Ouch. Cue the winger trolls, who have more than equal time on these threads, to deliver poorly written lectures on the libbie-led nanny state.

Everyone's getting into a tizzy about the return of the "Fairness Doctrine," even though there's not one serious person who has suggested, even behind closed doors, to bring it back. If there's something I've missed, please let me know.

Both presidential candidates are against it, Congress is against it, it likely wouldn't pass constitutional muster today, and it's probably unworkable in the digital world. And yet every talk radio host in the country is acting like the government is about to break into their studio and take away their microphones. Thank goodness we've got the 2nd Amendment to protect ourselves.

If you want the government to police the intertubes for political content then you should have no problem with the current form of FISA.

The problem is, 30% of Americans support all sorts of foolishness. Hell, just shy of 30% of Americans cling to the notion that Bush is doing a good job as President, in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary.

But it bothers me that Dems are stupider about this one than Independents and Republicans. The great thing about the Web is that if you don't like what someone else says, you can just start a website of your own. If we could do the same thing with broadcast and cable TV and radio, we wouldn't need the FCC.

Did the poll reference any of the background, like the fact that the original Fairness Doctrine was predicated on government stewardship of scarce resources (ie, broadcast bandwidth) owned by the American people.

Isn't a blog that offers a comment section that's uncensored with regard to political content already offering equal time?

61% to 48% Republicans for more freedom. No surprise here.

You've got a chance for "equal time" here. It's called the response section.

This isn't like broadcasting, the area the original Fairness Doctrine dealt with. So why should it be applied here?

I'm for it because derf gubba murica. I would like to volunteer to be your balance, Kevin. Just run one of my posts each week, in which I explain how lawsuits oog fung eega blab or tricky poor people ruined the banking industry because of Democrats and gep hrahka lurb jeezus. cowboybaldeagle.

Of course, I wonder what the intensity of people's beliefs here are. You've had a whole series of posts on why political polling that doesn't get at the intensity of beliefs is worthless, and I'd expect that to apply here.

But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary.

Presumably these 31% are the same folks who think the "Fairness Doctrine" applied to talk radio would represent the demise of the republic.

And Hansen, you are still fucking hilarious. All for freedom, except where schools, sex ed and reproductive choice are concerned. Hypocrite.

"Everyone's getting into a tizzy about the return of the "Fairness Doctrine," even though there's not one serious person who has suggested, even behind closed doors, to bring it back. If there's something I've missed, please let me know."

You've missed it. In the 2007 floor debate about Coleman's proposal to formally ban political regulation of content on the internet, "It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,� said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision."

That is the 3rd ranking Democrat in the Senate.

100 percent of Americans want to see pictures of Kevin's cats.

The reason for putting the Fairness Doctrine in place for broadcast and not for the internet has to do with the fact that broadcast spectrum is a highly limited thing, which we have traditionally seen as a public space that we give private entities conditional access to. The internet, OTOH, is practically unlimited - the only realistic limitation on the number of blogs you can have is the number of servers willing to host them (and pajama-clad types to write them).

I think you can make a pretty strong case that allowing a small number of political viewpoints to monopolize an entire area of broadcast spectrum (as right wing talk does with AM radio) is neither desirable nor impossible to regulate under the constitution.

And I think Dems are foolish to allow their enemies to continue with this monopoly.

100 percent of Americans want to see pictures of Kevin's cats.

...displayed with an equal number of pictures of dogs!

Why is it more important that nearly 1/3 of the people support something when a clear majority oppose it?

I usually turn to Political Animal to clarify other people's misuse of statistics. This is blatant fear-mongering! It's Friday--drop the stats and bring on the cats.

Gee, next up scientific journals will need to offer equal time to all the rejected peer reviewed articles.

Maybe the democrats are getting this issue confused with net neutrality, which does offer a level playing field for online ideas and information.

It seems safe to conclude that anyone believing that a particular website should be required to offer "both sides" has devoted zero time actually thinking about the issue.

Should this blog be required offer equal time to conservatives? NO!

The intertubes and talk radio are not the same. There are no limits on Internet access. Any damn fool can put up a site. There are real physical limits on the number of radio station frequencies. Before you can broadcast on a particular frequency you have to get permission from the government. Since the regulated airways belong to all of us demanding that a broadcaster give equal time to different points of view seems fair. Since the Internet is wide open, there is no reason to expect fairness.

