Don't be stupid, be fair 4: What's fairness

Writes the Illusory Tenant:  "Much of the debate rumbling around these parts misses the point of the original "fairness doctrine."

Too true, too true. Folks have been coming out of the woodwork -- prompted, initially, no doubt by the Brawler's strenuous calls in support of the fairness doctrine -- saying all sorts of things about the fairness doctrine that just ain't so. The debate rightwing talk radio has been given greater impetus by a new study by Think Progress showing 91 percent of all talk radio is conservative.

So you get stuff like this from one Patrick McIlheran:

[The Fairness Doctrine] used to say that if you let anyone express an opinion on your radio station, you had to give the droning bore with the opposite view equal time even as your listeners all flipped over to FM.

Not so! A useful corrective for these and other distortions can be found in this piece by Steve Rendall of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Now, the Brawler realizes FAIR is a liberal outfit and unlikely to be seen as credible by folks who believed Saddam was a threat, that there's no scandal in the politicization of DoJ and that supporting Owen Robinson's tax pledge is a solid idea.  So his analysis is likely not the last word. With that caveat, he makes some good points and here are some highlights:

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.”

**********

Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.

According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.

*********

According to TV Week(11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners—NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom—made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.”

And what to make of this piece by James Wigderson?

I'm not going to go into a point by point -- I was somewhat serious about a vacation after all -- but a couple thoughts. Wiggy can pooh-pooh the concept of a "public interest" all he wants, but a guiding light of broadcast media for 60 years was that it should serve the public interest. You'd think that would be of interest to a conservative. Clearly, a media channel listened to by millions that's dominated by shills for the RNC -- which despite their cries of independence is what the vast majority of them are -- does not represent the public interest. The FCC demands broadcast TV stations offer childrens broadcasting and places limits on obscenity. A call for a broad range of voices doesn't seem wildly out of line.

Saying that the Fairness Doctrine doesn't make sense in an age of cable, satellite, etc., ignores that broadcast media are still the big guns in the media world (as evidenced by where ad dollars flow), even if they are and have been slipping. And broadcast media are different in that they (unlike cable or satellite) are accessible to all. That gives them an inherent value that should raise the bar and why, in the Brawler's humble view, the notion of scarcity still applies in this case. (And note the Brawler is not calling for the imposition of the fairness doctrine on cable.)

Saying that rightwing talk balances out the other, liberal media is laughable. The same liberal media that breathlessly supported George Bush in the runup to the Iraq War? The same liberal media that claimed Nancy Pelosi was a traitor for going to Syria? The same liberal MJS news section that clearly had a vendetta against Doyle? Please.

The notion that the nets, The New York Times, The Washington Post et al are  advocates for liberals is silly. Seem to recall the NYT provided plenty of grist for advocates of the Iraq War. And the composition of talk show opinion panels is overwhelmingly conservative.

Would the fairness doctrine pass muster before an alleged strict constructionist Supreme Court that still found a way to place George Bush in the White House with a decision it cautioned should not be taken as precedent? Quite possibly no. But does that mean the Fairness Doctrine is "wrong" or bad for democracy? Absolutely not.

Every day in the runup to the 2006 WI gubernatorial election, Charlie Sykes and Jeff Wagner used their mikes from 8:30 until 2 to attack Jim Doyle and essentially accuse him of being a criminal. Sykes would call him a "despicable man." The most corrupt man in Wisconsin's political history they'd cry, somehow forgetting their man Tommy Thompson. The Brawler fails to see why it's unreasonable that the biggest stick in the state, operating on the public airwaves, be obligated to provide the targets of borderline slander with an opportunity to defend themselves. What, are they worried their talkers' charges wouldn't stand up under scrutiny?

If the radio and TV operators can't be bothered to operate as stewards of the public interest, they don't deserve to operate on the public airwaves for free, or virtually free. They should be made to pay fees commensurate to the value of the underlying license -- a concept that, as the Brawler previously noted, was originally raised by the same FCC Commissioner who scrapped the fairness doctrine.

That's all for now, folks. Back to holiday -- and enjoy your summer, Mr. McIlheran.

(Slightly rewritten to link to Think Progress study)

Comments

[xoff]

Why there's more talk lately about the Fairness Doctrine: a new study shows 91% of talk radio is conservative. More here: http://www.uppitywis.org/shutting-up-the-progressives

[kr]

Of course what feeds the right is the argument that the media is left leaning. Of course the truth is never very kind to the right wing.

[da one]

(sorry I ramble a bit, sorry first post)

So should the fairness doctrine be put in place for newspapers too. The JS constantly ran hit pieces on Doyle and then the editorial page supported Doyle - is that the fairness and balance needed? I can see ISN running into trouble because they are running conservative talk all day during prime time 6a-7p and after prime too. TMJ at least breaks up the day with actual news in morning & afternoon drive with Jagler, Mueller & Cianciola. I'm just worried that every fringle group is going to want to get their fair time on the air. Where does gov't draw the line? Should a KKK group be allowed time on WMCS so there perspective is given in fair light? Should 529 groups be allowed to air commericals on talk radio? Isn't that unfair to candidates who don't have supporting 529's? xoff ran plenty from his group on talk radio (sorry xoff you ran to many adds and got sick of hear the same ads all the time). Should all canidates be given free commercial time on radio stations? Should it only be news/talk? If Doyle or xoff's 529 could afford commercials on bob & Brian (#1 morning show) should the green party candidate get just as many commercials at no cost to be fair to the green party? Does it stop with news talk, a lot more people listen to FM radio than newstalk.

I'm sorry I'm just a little worried about the gov't deciding what is fair and what groups and people get to have thier opinion air.

da one