Don't Be Stupid, Be Fair: Make Them Pay

The Brawler's last post about why we need a return of the fairness doctrine, or something like it, to make AM radio something other than an arm of the Republican National Committee elicited responses from Paddy Mack as well as from one "Nabisco" who purports to do work for the National Association of Broadcasters.

Suffice it to say, they don't think much of the Brawler's plea. Here's Nabisco's response:

I do some work with the NAB, and if we are to believe the advocates of reinstating the fairness doctrine, their desire to do so is an effort to increase the diversity of voices in the media. The inherent problem with this argument is that the original fairness doctrine only served to homogenize content, as trying to cover every perspective of an issue proved not only difficult, but highly unprofitable. The Brawler accuses those against reinstatement of having no faith in the free market, yet the entire purpose of the so-called fairness doctrine is to legislate results that the free market failed to provide in the likes of Air America and its ilk. (Brawler's bold.)

The fact that it was tough to make a buck in AM radio in the days before Rush Limbaugh is the bedrock of Paddy Mack's opposition as well.

To which the Brawler can only say: So what?

Because "maximization of profit" isn't one of the criteria for the FCC issuing licenses. What are they?

From Journal Communications' 2006 annual report filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

The Communications Act permits the operation of a broadcast station only in accordance with a license issued by the FCC upon a finding that the grant of a license would serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. (Brawler's bold.)

You know, Paddy and Nabisco want to ignore it (and so, frankly, have Republican congresses and FCC commissioners). But that damnable "public interest" thing won't go way. And the "public interest" aspect of broadcast media has been seen as a mission of broadcast media since Herbert Hoover (who Paddy sagely informs us was not the "cynosure" of conservatism when all the Brawler said was that he wasn't a "lefty").

And, there it is, black and white, in Journal Communications' 10-K.

Public interest isn't hippie rhetoric. And when Journal Communications' biggest radio station was a 24/7 Wurlitzer for Mark Green propaganda in the last election cycle, clearly WTMJ was not serving the Public interest. It was serving the GOP's interest. It was serving the conservative public's interest. It  may even have been serving the listening public's interest.

But the Communications Act doesn't cite those interests. It cites the public's interest.

And the "Left" (not to mention the vast majority of Americans who are not Republican) as part of the "public" has every right to demand the airwaves be used to broadcast something other than RNC talking points all day. (Particularly since Doyle beat Green by some 160,000 votes. How does one reconcile WTMJ's "public interest" mission with that electoral reality?)

As the Supreme Court' said in the 1969 Red Lion decision (which curiously Paddy didn't mention in his attack on the Brawler):

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

But can Fairness be reinstated? The Brawler is not sure. Any legislative effort would face incredible resistance from fatcat communications lobbyists, not to mention editorials from newspapers that have a pecuniary interest in opposing the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

So what can be done? The Brawler was actually inspired a bit by something Paddy wrote:

So, if broadcast frequencies aren't private property, neither are they national parks. They are at the least closer to a lease of public property to private occupants. That's why, for instance, I can't open up my own TV station on Channel 12's frequency.

"Closer to a lease of public property to private occupants."

Ah, Paddy, you innocent child. The fact is, the fees that operators pay to the FCC are a pittance compared to the asset value of the underlying licenses.

Rather than pressing for a return to the fairness doctrine, or in tandem with seeking a return to the fairness doctrine, the Brawler recommends Democrats push legislation that requires station owners pay license fees commensurate with the value of their licenses (the value of Journal Communications' licenses exceeds $200 million).

From a 7/20/87 letter from former FCC Chairman Robert Lee to The Washington Post (note: the letter included the Herbert Hoover quote the Brawler lifted in the prior post):

The Fairness Doctrine  is at the heart of the broadcasters' public trusteeship. Quite simply, it says that as trustees of the spectrum broadcasters must devote a reasonable amount of time to the presentation of controversial issues of public importance-and do so fairly, by providing reasonable opportunity for differing viewpoints on the issues.

Is this too much to ask in exchange for an exclusive license that in today's TV facilities market can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars?

When former FCC chairman Mark Fowler first began attacking the doctrine, he suggested that broadcasters be required to pay license fees commensurate with the value of their licenses. This idea was quickly dropped.

The Brawler suggests this idea be raised again. Fact is, fed guv is going to have to look for every possible stream of revenue in coming years to undo the damage wrought by George W. Bush (and that's true whether the next prez is a Dem or Repub).

So pushing for licensing fees commensurate with the value of broadcasters' licenses has the virtue of being good public policy.

Such a push would encourage operators to take fairness seriously. Which also is good public policy.

And if broadcasters would rather ignore the public trust ... well, they should pay for doing so. I mean, what would they do to the Dems: Give raging rightwingers unfettered access to their airwaves? 

(As a postscript, the Brawler is somewhat dismayed that Paddy listens to Rush and describes his numbing monologues as "interesting, humorous chit-chat."  The Brawler is even more discouraged by how McIlheran describes a WISN billboard the Brawler flagged.

"A billboard in which WISN-AM (1130) advertises that listeners looking for conservative views can find them."

Here's the billboard:

The billboard tells listeners it can find conservative views thanks to a graphic of a GOP elephant stomping on a donkey.

Fascist imagery, says the Brawler.

Comments

[illusory tenant]

But, as the Brawler keenly knows, shouting into the void is unsatisfying. - Patrick M.

On the other hand, it must be satisfying to have the void shout back.

[goofticket]

Restoring Fairness will be one of the issues in 2008.
The move to replace the Bush loyaists and chronies, who have significantly destroyed, what we assumed was freedoms and rights.
\This will come back, and laws will be passed to prevent another 'coup' as we have seen since the sick and facist neocon movement was so easily absorbed by the mainstream weak willed Republicans.