Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

[Johnny Morgan]

Oh, it's worse than that: the FCC didn't have to determine any of that. It was up to the stations to determine what was a controversial issue of public importance, and what opposing viewpoint was needed.

The FCC only required that they do so, and if they didn't, someone complained and it was put in the file for review at renewal time.

The Fairness Doctrine went away because it was alot of doctrine, but very little actual fairness.

 

[radioplayer]

Johnny,

The Fairness Doctrine went away because it was alot of doctrine, but very little actual fairness.

I beg to differ. Section 315 was recinded by the Commission because in 1987, the Reagan Administration decided that this section, along with several others, were "no longer needed" and therefore in short, ordered the FCC to no longer enforce the provisions that had been largely in place since 1927.

For your information, there's a lot of discussion to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine because of the points I and many others on this discussion topic have made for the rejuvination of fairness on our airwaves.

From Chairman Kennard's statement in 1998: "Although the Supreme Court has described the Commission's authority as "expansive," NBC, 319 U.S. at 219, there are important checks on that authority. First, Congress may always amend Section 309(k) to adjust the public interest standard, although it has not done so since that standard was adopted in 1927. Second, the courts retain authority to review all of our regulations as well. And we recognize, as the Supreme Court stated in CBS, that the Commission's role as "guardian of the public interest" requires "a delicate balancing of competing interests." 453 U.S. at 394. Accordingly, we always strive to provide as much discretion as possible to broadcasters, and to limit whatever burden is placed upon them, although "t is the right of viewers and listeners, not the right of broadcasters," which is "paramount" under the public interest standard. Id. at 395 (quoting Red Lion)." (From FCC.gov)

Note that the courts recoginzed the FCC's role was paramount for good public discussion and when the FCC itself withdrew the section from broadcasters, it effectively killed any fairness because there is no obligation for any private company to be a "guardian' for the public's interest.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

no obligation for any private company to be a "guardian' for the public's interest

Each company has that obligation, that has not changed. What has changed it how we define that obligation. The FCC, for the last 20 years, has decided that the obligation to operate in the public interest need not mean a doctrinaire analysis of each controversial issue of public importance and a doctrinaire determination of who has a valid viewpoint that needed to be expressed. The Commission, in my view quite rightly, determined as a policy that such viewpoints were expressed in alternate frequencies, or through voluntary "journalistic" endeavors of the stations.

Can you find me a talk show host who takes no phone calls? One who has never once taken a phone call from someone with an opposing point of view? One who has never presented the other side's argument as the bait for the host's own arguments against?

You can't because opposing points of view are routinely used as entertainment, and as starting-off points for host's monologues.

Remember, the Fairness Doctrine was NOT equal time. That is a very serious, very wrong understanding of the rule. No one was required to have equal time. And there was no requirement that the opposing viewpoint had to be expressed by a member of some organization that professed that viewpoint (the only requirement was if there was a personal attack, that person was permitted to respond). The host could express the opposing viewpoint himself and then rail against it, and that fit within the Fairness Doctrine's tenets.

As I said, it was more doctrine, that is compliance with the written process, more than it was fairness. It was doctrine to a T, and fairness as an afterthought.

I think we're much better with the system we have now, which dedicates whole stations or programming slots to those who can profess enough support for their position. Do professors of a "new" Fairness Doctrine really want what happened before, both sides presented at once--or do they just want to silence the other side? If the latter, I'd suggest buying a station. If the former, I suggest calling in to a talk show.

 

[radioplayer]

If the latter, I'd suggest buying a station. If the former, I suggest calling in to a talk show.

Johnny,

I loved your reply but you avoided covering the essential points I made. This is not about who has the most money who then gets to say whatever they want, nor is it about jamming up the phone lines to get on the air. Anyone working in radio knows all too well just how Vox Pro works, let alone how producers and talk show hosts "manipulate" calls and callers to suit their own purposes, NOT for freedom of expression!

