Fairness Doctrine?

[sluggish]

I've seen leftists claim that the Democrats are the party that will protect their constitutional rights and yet their party would love to bring back this little gem in order to silence conservative talk radio.  When you're concerned about rights being protected, are you concerned about ALL constitutional rights or just the ones YOU find impotant or just YOUR personal right (to hell with everyone else)?  Remember, that the freedom of speech not only gives you the right to say whatever you want in a public forum, but that YOU must also TOLERATE anything that anyone else may say in a public forum.

The Fairness Doctrine assumes that there is “a view” and “an opposing view”. That’s silly. Let’s take global warming as an example. There are a bunch of views:


"It’s real and we gotta do something now before the ocean swallows us.”

“It’s real and it’s bad, and we’re causing it, but there isn’t much we can do about it.”

“It’s probably real, and it’s probably our fault, so let’s do the best we can to mitigate it.”

“It’s real and it’s bad, but it’s a natural phenomenon and people don’t have much to do with it.”

“It’s not real. It’s a best a minor fluctuation in climate.”

“It’s real, but the benefits outweigh the costs, so sit back and enjoy it.”

(Please no nit-picking over whether this is a correct or comprehensive list. Global warming is just an illustrative issue - the topic at hand is the Fairness Doctrine.)

If the Fairness Doctrine were in effect, and you went on the radio with, say, #2, which of the others is the opposing view? Well, to some extent, they all are.

Let’s say the topic is Federal Program X. The five possible generic views would be:

• Spend a whole lot more on it
• Spend somewhat more on it
• Spend the same amount on it
• Spend somewhat less on it
• Spend nothing on it - abolish the program

If there’s a controversy over the federal program, which views are going to get presented under the Fairness Doctrine? Well, ultimately, that’s up to a government bureaucrat. Does anyone really think the “abolish the program” option is going to be one of the two preferred views? A government bureaucrat, or his proxy in the media, is naturally predisposed to believe in government effectiveness, so the bottom two views will usually be the ones that are completely ignored.

In the typical case of a social program, it boils down to a Democrat arguing that we should be spending somewhat more, and a Republican arguing that we should be spending the same. The roles might be reversed, if it’s something related to defense or corporate subsidies; though in that case, the “spend less” option would probably get more credibility, and the “spend a whole lot more” option would be considered fringe.

We don’t even debate the “abolish the program” option much now. Under the Fairness Doctrine, it disappears completely. And the growth of government goes unquestioned.

And that leads to what I consider the really pernicious effect of the Fairness Doctrine. By restricting the range of views down to the mushy middle, the debate becomes utterly boring. No one wants to hear two drones, one of which wants to spend a little more, with the other defending the status quo.

Of course, if the common citizen tunes the debate out because it’s boring, that leaves the field to the activists. Most of them are on the left, so the left is just fine with boring policies debates. They don’t want dittoheads emailing Congress because Rush got them pumped up about something.

I think a lot of support for the Fairness Doctrine is ultimately based on a contempt for the opinions of the common citizen. You can see it in the blather about “corporate influence”. The presumption is that common folks can simply be manipulated into any opinion their corporate masters desire.

I notice that they don’t seem to have any issues with how much money George Soros spends on politics. And that’s explicitly political spending. Talk radio, as McQ pointed out, is a money-making enterprise, and is not an explicit subsidy for a political viewpoint. Yet, because talk radio engages a swath of the common citizens in ways the left cannot, even with Soros’ help, the left is ready to throttle it. After all, those ignorant dittoheads don’t really deserve a place in the debate, do they? They’re just being manipulated into their opinions by corporate influence anyway.

I don’t see how someone can have such contempt for the common citizen and still believe in the founding principles of this nation. That’s why I think it’s easy for the left to jettison free speech whenever it’s convenient. From campus speech codes to campaign finance reform to the Fairness Doctrine, the left always seems to come down on the side that says their political opponents need to be throttled. And then, they twist themselves into pretzels pretending that they’re not violating free speech.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5270

I would love to read some serious views FOR bringing back the "fairness" doctrine.

