I'm Mad as Hell and I'm Not Going to Take It Any More

The "Fairness Doctrine" is anything but FAIR!

What could be "fairer" then defining "fairness?"

The dictionary defines it as free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.

The overriding issue for me has ALWAYS been society's inability to examine almost any situation and declare that the outcome was "fair."

I would think that if you are dividing up six cookies among three children, giving each two could be considered to be fair. That is, unless two of the kids are teens and the third is under a year old. Ergo, "fair" is so subjective that I would give up defining it.

Certainly I do not want the government defining "fairness". What could be more frightening then the government trying to impose their definition of "fairness" on America's radio stations?

This could be my worst media nightmare, and I have had many times before. These rules would be an affront to both "the right and left" and would put the feds right in the middle of what we do and don't get to hear.

Almost a year ago, I asked myself a couple of questions, and gave interesting answers that were my own. They were:

Should the FCC allow still more media consolidation then we already have? NO.

Should we return to the broadcast media fairness doctrine? NO.

It will surprise the very many who describe me as a "Liberal" that I routinely assert: If you want something screwed up, give it to government to administer.

This brings me to the travesty about which I am writing: "The Fairness Doctrine."

"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the 'Fairness Doctrine' is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance."

The Fairness Doctrine was thankfully repealed in 1987, but many in Congress would like to see it reinstated.

Is ANYONE comfortable with government "bureaucrats" listening in on EVERYTHING America's radio stations broadcast, while keeping a perpetual tally as to what they think is "fair"?

What will the Feds do then? Will they imprison the station "operators" for their "bias?" Will they punish stations in other ways should anyone deviate from their definition of "fairness"? What a nightmare this would be.

"Big Brother" will be listening. Won't that be just great?

In my never humble opinion, the Feds should establish ONLY "CONTENT NEUTRAL" rules, and (you should excuse the expression) "screw the notion of fairness."

Why is my "media" hair on fire on this? Because I have heard that there is a "Broadcaster Freedom Act" which will serve to kill once and for all this onerous, dangerous and silly "Fairness Doctrine".

It is currently stuck in Congressional committee, because the majority (the Democrats), and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not allow the bill on to the floor for a full vote. This is not a good thing.

Notwithstanding my left-wing suspicion of anything that comes from Washington, and my suspicion of any bill with the word "freedom" in its name, I am going to ask those of you that do not want the feds determining what is and is not "fair" to contact your Congressperson and tell them that "You Are Mad as Hell, and You're Not Going to Take it Anymore!"

Tell them to support the bill that will end the Fairness Doctrine. Contact your Congressperson and tell them to sign The Broadcaster Freedom Act petition.

For the press to be truly free, the Feds must never again be in the "fairness" business.

At the same time the feds should be committed to the notion that "big media" is big enough, and should not be allowed to get any bigger.

BIG BROTHER, GO AWAY AND STAY AWAY

Comments

[TimeJumper]

It is a disappointment that we have gradually blurred the line between a commentator"s acrimonious words sans facts and the actual facts themselves. We have unwittingly ensconced our media personalities to a level of unparalleled exploitation that beguiles our cynicisms, grievances and perceived injustices "all for the sake of profits. What we should be more concerned about is when the lauded talk show host frames the debate, alters the definitions and marginalizes any fair discussion in order to further their own agenda or that of the corporate interest.

[Freecelladdict]

Do I detect a straw man here?

Enlighten me, Norman. Where do you get the idea that a fairness doctrine inescapably leads to federal meddling and Big Brother?

As Steve Rendall wrote in 2005:
"Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: "Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view," was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment."

(Whole article: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053)

Yes, a federal agency would be involved, but the way I read it, and IANAL, that agency would not actively be monitoring the fairness of every broadcast, but merely judge after the fact, and only when and if an interested party lodged a complaint.

And I don't see a whole lot wrong with the concept. I can certainly see it stopping a few of those right-wing talking-point-distributors from parading these miserable swiftboaters completely unopposed all of the time.

A "Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view" somehow doesn't really invoke visions of Big Brother to me.

I hardly ever disagree with you, but I don't quiet get your point on this one.

