With the drive by media's liberal bias - don't we need a fairness doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine seems to assume that there are two (and only two) opposing views on any subject, and that each view has equal validity.

Teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution is an example of the Fairness Doctrine as applied to science education.

Unfortunately, it is 20 years too late. As the comments on the Press Club blog post show, 20 years of a free ride for Rush and dittoheads mean that they're cluelessly infantile about the First Amendment, among other things, as the Fairness Doctrine clearly WAS constitutional.

I'm not saying we need the same Fairness Doctrine today, but we need something. We don't often get a lot of TRULY different information out of the left and right hands of the two-party duopoly and its emissaries and most people don't even know of something like Pacifica.

TomJ reflects what I'm getting at. The Iranian philosopher Idries Shah says there are never just two sides two an issue. But, a real FD would protest the three or more sides.

This is truly unfortunate. The Fairness Doctrine is both a stupid idea that deserves to die and a sadly effective rallying point for dittoheads.

What we need to change the current media situation is not censorship, but a change in ownership requirements for outlets in media where bandwidth is scarce (i.e., TV and terrestrial radio).

A greater variety of owners, including some small owners, would lead to a greater variety of viewpoints being represented.

The Fairness Doctrine would lead only to Hannity and Colmes.

Anything that keeps the far right occupied and away from any actual work is good. We've seen what they do with real issues.

With all due respect to Eshoo, this is exactly what's going to happen again. We may hear a great about Eshoo's bill on Fox News and far-right talk-radio sometime soon, but there's no reason to take it seriously.

Of course not. Because liberals don't take the First Amendment seriously. Except for themselves. Hypocrites.

...the Fairness Doctrine clearly WAS constitutional.

Only a fascist would say this.

I live in Atlanta, and there are zero progressive talk shows for all of us (there are such talk shows on stations that cater specifically to African-American audiences). I get Neil Boortz, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram, Mark Levin,...you name it.

Zero progressive talk on Atlanta broadcast radio. Zip. Nada.

So, I'm not clear on why we shouldn't bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The airwaves belong to the us. We sell licenses to access the airwaves to broadcast radio stations and broadcast television stations. Why, pray tell, do we allow the wealthy owners of those licenses to express their far righ views exclusively over our airwaves? This is another example of the right's success in falsely framing one's ability to spend money with free speech (i.e the more money one has, the more free speech one has).

It's no wonder that Georgia, a state where we spend significant amounts of times in our cars due to lack of transportation alternatives, is so conservative.

Perhaps the Fairness Doctrine has no chance of passage, but the right is clearly concerned about this. I think the Democratic congressional leadership should let it be known that the Fairness Doctrine will not be pursued unless Senate Republicans pursue a policy of filibustering meaningful legislation or judicial appointments. Some partisanship is, of course, expected and even desirable. However, if the Republicans routinely obstruct Democratic proposals, the Fairness Doctrine should be pursued strenuously. The mere threat of such action might mellow the right out a bit.

So, I'm not clear on why we shouldn't bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Because 1) it's censorship, and 2) it wouldn't work.

You can't force the owners to fairly represent points of view they don't believe. If you do that, all you get is Hannity and Colmes.

But you can changes the owners.

That would be a much better step than imposing censorship, whether with a superficially imposing name like "Fairness Doctrine" or not.

Allowing more people to speak is never censorship. Restricting the public debate to a narrow, center right conversation as the media currently does now is censorship. I don't care that the government isn't doing it, it's still censorship whenever any gatekeeper prevents a legitimate range of debate public or private.

The fact is, if you oppose the fairness doctrine you have to support a cable and print media that is in the hands of a narrow elite that only allow pro-corporate, free trade, conservative viewpoints on any subject. Thats the reality as it exists now. You don't get to say that you'd like to live in a magical fairy land where everyone gets to have say, because you don't. you're actively opposing it. 2 viewpoints might not be as good as 4, but it's still a damned sight better than the 1 viewpoint we get now.

dal20402,

In fact, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be the opposite of censorship. Censorship is what broadcast licensees are practicing on our airwaves when the refuse to allow diverse opinions to be heard.

Having said that, I do agree that we shouldn't allow consolidated ownership of such licenses to reduce the likelihood that communities, such as mine, will have limited (or zero) access to different points of view.

I don't unnerstan y teh wingies are so upset abawt this. Aren't Rush and Shyawn too big too fale?

