Congress is finally looking at the Fairness Doctrine. And of course, nothing sends conservative talk jocks and corporate broadcasters fleeing to the barricades faster than even the slightest hint, rumor and whisper that President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats might aggressively push to reinstate the Doctrine. The jocks rushed to the barricades when top White House advisor David Axelrod recently coyly hinted that new FCC head Julius Genachowski might take a look at the Doctrine that set off even more panic that a return of the Fairness Doctrine was practically a done deal.
That's hardly the case. In June 2008, then Presidential candidate Obama flatly said that he did not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. And other than the stray remark from Axelrod there's no indication that Obama has changed his mind on the issue. However, he should. The Fairness Doctrine though vague, loose, and virtually unenforced during the decades it was on the books did at least give some pubic space on the airwaves to an occasional dissenting voice. The thought of that is too much to stomach for the anti- fairness Doctrine fear mongers.
Their stock retort is that the Fairness Doctrine obliterates free speech, will lead to a government takeover of the airwaves, drive corporate broadcasters into the tank, and effectively muzzle conservative views. Conservative talk jocks and the media syndicates used the same arguments to prod Reagan and Congress to dump the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. None of this was true then or true now.
The Fairness Doctrine did not require that broadcasters give equal time to liberal or moderate Democrats to counter the hot air of conservative talk jocks. The Doctrine did not tell broadcasters who should get a talk show, what the hosts could say, or who they had to have on their shows. By the time Congress shelved the Doctrine, the FCC had virtually ceased even enforcing it. The Fairness Doctrine simply served as a broad guide to insure that stations give at least some time to differing points of view, i.e. views other than those of conservative white guys, and an occasional token conservative woman or black.
If enough listeners complained that a station was too lop sided in the parade of conservatives it had popping off on a particular issue, than it had to give "reasonable opportunity" to the other side to give an opposing view. The FCC didn't tell the station how much time to give, who to give the time to, or when to give it. The tepid requirement that an offending station bring some semblance of balance to a discussion of an issue did not drive a single conservative jock from the studio mics, diminish the power and profit of the syndicates, or chill free speech. It did just the opposite. The number of conservative talk radio hosts grew bigger, their influence greater, and the profits of corporate syndicates soared. In 1999, the five largest companies operated one out of five stations and generated nearly 50 percent of industry revenue. In 2006, they controlled more than one out of three stations and took in more than sixty percent of industry revenue.
The few successful challenges to a station that hogged the air with conservative talk resulted in more not less free speech, since listeners got to hear a few differing views. No more. In the two decades since the burial of the Doctrine more than a quarter of all broadcast stations don't offer any local news or public affairs programming. An even greater number of stations simply plop in a few minutes of canned news headlines.
Conservative talk radio has been a treasure chest of riches for the broadcast syndicates, and their talk jocks weld a power over millions that emperors, kings and dictators would drool over. A near textbook example of that is the ongoing debate over Obama's stimulus plan. There was some hint in the early days of the congressional debate over the plan that a few House Republicans might be willing to back the plan. The conservative talking heads went to work and quickly changed that. They railed against it as a fatally flawed pork barrel laden, tax and spend, power grab scheme by Obama and the Democrats. This stiffened the spines of the GOP rank and file against the plan. Now that they have flexed their broadcast muscles and whipped the GOP back in line, next up will be to browbeat, cajole, and bully any GOP dissenters on health care, the environment, and any other big ticket issue that conservative talk jocks deem an Obama and Democratic party power grab.
All this of course with not a peep of an alternative view to be heard on their talk airwaves. Obama should bring back the Fairness Doctrine and help make sure that lone voice is heard.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).
To believe this process won't be abused is absurd. Rod Blagojevich apparently tried to use his indirect leverage over the Chicago Tribune to force them to fire editorialists critical of him (you can read more on this here: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/ID.775/blog_detail.asp).
Just imagine once the politiicans have the authority to revoke licenses if they don't believe the licensees are being "fair" to them or their favored causes?
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
sparnell@campaignfreedom.org
The good guys are doing fine on TV and the intertubes. Let the Gold's Foot Powder crowd have radio. It's for people who can't read, anyway.
And one more point, Earl was incorrect with his definition of the Fairness Doctrine, and so are you. It did NOT apply to political speech, it ONLY stated that a radio (or TV) station must cover controversial subjects occasionally, and when they did so they must present both sides of the argument. In other words, the Scopes Monkey Trial would be covered under the Fairness Doctrine, while Rush Limbaugh would NOT be!!!
This requirement should only apply to broadcast media - TV and radio - because it is only these media where corporations are granted exclusive rights to broadcast.
Better that they have no hand at all - and we decide as a population to not only not listen to right-wing talk, but to discredit the listeners for whom such propaganda is a bible.
Call it "Limbaugh's Law", it's like Godwin's Law - you say "But I heard on Rush..." you lose the argument. And your intellectual credibility. And you get kicked in the genitals.
I don't need the government to tell me that right-wing talk is unbalanced and to force left-wing talk on a market that doesn't want it.
If there was a guaranteed audience for a left-wing Rush / Hannity that would make millions, they'd be on the air as heroes, but there isn't. We liberals don't cotton to propaganda, which is why we have our glorious series of tubes.
No thanks.
The benefits of requiring media companies to provide contrary viewpoints are far outweighed by the anger from the right. It's just not worth it, and secondarily - it's not needed. The left, unlike the right, doesn't need to be told what to think, and certainly aren't of the mindset that we want it forced on us. I would actually propose that the right's expenditure of energy and column space on the FD is actually more valuable. Let them have their echo chamber with their 19th century technology and bloviate about their red herrings. For every minute a rightwinger (leader or rank-and-file) spends coming up with strategy to fight the red herring, the less prepared they are for ACTUAL issues. Liberal radio is just not really all that needed - and would prove counterproductive due to the backlash of having it forced.