Didn't know about the Dick Durbin quote. Still, the Fairness Doctrine seems like a very out-there idea, politically. Both presidential candidates are against it. Even Al Franken is against it.

OF COURSE if you ask people, "Should the media allow equal time for liberal and conservative ideas," a lot will say yes. Most people (except talk radio-listeners) have very little idea what the Fairness Doctrine is, or how it would be enforced.

"The problem is, 30% of Americans support all sorts of foolishness."

Absolutely true.

And they seem to show up on cable news in highly disproportionate numbers.

But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary.

Ok, so 31% believe in fascism. Fine. Or maybe they didn't understand the question.

I definitely don't think every person who has a website about politics should have their free speech compromised by being required to include someone else's speech. But when it's not just about an individual person's website, but rather a TV channel or website that gets millions of viewers a week and is run by a big corporation (entities whose interests often run keenly at odds with those of the vast majority of Americans) it's a different, closer question. We all know that Fox News, CNN, and AP lie all the time now, and we know what kkind of damage they can do. A country's destiny shouldn't be determined by lies.

I don't think it necessarily has to be an exact equality of time for corporate media sources, either.

I think it's worth looking at solutions like requiring a channel lik Fox or CNN to allot 3 or 4 regular hours a week (like maybe on Saturday during the day, and again on a weekday night or two) when both points of view will be heard. Instead of a biased moderator dealing out questions and commentary to 2-4 panelists who are picked by the biased station, speakers would have uninterrupted time to speak with a regular cut-off time (like hour-long debates in an issue taken in 10-minute turns to speak, or just solid hour(s)-long presentations on an issue or issues from each side).

But then we still have to deal with the problem of bias and corruption in our media, and not all ostensible liberals being trustworthy anymore. You could look forward to Fox et al picking ringers as their liberal commenters and doing other tricky, biased things, like they already have been doing, unless some kind of reliable, random process could be imposed on them.

If you adopt my solution, then viewers will know when they can tune into the station to get the less-bullshit-version of what's going on.

Also news stations could run a news aggregator once or twice a week that will show people headlines and abstracts of all the news they usually miss due to the station's biased selection. Some might say that people could just go online for this, but TV is still a bigger attraction (including for news) than the Internet. Expecting people to go online doesn't work and helps the Republicans win.

If you adopt my solution...

Sorry, but I'm not convinced it's housebroken.

I declare Republicans the winner of this round.

I look forward to posting in the lively comments section over at NRO.

A country's destiny shouldn't be determined by lies
--Swan

Hard to argue against that. However, just to point out for more than 200 years, lying has been a part of our political process. As John Stuart Mills said, that's why you want free speech/free press so you can have multiple voices so that the truth eventually will surface. The internet is the perfect forum, because unlike a radio/tv station or newspaper, the cost of starting one is zero. Next to zero if you want a little more sophistication.

As to your point that size matters, would you include Daily Kos in your version of an internet fairness doctrine? Where do you draw the line? Further more why would you want to? How would you even make it work?

Take talk radio as an example. Rush Limbaugh attracts huge audiences, but for all his vast number of listeners, my guess that his influence on the coming presidential election will be next to zero. He doesn't preach to convert; he does so to validate the opinions already held. (You've got to be right-wing already to tolerate him).

Same with Internet sites. Most people visit a particular site because they tend to agree with its views. I'd guess that at least 90 percent of the visitors to this site will not vote for McCain. Actually this place would be more interesting if the points of view were more diverse. The few dissenters tend to be professional trolls uninterested and/or incapable of making honest arguments to defend their point of view.

It's Friday--drop the stats and bring on the cats.

Posted by: TFisher on August 15, 2008 at 1:16 PM

I second the motion!

But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary.

I've come to realize that 30% of the public will take up any goofy-ass cause or position you could possibly dream up. This explains Bush's approval ratings.

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

The fairness doctrine bugaboo is the Republicans' new "War on Christmas." Imaginary nonsense.

If, however, it did apply, does that mean that Kevin would have to gush over McCain like a little schoolgirl and excuse every bad vote and explain away why he should be supported even though he has no experience, no record of accomplishment and no detailed plan on any major policy issue? Because that's certainly what he does for Obama.

