The Phoenix Network:
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In
Nominate-best-2010

Fair is foul

What's the fuss over the Fairness Doctrine really about?
By ADAM REILLY  |  November 17, 2008

081114_quote_main

These are scary times for far-right conservatives. Everywhere they look, there's another doomsday scenario to ponder: President-elect Barack Obama is a closet Communist! Another Hitler! A race warrior who's going to ban gunskill newborn babies, and just might be the Antichrist!

Most of these dark anxieties simmer on the right's outermost fringes. But one — the conviction that Obama's win and Democratic gains in Congress mean the impending resurrection of Fairness Doctrine, a defunct policy aimed at creating a balance in broadcasting — is tormenting both the wing nuts and conservatism's grownups.

Consider: Jay Severin, a host on Boston's WTKK-FM (96.9), recently accused Fairness Doctrine supporters of "standing by watching while fascists come to my house, burn it down, and kill my family." Yikes. Meanwhile, back in September, Washington Post columnist George Will warned that "Liberals, not satisfied with their domination of academia, Hollywood, and most of the mainstream media, want to kill talk radio" — by resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine, natch.

Why all the fuss? For one thing, despite all the hyperbole, talk of a Fairness Doctrine comeback isn't as loony as it seems, judging from recent remarks by some prominent Dems. But there may be another reason. Outrage over the Fairness Doctrine is becoming a pawn in the fight over Net Neutrality, the principle of all Web content moving freely and equally without discrimination from ISPs — which, given the stakes, should make Democrats drop the former subject altogether.

An outdated solution
For most of the second half of the 20th century, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asserted that the right to broadcast — on scarce, publicly owned frequencies — came with civic responsibility. Broadcasters, the FCC held, should devote some of their programming to controversial matters of public interest. They should also allow divergent points of view to be presented on their stations. That's the Fairness Doctrine in a nutshell. (In one famous case, the Supreme Court ruled that the author of a critical biography of Barry Goldwater had the right to respond to a torrent of criticism directed at him from a Christian broadcaster in Red Lion, Pennsylvania.)

The doctrine's intentions were commendable. But it was vague, and spottily applied, and co-existed uneasily with the First Amendment's right to free speech. And in 1987 — at the height of Reagan-era deregulation — it was voluntarily abolished by the FCC. The FCC's decision was upheld on appeal to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1989, and subsequent congressional efforts to restore it have failed.

Many observers believe that's for the best. "The Fairness Doctrine had this perverse result," says Jane Kirtley, director of the University of Minnesota's Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law. "The way some broadcasters chose to provide equal time for opposing viewpoints to be heard was to say that they just weren't going to cover controversial issues. I have no reason to think that would change in 2008 or 2009." Factor in the rise of cable news and the Web, adds Kirtley, and the Fairness Doctrine's original rationale doesn't make sense anymore.

1  |  2  |  3  |   next >
Related: The wrong man for hard times, Wish upon a czar, 20 reasons the Earth will be glad to see Bush go, More more >
  Topics: Media -- Dont Quote Me , Barack Obama, The Heritage Foundation, Science and Technology Policy,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
HTML Prohibited
Add Comment

Today's Event Picks
ARTICLES BY ADAM REILLY
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   POOR RECEPTION  |  February 03, 2010
    The right loves to rant against the "liberal-media elite," but there's one key media sector where the conservative id reigns supreme: talk radio.
  •   BRAVE NEW GLOBE?  |  January 29, 2010
    Sizing up the Boston Globe 's recent past is easy: simply put, in the past 12 months, the paper has seen enough gut-wrenching drama to change the name of Morrissey Boulevard to Melrose Place. But forecasting the paper's future is another matter.
  •   COVERING A TRAGEDY  |  January 20, 2010
    The earthquake that ravaged Haiti on January 12 posed a major challenge for the Boston Haitian Reporter , the lone English-language outlet focused on Boston's sizable Haitian community. The quake and its aftermath were of vital interest to the Reporter 's core audience, but local, national, and international media were already tackling the story with resources that the Reporter simply didn't have.
  •   THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY  |  January 08, 2010
    Predicting a Super Bowl winner doesn't make you a genius: after all, given a pool of 32 teams, one of them is bound to capture the trophy. But predicting the future for an industry that's been buffeted by new technologies and economic vicissitudes, and sometimes seems to have all the substance and staying power of sea foam? That's an accomplishment.
  •   FOURTH-ESTATE FOLLIES, 2009 EDITION  |  December 28, 2009
    Between the rise of the Web, the ADD-addling of America, the fragmentation of any national political consensus, and the devastated economy, working in the press can feel a bit like manning the Titanic — and this year, the entire industry seemed to teeter on the edge of oblivion.

 See all articles by: ADAM REILLY

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2010 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group