When there were just a few broadcasters the fairness doctrine made some sense. The market consolodation caused by deregulation has returned the communications industry to a similar problem of one oligarchic voice able to sway public opinion, while preventing opposition or alternatives to their opinions from being broadcast. A return of ownership regulation of media, atomizing the ownership of various media outlets, should open up media to a wider variety of opinions. Unless that happens, Americans will be subject to an endless repetition of the opinions the establishment wants them to adopt. A fairness doctrine is not the best way to deal with the consoladation of media opinion suasion, but it would be an improvement of the existing situation. Interestingly, moderates have sided with neocons on the issue.

"Interestingly, moderates have sided with neocons on the issue."

Because, I suspect, they've only heard one side of the issue, ad infinitum.

I'm all for the fairness doctrine as long as I can be the one who determines what is fair.

OK children of the left/progressive’s, please understand the basic idea of the market. Whether it is music radio, or talk radio, the owners are going to present their info based on AD revenue which is based on how many listeners a given program gets. If the revenue was there for progressive radio, someone would be there to fill the need. If there was a big market for Santa Clause stories year around, someone would step in and run Santa Clause stories year around. How many different types of music are on individual radio stations these days? How many stations on Saturday morning run home fixit shows, garden shows, car shows, whatever. More than you may realize. If there is a good size market for progressive talk radio, someone will present it. The fairness doctrine, in this day and time with multiple sources of information, is wrong.

One last point. Do any of you really think Murdock would have Fox news in its present form if it wasn’t such a revenue producer? Bottom line, he is a bottom line kind of guy. He saw a huge void in cable news, and he exploited it. MSNBC has modified its night time programming to fill a niche that it saw in the night time cable market. That’s what the market does. No one can afford to run the programming they like simply because they like it.

Ronald Reagan's first official act was to destroy the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Amendment. In addition he relaxed FCC ownership rules. The result? Radio is OWNED by right wing propagandists and religious nutcases. Fauxaganda has flourished. The "liberal media?" Dead these last 40 not 20...40 years.

Time to bring it back and restore true balance in the media as well as to reestablish PUBLIC OWNERSHIP of the airways and to re-introduce the concept of PUBLIC INTEREST BROADCASTING.

When eighty percent of radio stations are owned by 2% of the wealthiest, that resembles a single winner and all the rest are losers system, which describes how unregulated markets work. Even Adam Smith knew that.

It is only meaningless as a practical matter if it is successfully opposed. So oppose it, and help the opposition defeat it. Don't pretend it will go away on its own.

Either oppose it or admit that you support it, but quit pretending that it is unimportant.

There's something wrong with crushing Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and the rest of the Goebbels-wannabees?

Give Limpdeick a lifetime supply of Oxy-Contin and Viagra and ready access to a regular supply of 10-year old Dominicans, and he'll be happy as a pig in shit.

We may hear a great deal about Eshoo's bill on Fox News and far-right talk-radio sometime soon, but there's no reason to take it seriously.

Yeah, that's just what you'd like us to think, isn't it! And meanwhile you and your blue-helmeted goons from the U.N. are busy undermining American sovereignty and establishing a WORLD GOVERNMENT that will take away our guns and make Christianity and heterosexual marriage illegal! WE SEE THROUGH YOU

"Whether it is music radio, or talk radio, the owners are going to present their info based on AD revenue which is based on how many listeners a given program gets. If the revenue was there for progressive radio, someone would be there to fill the need.

This is another right-wing myth. Despite their duties to maximize profits, broadcast licensees clearly have two criteria, profits and a point-of-view. There's tons of evidence that stations have dropped, or refused to pick up, progressive shows that were producing strong ratings in the markets in which they were available.

Two examples. First, Al Franken was beating Bill O'Reilly in several markets, many of which were considered conservative, in which they had head-to-head radio matchups. Despite this fact other cities still wouldn't pick up Al Franken.

Second example--Phil Donohue had the only television news show in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq that presented an anti-war point-of-view. His show was dropped despite extremely strong ratings while lesser rated shows were kept on the air.

In addition, jeff @12:36 believes the market should determine what is played on the airwaves that belong, not to the broadcast licensees, but to us. On the other hand, I believe that we the people should determine what can and cannot be carried on our airwaves irregardless of what's most profitable for any broadcast licensee. If a licensee doesn't like any parameters placed on his or her license (all licenses, public or private, come with parameters), then he or she is free to sell such license in the free market.

