness Doctrine, any so-called "progressive" media will have to provide an outlet to every conservative.

[Dem02020]

If a broadcaster uses the precious and privileged FCC License that they hold (but that you and I can't even dream of getting), if they broadcast POLITICAL OPINIONS to the American People on our PUBLIC AIRWAVES, then they are to yield EQUAL TIME to different or opposing POLITICAL OPINIONS; and if that broadcaster uses this precious privilege to broadcast to the American People on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, if they broadcast PERSONAL ATTACKS on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, then they are to yield REPLY TIME to those who were PERSONALLY ATTACKED by a broadcaster on our PUBLIC AIRWAVES.

Now, keeping in mind we're talking about the Regulation of a Public Resource the Public Airwaves (the use of which is nobody's right, not first amendment or any other right: there being no right to broadcast on the Public Airwaves, the need of an FCC License being the proof of that)...

Now, what's so strange about EQUAL TIME in the broadcasting of POLITICAL OPINIONS on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, and what's so strange about REPLY TIME in the broadcasting of PERSONAL ATTACKS on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES?

Sounds like a Fair and Balanced use of a precious and privileged (and Regulated) FCC License.

[Myke T]

It`s so the left wing socialists can silence anyone who disagrees with them, I guess they never heard of freedom of speech. Fairness Doctrine will never happen.

[pjburke]

It is the reich-wing propagandist cabal who is doing the silencing. Those cowards would never survive if they had to confront an informed challenger to their hick-duping BS.

[JTHC75]

Can you imagine if a Republican administration decided to "bring balance" to HuffPo by mandating that it give 50% space to right-wingers? (Can't happen? It's distributed on the internet, right? Isn't that a public resource just as much as the airwaves?) I hope you'd fight to the death to prevent something like that happening--I'd be right there beside you, and I'm a conservative to boot!

I come here *because* the HuffPo is unapologetically left wing. I don't want to see this turned into some wishy-washy "balanced" crap, and I don't want to see that happen to my favorite right wing sites either. I especially don't want to see it happen because some government lackey is allowed to decide what is "balanced" and what is not.

[pjburke]

Broadcast frequencies are a finite resource. The internet -- and HuffPo publishing space -- is virtually unlimited.

Five conservative corporations own the top 250+ AM talk stations, and thereby this conservative cabal controls talk radio. That over 90% of all talk radio is fact-free conservative hooey is no coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with "the market." Conservative talk radio has one purpose: keep the hicks stoopid and in line.

[JTHC75]

Of course it has to do with the market. Whether you like it or not, Rush Limbaugh is hugely popular and has massive market share. Air America has struggled outside of a few large markets. There are reasons for that, but don't lie to me about the popularity of conservative talk radio.

[seanparnell]

Ah, no. The internet is not "virtually unlimited.­" That's the whole point behind "net neutrality" and telecom companies efforts to in some way manage the data that flows through their networks, because there is not "infinite" bandwidth.

Also, there's a total of 4,700+ AM radio stations in the country, so the fact that 250 are owned by the Clear Channel's of the world isn't terribly impressive. If progressive talk were more popular on the air, there would be hundreds if not thousands of low-rated stations carrying ag reports, sports, classical music, etc. that would switch formats to the more lucrative progressive talk format. That this hasn't happened should tell you what you need to know about the viability of this format and its ability to garner an audience.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
www.campaignfreedom.org
campaignfreedom.orgeedom.org