| By Keith - May 9th, 2007 at 12:07 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Should the government ensure fairness in news radio and television?
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) are about to unveil legislation that, among other things, would restore the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine.From 1949-1987 the Fairness Policy was enacted to ensure all sides of a controversial issue were given air-time.
Who could be against fairness? But what if restoring this policy did just the opposite?
The Reagan administration repudiated the policy. Supporters of the change pointed to the proliferation of news sources and arguments that the policy effectively brought about censorship: tying reporters hands with the even-handedness requirement.
Now Sanders and Hinchey are hoping to make the “Fairness Doctrine” into law: as part of a package that also hopes to reverse media consolidation.
Now I would guess many progressives support attempts to reverse consolidation: having U.S. news-outlets increasingly owned by fewer and fewer hands poses a profound challenge to having a trulyinformed public.
But should this be linked to legislation allowing the government—or more precisely the FCC—to adjudicate media fairness?
Here are two conservative editorials attacking the change.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
A hell of a lot of people, me included, if it's fairness arbitrarily imposed by the government.
If I want to see media relating to the election, I have a shitload of choices. If I want something that's 'fair', I can judge for myself what I consider fair and what I don't. No government hand-holding necessary.
""Now I would guess many progressives support attempts to reverse consolidation: having U.S. news-outlets increasingly owned by fewer and fewer hands posed a profound challenge to having an informed public. ""
Being part of an informed public is an individual civic duty, and one that the government should certainly incentivize if it can find a decent way to do so. But the government cannot force it upon people, and "I'm taking this freedom away from you for your own good" is one of the oldest authoritarian tricks in the book.
What the hell, I'm cool with it.
Really, show of hands: who thinks that allowing regulators to mandate that both sides be told in equal depth on public airwaves is on the whole a bad thing for broadcasting?
The relative power those with broadcast permits hold over the rest of us demands that we not treat them as individuals. The fairness doctrine doesn't restrict ownership, nor does it ban content. Fundamentally, it's no more objectionable to me than saying that the word "motherfucker" shouldn't be broadcast on public airwaves during prime time.
I don't believe they hold power over the rest of us, except for the power that we choose to give them. We live in a wide world of information, and TV is just one more source. If it's the one that a lot of people choose to rely on, [b]that's their choice[/b].
""Fundamentally, it's no more objectionable to me than saying that the word "motherfucker" shouldn't be broadcast on public airwaves during prime time.""
What valid reason is there for banning that? What if I'd like to watch a show that uses the word 'motherfucker' during airtime?
If there are enough people who think like me, the broadcasters can cater to me. If not, they don't. We already have a rating system in place for TV shows - if you don't want your kids hearing it during prime-time, you have the power to change the channel or turn off the set when you see that "TV-MA" icon appear.
Disagree--along with broadcast radio, broadcast TV is the only news source, available in the homes of every American, that doesn't require an additional subscription or access fee beyond the initial investment in the receiver unit. A brand-new 20 inch TV at Wal-Mart runs about $115, and an AM/FM radio with a built-in flashlight runs about $10. So for a one-time $125 investment you can get unlimited access to broadcast media indefinitely. The broadcast stations are trying to get as many people as possible to listen to and watch their free broadcasts, not to get as many people as possible to give them money. That makes broadcasting fundamentally different from every other news source (except free alternative weekly papers, and they don't deliver).
The reason is as valid as banning you from smearing your naked body with lime Jell-O and streaking through the streets of Georgetown--public decency has been enforced in every single democratic society I have ever heard of to some degree (actually, in just about every society, period). And the market already created a solution for you: if you really want to see someone say "motherfucker" on TV, you're more than welcome to subscribe to premium cable.
There's no fundamental theft of liberty that comes from the government regulating what is put out over public broadcasting frequencies, especially while there's already an effective government monopoly over those frequencies.
The arbitrary action in this particular case was the Reagan administration doing away with a policy that for nearly four decades had enforced a balance in editorialism that no longer exists. In fact, the Reagan administration said that the media should be allowed to supervise and police itself in meeting the needs of the public in covering opposing opinions. Thus we have Rupert Murdoch, Fox, and Clear Channel telling us what they and their sponsors what us to know. I feel really secure here, that's why I listen to BBC world service to find out what is really happening within our borders.