For the record, our representatives in Washington are supposed to represent the constituents who sent them there, which include persons who are business owners including the self-employed, managers, employees and unemployed. Maximizing profits for business owners is the duty of all business managers, but it's not the duty of our Washington representatives. They have to look out for all of their constituents.

The Jeffs of the world would have trouble absorbing the truth that looking out for business profits and looking out for constituents is not always one and the same. In fact, sometimes these two notions are in conflict. When they are, what is best for all constituents, not just a favored subset (profits for business owners), should always come first.

Let's say you have a radio station which is leaning right all the time. The Fairness Doctrine silences one-half of that time (because the other side has to be heard). So now a 24-hour-conservative station is now only allowed to be conservative 12 hours a day. And that's why it's censorship.

What if the right proposed that every blog had to be run splitscreen, with a conservative viewpoint on the right panel to match every liberal one on the left panel? What if Steve could only post when he had a conservative partner to post a simultaneous response? Silly, right? It's about the same for the Fairness Doctrine.

I'm on the left but it was a bad policy that seems prima facie unconstitutional and applies only to decreasingly-relevant media anyway. The level of entry on the net is low and people are getting more and more of their news and views that way.

A related (but not identical) issue is limits on ownership, and that seems really quite something to tackle. Have lots of owners -- reduce barriers to entry -- and the Fairness Doctrine becomes far less relevant.

This is great news for Romney!

It seems like a fine rope-a-dope tactic to intrduce a piece of legislation like this every few months, just to keep the kiddies spun up to "11" and preoccupied on something so trivial and unlikely. They'll have less time to cause damage elsewhere.

Now if someone would tackle reversing media ownership concentration, I could get excited too.

First, Al Franken was beating Bill O'Reilly in several markets, many of which were considered conservative, in which they had head-to-head radio matchups. Despite this fact other cities still wouldn't pick up Al Franken.

Where? In Greenwich Village? That isn't exactly a city.

Franken and Air America were on in Chicago. But it's gone now. You know why? No ratings. Period, end of story.

Second example--Phil Donohue had the only television news show in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq that presented an anti-war point-of-view. His show was dropped despite extremely strong ratings while lesser rated shows were kept on the air.

No he didn't. Donohue had crappy ratings which was why he was dropped. Where do you get your information?

Donohue had crappy ratings which was why he was dropped. Where do you get your information?

At the time his show was canceled, Donohue was the highest rated show on MSNBC.

Why not do something useful instead? Like requiring cable companies to offer a la carte channels. It's not right that if I want to watch monday night football, I have to give pat robertson money. Nor that pat's viewers have give money to South Park's creators.

Oh yeah: source.

None of the Fairness Doctrine supporters here have addressed the most ridiculous part of this proposal: the idea of extending the rule to cable. If that's not censorship, then the word has lost all meaning. If the Democrats have any sense whatsoever they'll tell this congresswoman to shut up and let grownups run the country.

Personally, I try to evaluate plans like this by wondering "how much damage could the Bush administration have done with this power?". Anyone who doesn't think that the far right would salivate at the chance to force "fair" coverage of presidential campaigns is either delusional or hasn't been paying attention.

A few terms defines for all:
1. The Fairness Doctrine - This was an FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues in the public interest, and to do so in an honest and equitable way. For example, you couldn't just call people working at Planned Parenthood "baby killers" on the 6 o'clock local news. The justification was that since broadcast spectrum space is limited, and is held in the public commons, then those using said spectrum space should do something to provide public service since they were making money on it.

2. The Equal Time Rule - A rule that requires that political candidates be given equal access to time on broadcast media. The idea being that local television stations couldn't air the ads of just one party, but must air the ads of any candidate who can pay for the ad space.

The problem with the knuckle-draggers on the right is that they conflate the two. They think that the Fairness Doctrine required broadcast media to provide equal time to both the liberal and conservative view on any controversial topic. That's flat out not true. It required that broadcast stations run stories on things that were in the public interest, and to present the controversial elements in an honest and fair way. It doesn't require equal time (in fact, it explicitly prohibits it in cases where one side or the other is simply wrong or lying).