Red Lion was an important landmark decision in this area. It clearly states that there needs to be an intervening authority and that authority is the FCC. The FCC has the obligation to provide all of us, both left and right, north and south, from the kind of non-factual, entertainment driven, "dialing for dollars" pure crap that's on the air right now. What did Minnow say? Remember? It's a vast WASTELAND out there! The absence of good, balenced discussion (not = time/thanks for pointing that out BTW) that has some factual fiber to it is what's sorely needed to rejuvinate radio and television today. You correctly pointed out the many "outlets" and those outlets are taking away more and more listeners and viewers everyday, because there's no balance and there's nothing of substance, except perhaps on NPR. (which has record high ratings FYI)

While I agree that some folks are trying to beat down the impact that Rush and shows like it have had on the political landscape by attempting legislation, that's not really what's at play if you think in terms of what's good for broadcasting and service to our local communities. That's where my heart is and has been for the past 30 years. It really saddens me that radio and TV is coming down to just dollars and cents, because some board in NC wants profits to go up 15% a year, no matter what.

 

[ropertex]

Since the airwaves belong to the public, the current situation of 50,000 watt blowtorches airing Republican talking points 24/7 is no different than saying only repugs can drive on the roads owned by the public.

 

[AKLes]

50,000 "blowtorches" would air algore reciting from Das Kapital 24/7 if they believed it would bring them ratings and revenue.

But they don't. Don't believe it, that is.

Still, they're be free to use "the public airwaves" in that way if there were a buck in it.

There isn't.

But it's always fun to watch what happens when someone tries. Sometime it takes a little longer than at other times and that's a wonderful thing; it proves that the marketplace is alive and well.

Until we have achieved an entirely government managed economy and media that's just the way it is. Yes, an awful lot of effort is being expended toward that goal but it'll never be enough to ferret out every peanut-powered pirate or confiscate every radio that isn't fix-tuned to "authorized" programming.

Of course the first step would be licensing newspaper reports and revoking the licenses of those who report "incorrect" news....

 

[TexasTom]

Of course the first step would be licensing newspaper reports and revoking the licenses of those who report "incorrect" news....

Note that attacking news media for reporting "incorrect" news is far from being the province of the left. For every suggestion from the left that we revive the Fairness Doctrine to reign in the likes of Rush Limbaugh, we have at least one howl from the right that reporters who report "unpatriotic" news (ie, coverage of the Iraq war that could be perceived as unfavorable to the administration) should be jailed for treason.

 

[thebroker]

I've been following this thread for months now, and I'm continuously amazed at the posts made by people who obviously have no understanding about not only the radio business, but about the very nature of serving the public with the airwaves.

The following is my opinion, as a radio station owner, specifically one who works my tail off every day to serve my community with my stations. Trust me, I understand the nature of community service. It has nothing to do with free expression of political viewpoints.

First and foremost, anybody who thinks the airing of political rhetoric serves the public interest, is an idiot. Let's say you air three hours of Rush, followed by three hours of whoever the posterchild for leftwing radio is these days. You've been fair in serving the public, right? NO! You've spent six hours airing entertainment programming. You haven't done a darned thing to serve the public. Please don't be confused.

I have a very strict rule at my stations. If you get political on the air, you are fired, period, no questions asked, no matter which flavor of political you may choose to express. Why? Because political discussion on the air, particularly in our small town, is divisive, and you simply can't win when you start talking about politics. However, we still do plenty to serve the public interest. When we adopt families at Christmas, or raise money for the Rescue Squad, or sponsor the March Of Dimes, THAT's community service. When we broadcast live half the night because the area is under a tornado warning and we want our listeners to have somewhere to turn, THAT is community service.

If the fairness doctrine were to be passed, you wouldn't see a sudden turn to fairness...you'd see the death of all political discussion of any sort on radio. In fact, you'd arguably see the death of radio as we know it, period. People would be afraid to discuss anything at all for fear some looney would pop up and demand equal time. "Wow, Bob, it sure is gonna be a hot one out there today...oh, wait, let's go to line four...'NO it's gonna be COLD today, and I demand equal time under the fairness doctrine". Or how about sports broadcasts...do we count up how many times we say the Braves are the greatest baseball team ever, so we can the say an equal number of times how great every other major league baseball team is? Are those two examples rediculous? Sure. However, the point is that it will be so much trouble to be equality-nazis that nobody will even present political programming. In fact, news organizations will cease to function, because they'll have a hard time deciding when "fairness" is called for in covering every potential side of a story.

