Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Fairness Doctrine
I read today that Rep. John Dingell is attempting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine that vanished in 1987. Al Gore, Jr. promised it for 2001 and Dennis Kucinich now promises it for 2009, or sooner. You can learn more from Wikipedia about the history of the Fairness Doctrine than you'll learn here, but I can offer my own personal experience.
I remember the Fairness Doctrine with much regret. At my little NBC affiliate in Lima, Ohio, we lived in fear of controversial issues because open discussion of controversy triggered fairness complaints. We learned to let the networks handle controversy, or Phil Donahue (for whom we carried a then-popular syndicated show), but we studiously avoided local discussion of controversy, because of the monumental hassle in dealing with fairness complaints. Anger one side of an argument and they run to the FCC. Then be prepared to spend a lot of time (and money) on the phone with the Washington attorneys sorting it all out.
So we editorialized in favor of Halloween safety. Or spoke out strongly against drunk driving, or other benign targets. Nothing about abortion. Nothing that would anger either political party. All discussion of controversial topics was handled by NBC, if at all. So, yes, in our case, it was a chilling effect of regulation.
Today I teach students about broadcast regulation and tell them my experience. For one thing, the doctrine itself sounds so wonderful. Who could be against fairness? The FCC might as well have named it the Motherhood-and-Apple-Pie Doctrine. Perhaps if it had been named the Muzzling Doctrine...
One outcome of the ending of the Fairness Doctrine is conservative talk radio. Rush Limbaugh and his imitators got their start when the doctrine ended, because those who didn't like what he said could not get the FCC to make his stations stop. Liberals have had a spotty record of fighting back on the radio with their own shows and networks, despite several attempts. NPR does a pretty good job of promulgating the view from the far-left, but lacks the mass audience.
So it must seem like a swell idea to get rid of Rush, if you hate Rush, or Sean Hannity (and who doesn't dislike his smarmy style?). But beware. The return of the Fairness Doctrine will shut down The View, too. Elizabeth Hasselbeck being tripled-teamed by the other three women won't be "fair" enough. Countless left-leaning shows will suffer, too.
We have survived pretty well for two decades without the Fairness Doctrine. To date, no planets have collided, and free-wheeling discussion is better than central planning by the nannies at the FCC.
And, really, how relevant are the old media anyway, when the internet blogosphere is unregulated? The return of the Fairness Doctrine would be the final nail in the broadcasting coffin.
I remember the Fairness Doctrine with much regret. At my little NBC affiliate in Lima, Ohio, we lived in fear of controversial issues because open discussion of controversy triggered fairness complaints. We learned to let the networks handle controversy, or Phil Donahue (for whom we carried a then-popular syndicated show), but we studiously avoided local discussion of controversy, because of the monumental hassle in dealing with fairness complaints. Anger one side of an argument and they run to the FCC. Then be prepared to spend a lot of time (and money) on the phone with the Washington attorneys sorting it all out.
So we editorialized in favor of Halloween safety. Or spoke out strongly against drunk driving, or other benign targets. Nothing about abortion. Nothing that would anger either political party. All discussion of controversial topics was handled by NBC, if at all. So, yes, in our case, it was a chilling effect of regulation.
Today I teach students about broadcast regulation and tell them my experience. For one thing, the doctrine itself sounds so wonderful. Who could be against fairness? The FCC might as well have named it the Motherhood-and-Apple-Pie Doctrine. Perhaps if it had been named the Muzzling Doctrine...
One outcome of the ending of the Fairness Doctrine is conservative talk radio. Rush Limbaugh and his imitators got their start when the doctrine ended, because those who didn't like what he said could not get the FCC to make his stations stop. Liberals have had a spotty record of fighting back on the radio with their own shows and networks, despite several attempts. NPR does a pretty good job of promulgating the view from the far-left, but lacks the mass audience.
So it must seem like a swell idea to get rid of Rush, if you hate Rush, or Sean Hannity (and who doesn't dislike his smarmy style?). But beware. The return of the Fairness Doctrine will shut down The View, too. Elizabeth Hasselbeck being tripled-teamed by the other three women won't be "fair" enough. Countless left-leaning shows will suffer, too.
We have survived pretty well for two decades without the Fairness Doctrine. To date, no planets have collided, and free-wheeling discussion is better than central planning by the nannies at the FCC.
And, really, how relevant are the old media anyway, when the internet blogosphere is unregulated? The return of the Fairness Doctrine would be the final nail in the broadcasting coffin.
Labels: fairness doctrine