Broadcasters hated it because people didn't (and still don't) want to tune in to things that are in the public interest. We all say that we do, but ratings are almost always down for these sorts of things. They lobbied to get it killed, and they want it to stay dead. The reason that Rush and his ilk want it to stay dead is because if it was raised, he would be required to present factual evidence for his assertions. As for its Constitutionality, I'm no lawyer, but since it only requires that people present factual information when they want to use the electromagnetic frequencies held in common, I think it's OK. It's not prior restraint. It just sets a (fairly low) bar to qualify for a license.

In addition, jeff @12:36 believes the market should determine what is played on the airwaves that belong, not to the broadcast licensees, but to us. On the other hand, I believe that we the people should determine what can and cannot be carried on our airwaves irregardless of what's most profitable for any broadcast licensee.

CJ, we the people do determine what WE listen to. It is called the on/off button, or turning the radio dial to another station. Who do you think the MARKET is? It is US. Step outside the leftwing box for a moment and give this some thought. BY the way, I am a conservative, voted for Obama, and can’t stand Rush, Hannity, and their mindless semi-hate filled rants. Yet I absolutely do not want our govt representatives to say who I can or cannot listen to.

I do not know the details of the Fairness Doctrine but I do believe that SOMETHING needs to be done. At this point, anything would be better then NOTHING.

It's a fair bet most of us don't want to restore the fairness doctrine anyway. But how about requiring definite levels of local programming, and restraining consolidation, to at least give independent and local views a better chance?

It required that broadcast stations run stories on things that were in the public interest, and to present the controversial elements in an honest and fair way.

Who gets to decide what is in the "public interest?" Who determines what is "honest" and "fair?" I hate to sound postmodern here, but these terms are too subjective. In a politically diverse society, you have to come to terms with the fact that different factions live in their own irreconcilable versions of reality. Unfortunately, only one faction gets to form a government at a time, and there are no anti-trust regulators that can bust that monopoly up.

Imagine a giant fluorescently-lit room full of Heritage Foundation and AEI interns wearing headphones and watching TV 24 hours a day. They'll complain that the Discovery Channel needs to discuss holes in evolutionary theory and the global warming hypothesis. Any discussion of gay marriage will need to include mention of pseudo-scientific studies purporting to show the deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. Brent Bozell's legions of letter-writers will be on the lookout for any hint of bias on a "controversial" subject, even when the controversy exists only in their own minds. South Park will be gone, period. And just to be fair and non-partisan, I don't want unreconstructed far-left hacks fining CNBC for failing to include Marxist critiques of capitalism in its financial coverage, or bullying evangelical Christian broadcasters into including pro-choice viewpoints in their shows.

That's the reality we live in: the reality of the last eight years. The people in charge of enforcing this policy will be those with the greatest ideological commitment to seeing a particular point of view represented in the media, or the political cronies of whomever occupies the White House. There is no technological reason why anyone who wants to be heard can't be, especially with the Internet. The solution is more competition and more access, not more government censorship.

jeff: "...we the people do determine what WE listen to. It is called the on/off button...I absolutely do not want our govt representatives to say who I can or cannot listen to."

You're mistaken again.

No, we the people do not determine what we listen to with the on/off switch...broadcast licensees determine what we listen to (i.e. private individuals who own and/or operate radio/television stations). Despite your continued assertion to the contrary (which I've heard repeatedly on right-wing radio), and as I indicated above, such determinations are frequently made without regard to choices made by the market when such choices contradict the licensees' points of view.

With that in mind, I don't know why you would have a problem with the government requiring licensees to provide more listening options, but you don't have a problem with private individuals limiting your listening options. They are, after all, your airwaves too.

Nat @1:35 continues to be under the false impression that the mainstream media is liberal. He should read Steve Benen more often.

Nat @1:35 continues to be under the false impression that the mainstream media is liberal.

Way to misread my comment, dude - did you not notice the scare quotes around the word "fair"?

I actually agree with many of Steve's critiques of the mainstream media's political coverage, which is why I don't watch TV or listen to the radio, and pick my news from a variety of diverse web sites instead. But I don't really care whether the dreaded MSM is liberal or conservative; I just don't think it's any of the government's business. (I, obviously, am neither liberal nor conservative, at least in the sense that those words are usually used in the USA.) More importantly, however, it doesn't matter what I think, because people like me won't be the ones monitoring the media for the slightest hint of bias or dishonesty. I guarantee, however, that the inevitable far-right bureaucrats in charge of enforcing the fairness doctrine at some point in the future are absolutely certain that the media has a liberal bias - after all, they've been repeating that complaint over and over and over again amongst themselves for as long as I can remember - and they'll have no second thoughts about using their power to skew coverage in their favor. Imagine what havoc Kevin Martin could have wreaked if the FCC was allowed to regulate political content as well as "indecency."