My suggestion is, just leave it alone. Radio and TV stations do more to serve the public than just about every industry. I'm sorry that some of you do not like the fact that right-wingers rule talk radio, but get over it. I personally do not like the fact that the leftwing nuts have their own radio and TV networks (NPR and PBS respectively), paid for by MY tax dollars, but I deal with it. (and boy will I start something with that remark).

The world isn't fair, and I'm sorry if you are silly enough to think that the government should dictate fairness. So long as we live in a Constitutional Republic, the free market should rule, in media and in general.

 

[robbbc]

"My suggestion is, just leave it alone. Radio and TV stations do more to serve the public than just about every industry. I'm sorry that some of you do not like the fact that right-wingers rule talk radio, but get over it. I personally do not like the fact that the leftwing nuts have their own radio and TV networks (NPR and PBS respectively), paid for by MY tax dollars, but I deal with it. (and boy will I start something with that remark). "

Well, I would have to say that no way do Radio Stations do more than any other industry to serve the public good. Your station may be an exception but listen to your cumulous/CC/Saga stations and during a local emergency you will be enjoying Music and talk radio off the bird. I'd say most local Newspapers do more covering local stories and issues than local radio stations. As for Charity work, Id want to see some cold hard facts about how much Radio station groups/owners give compared to other industries. Ounce per ounce my guess is that you get more from the local liquor store owner. The issue of selflessness as part of charity are also lost on radio that gives "free airtime" to the charity (like that really "costs" the station, funny money IMHO)

The old PBS/NPR canard is always brought up even though government funding of these ventures is minimal (1% of NPR's funding IIRC). And the NPR stations are kicking the hind-quarters of most of the other stations in a given market. I bet your station doesn't have a government ombudsman looking over content like NPR and PBS have. Compared to all the wasteful ventures the government drops billions into on a regular basis NPR and PBS actually provide a service that people can use regardless of means; The liberal bias of PBS has always escaped me as I see more Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, William F. Buckley, McGloughlin group, and significantly more time for republicans discussing theri points on PBS than anywhere else on TV. If anything PBS has done more for the republican party than any other network. If you are angry about money for public broadcasting you should see how much is wasted on radio Cuba or ethanol subsidies to get some perspective. I'll concede the point though. Let the CPB die. I'll tell you what will happen. People will give more. Not because they love PBS/npr, but because they hate private broadcasters. You are in a nasty business that has been diminished by your competitors.

The fairness doctrine (maybe the "new" fairness doctrine) seems to me another way of allowing business as usual (large station groups, no local control, etc) for radio stations with some easily met minimums. Like I/E standards or Equal Employment/Affirmative action. A good lawyer and some good intentions and you will be all set. Too easy to subvert IMHO, and potentially unconstitutional. Real change goes to the root cause- ownership caps and local control.

 

[thebroker]

Well, I would have to say that no way do Radio Stations do more than any other industry to serve the public good. Your station may be an exception but listen to your cumulous/CC/Saga stations and during a local emergency you will be enjoying Music and talk radio off the bird. I'd say most local Newspapers do more covering local stories and issues than local radio stations. As for Charity work, Id want to see some cold hard facts about how much Radio station groups/owners give compared to other industries. Ounce per ounce my guess is that you get more from the local liquor store owner. The issue of selflessness as part of charity are also lost on radio that gives "free airtime" to the charity (like that really "costs" the station, funny money IMHO)

Frankly, I don't care what Cumulus/CC/Saga do, because I'm not them. Their actions do not reflect the actions of the average small-market broadcaster who only owns a few stations. You can't simply generalize. Also, you obviously don't know much about smalltown radio if you think the newspapers do more than radio. People do not listen to my smalltown stations for music. They couldn't care less about the music for the most part. They listen for information, and that information comes in the form of up-to-the-minute local news. We eat the lunch of the newspaper day after day, beating them to the punch with every news story in town. I'm certainly not an exception to the rule in small towns, either.