[Anaxogoras]

Why is this called a Fairness Doctrine?  The name seems a little misleading to me after I read the whole quote.  "Excluded Alternative" is an accurate description, albeit without the pejorative flair of "Fairness Doctrine."

What the heck is the left going to do to right-wing Talk Radio?

[lazs2]

The left only controls the schools and the movies and 99% of all TV and entertainment... 

The right has fox news and talk radio..  This is the reason that their message of peaceful socialist liberalism is not being heard..  with all the right wing bigot racist control in our lives the fairness doctrine is needed.

lazs

[sluggish]

Why is this called a Fairness Doctrine?  The name seems a little misleading to me after I read the whole quote.  "Excluded Alternative" is an accurate description, albeit without the pejorative flair of "Fairness Doctrine."

What the heck is the left going to do to right-wing Talk Radio?

By legislating "opposing" views by broadcasters (telling them, "if you've got a righty talkshow, you've got to have a lefty talkshow for balance"), it would make it such a hassle to put forth what some might consider to be "extreme" viewpoints that said broadcasters would decide to scrap political commentary all together.

[Getback]

The left has tried the talk show route and it has failed miserably. Actually most talk show hosts wanted to succeed. The only show that succeeds, if you can call it that, is the one supported by government, PBS. Oh they have to beg for money every year.

[Anaxogoras]

Ohhhh, now I know what you're getting at.  This all goes back to public ownership of the airwaves and what is in the "public interest."  I admit I know very little about these arguments, but it's intuitively plausible to me that it's in the public interest to broadcast a wide range of views.  That said, liberal talk radio is yet to be financially successful, so far as I know.

[Stang]

Ohhhh, now I know what you're getting at.  This all goes back to public ownership of the airwaves and what is in the "public interest."  I admit I know very little about these arguments, but it's intuitively plausible to me that it's in the public interest to broadcast a wide range of views.  That said, liberal talk radio is yet to be financially successful, so far as I know.

Free speech is in the public interest.  Let as many voices be heard as possible.  Legislating "fairness" does nothing but stifle free speech.

[Nwbie]

Thefairness doctrine is nothing more than 2 kids in a playground pointing at each other blubbering that life is unfair
this nation has become nothing but - whiners - who can yell and stomp their feet the loudest
there is more than enough opposite viewpoints to all statements and beliefs on the intardnet, tv, radio

[BnZ]

I notice that some radio stations broadcast Sunday morning church services. In the interest of balance, they should be required to allow some Satan worshipers to state their side of things.

Also, for every hour of Rock music that is broadcast, they must broadcast an hour of some 80 year old man saying "This music is crap! It only has 3 chords! Why in my day, we had Glen Miller..."

[Bronk]

Thefairness doctrine is nothing more than 2 kids in a playground pointing at each other blubbering that life is unfair
this nation has become nothing but - whiners - who can yell and stomp their feet the loudest
there is more than enough opposite viewpoints to all statements and beliefs on the intardnet, tv, radio

This i can agree with.

[Shamus]

Also, for every hour of Rock music that is broadcast, they must broadcast an hour of some 80 year old man saying "This music is crap! It only has 3 chords! Why in my day, we had Glen Miller..."

 

I see you have met my Dad.

shamus

[SkyRock]

Free speech is in the public interest.  Let as many voices be heard as possible.  Legislating "fairness" does nothing but stifle free speech.

[sluggish]

Huh.  Nobody can argue in favor of this?

[BnZ]

I COULD argue in favor of it Sluggish, but I won't. Give me something fun and mildly defensible to argue in favor of instead, like grave robbing or cannibalism.

There wouldn't be enough hot water and soap in the WORLD to make me feel clean after arguing in favor of something like this.

[bj229r]

Huh.  Nobody can argue in favor of this?

Damnit, Arlo was png'd wasn't he?