I'm actually torn on my favorite "Kevin luvs Barry" moment. When he said something to the effect of "now that Obama's going to be the nominee I'm looking forward to seeing where he stands on the issues." (That by the way after shilling for Obama for weeks.) Or, his recent post which he started out "The Obama campaign would like me to let you know ..." That's it Kevin. Why pretend you're not completely in the tank!

Expecting people to go online doesn't work and helps the Republicans win.

Most people want news to be convenient (surfing the net and reading is comparatively inconvenient compared to just changing the channel and watching-- remember, a lot of people had trouble just reading throughout at least most of their education) and they're not as convinced that mainstream news is biased as most of us who hang out here on the left-blogosphere are. They're not going to go on the Internet looking for news or commentary for those reasons. It doesn't seem necessary to them.

Pat, how many hours a day would you say you spend obsessing about Kevin Drum and how much this blog you can't stop reading and posting on sucks? Be honest. Anything under five hours, and we'll know you're lying.

"We all know that Fox News, CNN, and AP lie all the time..."

We know that? Fox News is just a right-wing outlet for political propaganda, but CNN and AP don't lie all the time, not in the sense that they intentionally make things up. Dunno about AP, but when I was briefly with CNN, nobody had time to make anything up, or to engage in bias reporting, or eat lunch most days.

That's not to say that mainstream media reports the truth all the time. Their greatest sin isn't bias or lying, but being woefully shallow, lazy, and uninformed -- which is about as dangerous, because bad research and sourcing can have the same effect as lying.

The MSM gets it from left and right because (save Faux), they *aren't* propaganda outlets. "Knowing" propaganda outlets, I should add.

If CNN reports that John Edwards confesses an affair, there's nothing biased or untruthful about it. But, if CNN doesn't add that John McCain and a score of Republican politicians also once had affairs, hardcore lefties will accuse them of being biased corporate stooges. If it does add the Republicans, hardcore righties will go apeshit over CNN's liberal bias.

If I had my way, every American high school student would be taught to understand the difference between fact and opinion. We seem to think that an opinion -- if held strongly enough -- trumps fact. Additionally, the trumpeting of out-of-context facts makes matters worse, but appears to be more legitimate.

Since I worked at CNN, that network and the others have substituted talking heads (opinions) for actual reporting. A huge percentage of cable news content is nothing but two talking-head guests yammering opinions at each other. It's cheaper to produce, and the audience enjoys it more than facts.

Pat, how many hours a day would you say you spend obsessing about Kevin Drum and how much this blog you can't stop reading and posting on sucks? Be honest. Anything under five hours, and we'll know you're lying.

Posted by: shortstop on August 15, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Aww, you caught me. In truth, it's you I'm obsessed with. Scold me again, will ya? Maybe in high heels?

Besides, if I don't point out how in the tank Kevin has become who's gonna? You? You Shortstop? My existence, while grostesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. Because somewhere in the places you don't talk about at cocktail parties, you WANT me on this blog. You NEED me on this blog.

Obviously this is an attmpt to compare apples and oranges; the "Fairness Doctrine" held that, because a private company had received a license from the government (otherwise known as "the people") to broadcast radio or television programming, that company also had the responsibility to provide air time (on "the people's" airwaves) to opposing viewpoints on issues. There were also restrictions on when certain types of programming could be aired (if at all).
The internet began as an a service provided via telephone transmission lines and is thus more akin to cable, rather than broadcast, television. Telephone were never under any form of content control other than for activity that met criminal liability standards; harassment, threats, etc.
As long as the transmission methods remain separate, there should be no difficulty.
And, if it cleans the public airwaves of Limbaugh and his ilk, it would be worth it.

I think Mudwall Jackson @ 2:22 has it right. We used to have The Fairness Doctrine & it always fell short because 1) there are always more than 2 sides to any issue & 2) it is way too easy to give a strong support statement/broadcast to one side of an issue & then offer equal time to intentionally weaker opposing views. I'll stay with the 1st Amendment, thank you.