Also, giving away "free airtime" IS a public service. Every year, we do radio-thons for a few vital organizations, including our Rescue Squad/Fire Department. Believe me, hearing us beg for money for four hours in a day isn't exactly great programming, and not the best way to attract listeners. However, we do it as a service. Without our efforts and airtime, these organizations couldn't meet their budgets. I severely doubt members of our community would turn out in such great numbers to support these organizations without our publicity. You see, while NPR is doing a beg-a-thon to benefit themselves, I'm digging into my OWN pocket to run commercial-free fundraisers for local organizations. It's a matter of opinion, but which is better...a radio station raising money for themselves, or a radio station raising money for a real charity? That's NOT "funny money". What in the world is less than selfless about me giving up advertising revenue to devote time to raising money for charity? Finally, I'm not even going to bother with the remarks about radio station owners giving less than liquor store owners. when I give financially, I give cheerfully and anonymously, and I don't do it for self-recognition, so I really do not care what you think about how much money my colleagues and I give to charity. Frankly, that's not even any of your business.

I say all that in order to say this...it isn't fair to generalize. Just like not all gun owners are murderers, not all radio station owners are selfish. I've worked with a whole lot of different owners, and count a good many as friends, and I know that MOST of us truly care.

 

[eibbrian]

Mega Dittos!!!

 

[Tom Wells]

Mega Dittos!!!

Having originated and watched this dicussion gyrate, I find room for valid consideration on most points made.
By both left/right whatever.

My original focus and intent was to foster consideration of how we can acccomodate our "opponent's" position with the civility that permits
intellectual discussion versus smug dismissals from positions of presumptive superiority that only lead to divisive discourse?

I find in years prior, that the civility was far more pleasant than the current in-yo-face mentality.
It was not policed, mandated ( at least not explicitly) or defined with exact measures or definitions.
It was circumspect, officious, dependable, believable and motived by the very real fear of losing a license for not having somehow
maintained the "balance", even if it meant almost NO editorializing AT ALL.

It still made for better radio. Even though only 2% of the stations took the trouble to get off their collective dufuses (dufi?), and
make meaningful radio in this public service sector, it at least taught people with opposing viewpoints how to write a summation
argument meant to read in 45 seconds.

And if you can pique your "opponent's" imagination in 45 seconds you can at least reach common ground.
Far more useful in our troubled world than poking our opponent in the eye, and calling them fools.

As much as radio deceitfully uses our basest emotions to find fiscal reward, I am ashamed and repulsed.
This is not where the promise of radio leads. The radio I knew was killed by those who harnessed it to a plow,
and began betting how many acres this thoroughbred could plow.

Enjoy your econo-minivan radio reality. You devalued the art you made your living in.
All for the expediency of the short term and the well-tested result.

 

[gr8oldies]

It isn't just radio where people are trashing each other politically. It happens in the very halls of congress on a daily basis, on web sites and blogs, and practically everywhere else. You could mandate political discussions that were dry and C-Span like. Everyone will go to the internet, satellite radio or cable to get their daily dose of political infighting. Any "fairness doctrine" is totally unworkeable, adn as I';ve said for the 50,000th time, you can force stations to carry certain programming, but what you can't do is force anyone to listen to it.

 

[Tom Wells]

It isn't just radio where people are trashing each other politically. It happens in the very halls of congress on a daily basis, on web sites and blogs, and practically everywhere else. You could mandate political discussions that were dry and C-Span like. Everyone will go to the internet, satellite radio or cable to get their daily dose of political infighting. Any "fairness doctrine" is totally unworkeable, adn as I';ve said for the 50,000th time, you can force stations to carry certain programming, but what you can't do is force anyone to listen to it.

Yes, and four-way stop signs are "totally unworkable" too, because they require other people to behave in a civilized manner.

Just because many people behave boorishly does not mean we should conform ourselves by sinking to their level.
Are we just giving up on acting like civilized people?


You can't force good manners on anyone either, but it is still expected in many areas of adult life.

I don't want to force anything. I want civil discourse to be valued more than the commentary slams we currently enjoy.