[OVERSITE]

roger ailes believes in fairness

he says it everyday

he should have no problem complying

[OVERSITE]

fox news is a repulican bull horn

it would elinate them thank goodness

[RickO]

It seems like the fairness issue is directed at the news stations, where most of the heavy bias that shapes public opinion comes from, at least the more overt. Rather than a fairness doctrine, there should be an accreditation standard for both news channels and their anchors, reporters and even certain pundits. Under these rules, a station like Fox News would not be allowed to use the word news in their title in the same way you can't use the words "national bank" unless you are one. Also, news anchors and reporters would need to be board certified and subject to peer review to keep that certification. Executives would face felony prosecution for airing one of those planted news reports without disclosing the source.

The problem with public perception is that all these news outets are given equal credibility while some are trying to be objective and others are clearly slanted and nothing more than propagandists. Just the process of obtaining accreditation and having to make the adjustments (Fox News now becomes Fox Entertainment News) would be a big story itself and reshape public opinion as to who is news and who really isn't.

In this country, you can say anthing you want, but you can't claim to be something you are not. You can give someone medical advice but you can't claim to be a doctor if you're not one. So don't bother defining fairness. Define what news is.

[BobbyJoe]

But is this opposed to virtually federally run, Pravda-like news outlets (and not just Fox News), which have been, in part, the result of dismantling the Fairness Doctrine? Let's not be naive-- the government is already majorly tinkering with our news-- just look at the recent Pentagon/retired generals controversy. But you'll mostly have to look at that controversy on your own. Why? Because the networks won't cover it. Gee, ain't that strange?

So is our government not ALREADY listening in, keeping tallies not on what they think is "fair" but-- much worse-- what they think is "right"-- and then shaping the news accordingly with either the passive-- and in some cases, active-- assistance of our major news outlets? If the Fairness Doctrine is not a step in the right direction, then what do you propose? Because just simply not allowing any more media consolidation isn't going to fix this serious prolem: not of a scary POSSIBILITY of too much government interference in the news media, but the fact that they're ALREADY there.

[Michale32086]

Sorry, I had to check weatherunderground.com and see if hell had froze over..

Because I could not possibly agree with you more, Mr Horowitz...

To paraphrase the old phrase, "To err is human.. To really screw things up requires a government"...

The Democrats need to dump this toxic notion of the Fairness Doctrine.. Because we won't see "fair".. We'll see whatever government in power determines to be "fair"...

Big Brother indeed.. In spades...

Michale.....

[Dap]

Dear Norman,

Jeeesh, when you said you're a whiner last week you weren't kidding. You gotta have more faith in our government to act in a fair manner, you're making me paranoid. :-) Agape.

[dexxjones]

what they SHOULD do is make it a felony, with absolutely NO possibility to "fix" it with a fine (jail only) for anti competitive practices in radio station ownership. if, for instance, it could be demonstrated that a station has killed a progressive show in favor of a much lower rated conservative one (which has actually happened many times) then the CEO of that company goes to jail do not pass go. LOL.

the biggest problem, as usual is corporate misbehaviour. we need to eliminate fines and put them in prison when they act up. same with oil speculators, but thats a different rant. for the broadcasters we can call it the "propiganda doctrine"

many people are mad as hell norman. thanks for keeping the dialogue interesting.

[TommyMcCarthy]

While I would have to know more about the specifics of "dexxjones" hypothetical regarding imprisoning corporate CEOs for anti-competitive practices.......

he/she brings up a true and very accurate point.....for many years the law has tilited more and more towards the "rights" of corportions and away from the rights of individual citizens....generally.

This process has only accelerated as more radical-right activist judges have become dominant in the courts at all levels....especially the federal apellate corts, and of course the Rhenquist ....then Roberts....Supreme Courts.

Years of rulings have brought us to an ironic situation regarding the former "fairness doctrine"....media consolidation,....net neutrality and a host of other similar issues.

The airwaves are owned by the public, collectively.....but the courts over time have taken awy the "standing" of any individual citizen, or group thereof to influence desicions in these critical areas. Therefore, De Facto the nominally "public" bandwith is REALLY owned by a small number of regulatorsof , who auction off the public interest to the media corporations FROM which they come and TO which they will return after Governmenyt "service" without regard to the public interest.....................................tm