Thanks for the clarification on your earlier comment, dude.

At the time his show was canceled, Donohue was the highest rated show on MSNBC.

That isn't saying much, is it? MSNBC was, and still is, trailing behind Fox and CNN.

No, we the people do not determine what we listen to with the on/off switch...broadcast licensees determine what we listen to (i.e. private individuals who own and/or operate radio/television stations).

What a ridiculous statement and a pathetic argument. Case in point. Every single network TV news broadcast has a liberal bent to it. I don't watch them for that reason. I use one of two things to keep from watching them; the channel change button and the on/off button. Then I go some place else (radio, the internet) to get the news.

Liberals should take the time to read the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. It guarantees freedom of speech, not fairness of speech.

"Every single network TV news broadcast has a liberal bent to it."

Yet again, that's a right-wing myth. Most liberals hate the network news as much as conservatives, and most of us loathe the cable news networks as well...including CNN and MSNBC (two specific shows excepted). Again, read Benen's blog post more frequently to find out why (among others).

I think it's ridiculous and pathetic that my local broadcasters (private individuals) have determined that I can only listen to conservative talk on our few public airwaves, but can't listen to progressive talk. Again, contrary to another right-wing myth that Jeff is parroting, the large majority of stations (all of them in my city) won't play progressive talk no matter how profitable it is.

20 years of a free ride for Rush and dittoheads mean that they're cluelessly infantile about the First Amendment, among other things, as the Fairness Doctrine clearly WAS constitutional.

All for axing Maddow and Shushter to make way for 2 conservatives for equal time?

No, we the people do not determine what we listen to with the on/off switch...broadcast licensees determine what we listen to (i.e. private individuals who own and/or operate radio/television stations). Despite your continued assertion to the contrary (which I've heard repeatedly on right-wing radio), and as I indicated above, such determinations are frequently made without regard to choices made by the market when such choices contradict the licensees' points of view.

Really? Does your mouse click to the websites and podcasts you listen to automatically, you don't choose?

Again, contrary to another right-wing myth that Jeff is parroting, the large majority of stations (all of them in my city) won't play progressive talk no matter how profitable it is.

How do you know its profitable if it isn't being aired?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310008

If you don't believe that corporations are censoring the airwaves, look at this.

I believe that the Fairness Doctrine is an early 20th century construct that would not work today. On the other hand, I also believe that Americans are getting abused by the corporations who have the current leases of the public airwaves, and a change to this situation is necessary to start healing our sick democracy.

Oh, yeah, let's not forget how much wealth Rev. Moon is dumping into his media holdings.

And you said they wouldn't bring it back, Steve. What do you have to say to that, hmmmmmmmm???!?!?

Clipper and others,

I'm typing my comments, previewing them for clarity as best I can and posting. Sometimes I miss something. I apologize for making a literal error that throws you for such a loop.

Obviously, broadcasters don't literally turn our radios on and off for us and select the stations we listen to. They do, however, literally determine what our options are.

For example, as I stated earlier, I can't hit the "on" switch on my radio and listen to progressive talk where I live (same for many, if not most, other big cities) because broadcasters won't play it where I live, no matter how profitable it is.

SteveIL, in answer to your question, I gave a couple of examples in an earlier post. In the run-up to the war, MSNBC dropped it's highest rated show, Donohue, the only television news/talk show that was providing an anti-war perspective. Al Franken's talk radio show was competitive with conservative talk in several markets, including conservative markets, but he still had a hard time keeping his existing stations (e.g. the Atlanta station that carried him for a short while was purchased, and despite his competitive ratings here, he was dropped shortly thereafter) and picking up new stations.

Supplementing these facts, BuzzMon's link above demonstrates that big business (and the U.S. Navy) worked together to kill progressive talk radio, despite ratings, and broadcast radio complied.

No, the people aren't determining who they can listen to via their government or the free market. But a bunch of guys sitting around in corporate board rooms determined, for their own personal gains, that they didn't want progressive talk radio to succeed, even if it meant bigger sales and more money for their shareholders.

Free market, my ass.

We'll accept this column as a retraction of earlier denials.