Poking each other in the eye does nothing to foster understanding or respect.
It is not necessary to be as devisive as we are, nor should radio pander to such base emotions.

And if someone is going to ignore "balanced" programming, they have already decided to have a closed mind, so why should we
worry whether or not they inform themselves, or brush their teeth, or any other thing we "ought" to do as responsible adults?

 

[gr8oldies]

No, they're going to ignore programming that doesn't interest or entertain them. You can't force "good taste" on people. If you start playing classical music on the country station because "those country listeners need to learn to be cultured", that button is going to be pushed before the first five notes. The same applies to try to "balance" talk radio.

 

[robbbc]

"Also, giving away "free airtime" IS a public service. Every year, we do radio-thons for a few vital organizations, including our Rescue Squad/Fire Department. Believe me, hearing us beg for money for four hours in a day isn't exactly great programming, and not the best way to attract listeners. However, we do it as a service. Without our efforts and airtime, these organizations couldn't meet their budgets. I severely doubt members of our community would turn out in such great numbers to support these organizations without our publicity. You see, while NPR is doing a beg-a-thon to benefit themselves, I'm digging into my OWN pocket to run commercial-free fundraisers for local organizations. It's a matter of opinion, but which is better...a radio station raising money for themselves, or a radio station raising money for a real charity? That's NOT "funny money". What in the world is less than selfless about me giving up advertising revenue to devote time to raising money for charity? Finally, I'm not even going to bother with the remarks about radio station owners giving less than liquor store owners. when I give financially, I give cheerfully and anonymously, and I don't do it for self-recognition, so I really do not care what you think about how much money my colleagues and I give to charity. Frankly, that's not even any of your business. "

First you tell me how selfless you are, how wonderful that you give the unwashed masses YOUR radio station's time freely. Oh great master, you are too kind to we the people. How noble and high minded! When God gave you your radio station frequency he must have known what he was doing.

Of course it is no business of mine how much you do and do not give, nor do I care- you are the one talking about how wonderful and giving your station is (and you yourself- "cheerfully and anonymously", if you weren't going to bother with my remarks on giving I suggest you actually do so). It doesn't cost you one red cent to play some telethon or mention a cause on radio. I am not privy to the stations finances either- doesn't the goodwill up revenue later? Isn't that Harvard Business school 101? I would recommend charitable giving to any business and can tell you it is good business sense (it's called PR). Not doing so is called "penny wise, pound foolish". Don't make yourself into a martyr, I ain't buying. I see plenty of charitable work by local stations around the US and I can tell you that splashed everywhere is the radio station's call letters, personalities, jingo's, all hanging out in the parking lot of the "corporate sponsor" (ie. grocery store) in a fancy van handing out keychains and T-Shirts with the same sort of info. You would be forgiven if you couldn't make out the cause.

 

[radioplayer]

It isn't just radio where people are trashing each other politically. It happens in the very halls of congress on a daily basis, on web sites and blogs, ....... Any "fairness doctrine" is totally unworkeable, adn as I';ve said for the 50,000th time, you can force stations to carry certain programming, but what you can't do is force anyone to listen to it.

Well, a long time ago, they didn't put seat belts in cars either. Then came the belts, followed by the law in most states where you had to wear them or face a big fine. Now they've incorporated ABS air bags and other safety features that make your car and mine safer than ever to drive.

I'm sure that you still "can't force anyone" to wear them....but look at the difference it makes. The same should apply to the PUBLIC's airwaves. Just like your public street, Mr oldies.

I also liked your point about Congress and all the infighting, etc., There yet AGAIN, you see debate, discussion and (I know this 'cuase I've been there) RULES related to discussion between the members of the Congress. The same type of reasonable rules for political discussion should be on the Public's airwaves.....

The free profit-making center / public corp subs need to stop now at the EXPENSE of good discussion on the public's airwaves. I've seen good and bad Public affairs shows. The listener is smart; he or she will gravitate towards the better show and it will all get better from there in time.