What we really need to address is the slow monopolization of our broadcast & print media by fewer & fewer corporations. When a very few controls 90% of the news we see & hear, our free press is only an illusion. Thank God for the internet so those of us who wish to can receive more varied opinions. Unfortunately, we are only about 10% or less of the population.

A note to Swan, Doug & others from someone old enough to remember what the Fairness Doctrine actually was:

It applied only to opposing candidates running for office & not to issues or decisions on which news was presented. There has always been bias on the air (& in print) when it came to reporting news. I, for one, do not want government in the position to make decisions how issues & news is reported. OTOH, I support limits on the amount of media any person or company can own, which would make it at least possible for a more open & free press.

I think it's worth looking at solutions like requiring a channel lik Fox or CNN to allot 3 or 4 regular hours a week (like maybe on Saturday during the day, and again on a weekday night or two) when both points of view will be heard.

These are cable channels, and entirely outside the scope of the FCC. I'm happy to let Fox make up all the shit they want - and happy to see them sued for libel or slander if they cross the line. Don't like it? Don't pay for cable. (And I realize that cable companies are government-sanctioned monopolies, but that problem is easily remedied.)

What we really need to address is the slow monopolization of our broadcast & print media by fewer & fewer corporations. When a very few controls 90% of the news we see & hear, our free press is only an illusion.

Fine, then start your own newspaper/magazine/website/whatever. No one will lift a finger to stop you. I entirely agree that at least 90% of Americans are lazy and willfully uninformed. That's their choice, and I don't think it's the government's business to try to correct that by interfering in private business decisions for ideological reasons. If companies start to illegally leverage their monopolies to shut competitors out of other markets, then by all means tear them to shreds. But we're nowhere near to the kind of media environment where that's even possible for them.

(That said, I do think that the government should ensure that the entire broadcast spectrum is gobbled up by a single company in any region. But this is clearly not even close to happening, and current technology allows much wider utilization of the spectrum than the FCC is going to allow, because the organization is run by idiots who think their job is to levy $500,000 fines for a slip of the tongue.)

Besides, don't you think that the government has far more important issues to address, like healthcare, foreign policy, the economy, the environment, or education? The FCC should just be a handful of engineers and lawyers, assisted by an assortment of industry/public representatives, whose sole duty is to make sure that various signals don't interfere with each other. It should not be a $338,900,000-per-year disaster, especially not with the kind of incompetent assholes who keep ending up in positions of responsibility in this country.

Because somewhere in the places you don't talk about at cocktail parties, you WANT me...You NEED me.

Wasn't this line in the unabomber manifesto? Or am I thinking of the notes from that guy who shot up the church in Tennessee? No, I've got it--it was something John Hinckley said.

Close. It's actually someone who has committed far worse outrages: Jack Nicholson. (Anybody who has sat through "The Bucket List" knows what I'm talking about.)

"that company also had the responsibility to provide air time (on "the people's" airwaves) to opposing viewpoints on issues."
____________________

The trouble is that the Fairness Doctrine, far from enhancing public discussion, tends to limit it. In practice, what it does is make public comment hostage to complaint from whatever direction it might come, Left, Right, or Alpha Centauri. So real debate simply dries up.

Every source of news and public comment is subject to bias, no matter what the transmission vehicle, making listening or reading a matter of caveat emptor.

What's even more invidious than open bias is the selection process for providing coverage and selective use or exclusion of facts. No major news outlet would touch the Edwards story until he admitted his adultery - yet the same outlets fell all over themselves "covering" a supposed McCain affair ten years past without any similar substantiation. Over at Instapundit, there's a regular feature called "Guess What Party?" in which a story of some political miscreant's crime is reported. The point of the feature is that crime stories involving Democrats often omit party affiliation, while those of Republicans have GOP or Republican mentioned right up front. Reynold's coverage of the phenomenon is probably as unfair as the phenomenon itself.

Political Animal itself is a liberal, Democratic site and there is nothing wrong with that. Mr. Drum often avoids topics that aren't immediately useful to his agenda, and again, that's fine. That's his right.

But to claim that similar rights shouldn't extend to others because of the medium being used is nonsense. Rights should not be a matter of bandwidth, especially since technology has almost completely overcome the issue of access and differing viewpoints.

If anyone wants differing viewpoints, they can go out there and find them. The real truth is, most of us don't want to hear opposing opinions.