The Fairness Doctrine won't return.

[davideduardo]

David Oxenford's broadcast law blog this week addresses the Fairness Doctrine, its derivatives and its constitutional legality.

Here is the article and Oxenford's view on why we will never see a return of the policy:

The Return of the Fairness Doctrine – What it Was and Why it Won't Return

It seems like whenever Democrats are elected to serve as President and take control of Congress, there is talk about the revival of the Fairness Doctrine

www.broadcastlawblog.com

He concludes,

"The Fairness Doctrine is often advanced as an easy cure-all for political divisions. But any review of the issue shows that its return would raise far more questions than it would solve. It would put government in a position where it should not be – judging a broadcaster’s editorial decisions as to what should and should not be aired. This has never been the role of the government in our country, and it should not be now. The problems of the country are better solved by wider and more effective communications about the issues of the day, not through government control."

 

[TheBigA]

This has never been the role of the government in our country, and it should not be now. The problems of the country are better solved by wider and more effective communications about the issues of the day, not through government control."

People need rules. Someone has to provide and manage those rules. If not the government, then who? What we've seen, at least on the social media side, is that when there are no government rules, the owners of the platforms fill the void and create their own rules known as terms of service. Is that better than government rules?

 

[gr8oldies]

People need rules. Someone has to provide and manage those rules. If not the government, then who? What we've seen, at least on the social media side, is that when there are no government rules, the owners of the platforms fill the void and create their own rules known as terms of service. Is that better than government rules?

One can imagine it being late 2001 and 2002 and people who believed that the Israelis flew empty planes into the World Trade Center, which was already pre-rigged with explosives, having to be given "fair" coverage on the CBS Evening News (there was a guy who perennially ran for Congress just to get messages like that on Cincinnati radio and TV).

 

[Mikey Radio]

It is a bit odd when you go up and down the radio dial (is that even proper terminology anymore?) in many cities and only hear a collection of right-wing hosts, but no shows on any station airing a seemingly opposing viewpoint but 1) I'm sure if someone thought it'd make good business sense to start a center-left or left wing talk station, they'd do so, and 2) I'm not sure it's the federal government's responsibility to ensure that type of balance is happening (yes, I understand that's not exactly what the Fairness Doctrine was about, but hopefully you'll understand my point).

Where I do think some regulation is necessary is when a network brands itself as a "news" network, then when certain anchors or hosts get called out for blatantly making things up or being way too personally involved in the political game to claim they're unbiased and objective, they come forth with the revalation that their particular program is mean to be "entertainment" but not "news". OK, then it should be labeled as such. "News" networks should be required to have their programming firmly rooted in fact-based journalism. Otherwise, having the word "news" in their title is a misnomer.

 

[TheBigA]

"News" networks should be required to have their programming firmly rooted in fact-based journalism. Otherwise, having the word "news" in their title is a misnomer.

The FCC has a rule about broadcasting false information:

Broadcast News Distortion

Broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC states that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest."

www.fcc.gov

 

[davideduardo]

People need rules. Someone has to provide and manage those rules. If not the government, then who? What we've seen, at least on the social media side, is that when there are no government rules, the owners of the platforms fill the void and create their own rules known as terms of service. Is that better than government rules?

I'm a firm believer in the old saw that a camel is a horse created by bureaucrats.

On the other hand, I don't find the self-regulation of social media services to be without grounds for censure. While those entities may think they are being "fair", fairness is often a perception and not a reality.

I've mentioned before that a group of local and international journalists met on occasion in Quito, Ecuador, to compare the foreign press' reporting on significant local events such as oil concessions, disasters and government overthrows or foreign policy changes. We'd look at everything from AP to TASS and Reuters and FrancePress as well as Time, Newsweek and European news weeklies.

We'd find many occasions where each news agency or outlet had very different perspectives, going right down to emphasizing certain details to the omission of others. Our objective was to perfect our own skills, not to censure others; we wanted to see what influence a reporter, editor or "publisher" in creating and presenting a story in a certain way.

With that in mind, I don't trust Facebook or Twitter or their brethren to see things through an always transparent and uncolored lens. In the same way, I don't trust partisan politicians... in fact, I trust politicians even less.

I'm presenting a problem with no solution. "Freedom of the Press" requires the government stay its distance. And anti-trust legislation prevents industry codes, as can be seen in the cessation of the NAB Code. So we are left with most areas falling to an "honor system" of self-regulation. But I see that as a failure... so much so that I have cancelled several of my social media accounts... not as a protest but as a protection of my own peace of mind, and, yes, sanity.

As you say, "if not the government, who?" That is a magnificent question and one worthy of further discussion. There needs to be some kind of regulation, but how that can legally be done within the framework of the First Amendment is not easy for me to envision.

 

[davideduardo]

Where I do think some regulation is necessary is when a network brands itself as a "news" network, then when certain anchors or hosts get called out for blatantly making things up or being way too personally involved in the political game to claim they're unbiased and objective, they come forth with the revalation that their particular program is mean to be "entertainment" but not "news". OK, then it should be labeled as such. "News" networks should be required to have their programming firmly rooted in fact-based journalism. Otherwise, having the word "news" in their title is a misnomer.

But those networks are cable services, not free, over the air broadcasts. Because users pay for a cable service, that is legally considered an "invitation" to provide services and it uses non-regulated delivery services.

Reguating such services is essentially tantamount to the Thought Police and the antithisis of the principles of our system of government.

 

[davideduardo]

The FCC has a rule about broadcasting false information:

Broadcast News Distortion

Broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC states that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest."

www.fcc.gov

Keyword: "If".

 

[TheBigA]

There needs to be some kind of regulation, but how that can legally be done within the framework of the First Amendment is not easy for me to envision.

Without rules from some place, owners will be left on their own to protect themselves from actual legal liability that uncontrolled speech creates. We're seeing that now. The ex-president sought to open companies to even more legal liability, putting even more pressure on those companies to control speech. That was not a solution to the problem.

With regards to talk radio or news channels, they're open to lawsuits from election service companies whose business is being challenged by charges of election fraud. That is the only recourse people or companies have against false or unfair broadcasting.