 

[gr8oldies]

In my state you get a fine for not wearing a seatbelt. It's really amazing how you want government to eliminate people's choices in the entertainment they prefer...instead hopsing that the gov can force feed everyone boring C-SPAN like panel discussions. Let's hope someone from the government doesn't decide that what you want to watch or listen to must go, because "we need to make people cultured" or something like that. Face it, what you want to do is silence opinion and take away people's choices. Maybe we can take the fairness doctrine to the internet and get rid of Democratic Underground as well.

 

[radioplayer]

In my state you get a fine for not wearing a seatbelt. It's really amazing how you want government to eliminate people's choices in the entertainment they prefer...instead hopsing that the gov can force feed everyone boring C-SPAN like panel discussions. Let's hope someone from the government doesn't decide that what you want to watch or listen to must go, because "we need to make people cultured" or something like that. Face it, what you want to do is silence opinion and take away people's choices. Maybe we can take the fairness doctrine to the internet and get rid of Democratic Underground as well.

Mr. Oldies-
I think you've just written everything off and you've closed your mind to the idea that there's even a remote possibility of good discussion related to topics of the day. In my state there have been several radio & TV stations that have run good discussion in the past. My point (again) is, it does NOT have to be boring, it CAN be good radio or TV and it HAS been done in several places around the country.

I do agree with you that if stations don't care and want to treat it the idea like garbage then undoubtedly the product will sound as cheap as the minimal effort placed into the program. Again, it does not have to be this way! A station CAN produce something that's good fore everyone and the station can make money with a good product because people will listen or watch something that's had some decent thought, effort and care put into it.

I also think you make a second error in assuming that this is all a Democratic front; that the DEMS are trying to take out Rush, Savage, others, etc., If you re-read some of the discussion in the last 6 pages a little more objectively, I think you'll see (at least in mine) I'm not for either persuasion; I'm for better democracy and that starts with a more informed public that is exposed to the issues of the day on both sides of the aisle. Let's be clear here; the majority of the American public gets their news and info from the tidbits that come across the radio tuners and TV screens throughout the country today, NOT from print media, nor from the Internet. (As of yet anyway)

Lastly, the airwaves are the Public's, not the corporations' unabashed right to program, say or censor whatever it is that they wish to do, eliminating good public debate which they may not agree with merely on the basis of $$ or taking their "precious airtime". You ought to know that within this same spirit is the good citizen model. Granted, this idea has lost some of its appeal with many, but the idea of good citizenship and good corporate responsibility should never go out of style. The fact that the Govt, (who's already been chartered to regulate the public's airwaves and DOES tell us when to run legal ID's and that only citizens can own broadcast stations, etc.,) NEEDS to get back into the business it was also mandated by the Congress to do. The FCC needs to get off its behind and reinvigorate its responsibility as the guardian of the airwaves by lifting the suspension of Sec 315 and moving this discussion forward.

 

[SirRoxalot]

What's Fair?

Player, you yourself have admitted that most stations - especially those without competent news departments - will pay "lip service" to mandated public affairs and/or opinion programming anyway, so what's the point? Do you really feel that we have insufficient sources of opinion in the world? We now have several 24-hour cable news networks, which feature endless hours of news and public affair programming.

Nearly 70% of US residents have Internet access, and about half of those people have broadband (high-speed) Internet access. There's plenty of opportunity for interested citizens to explore issues and opinions. In fact, I suspect that most people are tuning out because they're bombarded by political news and opinion - especially since the Presidential campaign is in full swing a year and a half before the next election.

The Fairness Doctrine went away largely because it was ineffective, difficult to enforce, and likely to lose a court challenge on the basis of Freedom of Speech. The effect of the Fairness Doctrine was generally to stifle all opinion programming. Most of the people who want a return of the Fairness Doctrine really want greater time devoted to their point of view. Considering that there are multiple points of view on almost any subject, how do you determine which points of view are represented? Do we just go with major parties - assuming that there is agreement within the party - or do we also consider minor party, populist, fringe, and dozens of other existing points of view equally?

The whole idea is untenable - which is why the FCC dropped it in the first place. The problem is not a lack of information for the populace. In fact, the problem may well be oversaturation of information, leading to a disinterested populace.