The Fairness Doctrine, R.I.P.
Well, it looks like "the fairness doctrine" died a quiet death today. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told Fox News that President Obama was not interested in restoring the Federal Communications Commission rule that basically requires broadcasters to give equal time to opposing points of view.
If enforced, the rule would obviously create havoc in talk radio land where conservatives dominate the airwaves. Not surprisingly, the right has been in a tailspin about this, predicting that Obama would somehow take away half of Rush and Sean and Laura and but liberals in their place. Talk about redistribution! But despite some congressional interest in the measure, the idea of restoring it was never really in play.
Intellectually, I think the idea is weak and the administration seems to think so, too. After all, it hearkens back to a pre-internet era when finding an opposing view was harder. But there were some lingering questions about what Obama would do. David Axelrod got asked about it on Fox News Sunday--yes, this is a News Corp obsession--and he punted, saying it was a decision best left for Julius Genachowski, Obama's not-yet-announced nominee to chair the FCC. (Genachowski is a close friend, for what it's worth.) But it looks like the decision's already been made. Seems sensible to me but the right loses something to fulminate about. I'm curious to see how much disappointment there is on the left.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
None...
February 18, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems sensible to me but the right loses something to fulminate about
You're... joking, right? The entire point of the "fairness doctrine" thing is something for right-wingers to rail against even though it isn't on track to be enacted and hasn't been at any point. It's an imaginary mouse. Since there was no reason for them to attack the fairness doctrine before, there's no reason for them to stop now. They're going to keep insisting Obama's really secretly planning to put it into law any moment now, really he is, just like they have for years.
February 18, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. The right loves to rant about Obama's "secret agenda"... They'll say that he's using some kind of back-door plot to implement it or something crazy like that. Obama himself could come and say, "I'm absolutely, positively, 100% against implementing the Fairness Doctrine." But they would just say, "Well, he didn't REALLY mean that."
We need to stop giving these people credibility. They do not operate on a rational plane. They operate on emotions, and as such, they'll do anything to rile up their listeners, even if that means lying to them. And, since they don't operate rationally, we shouldn't waste time trying to rationally conclude what they will do next. Irrational people aren't predictable.
February 18, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thinking this takes away one of their favorite talking points presumes they care about being factual and not having their lies put on display before their numskull audiences. Which presumes their nitwit audiences are even able or willing (or both) to keep score on how many of their idols' prognostications turn out to be correct. And presumes that anyone who points out how fact-challenged the whole line of yak is won't make it past their screeners or, if they do, will get shut down instantaneously with a screed delivered by the host, probably with some references to Muslims or unwed welfare mothers or HIV.
They don't care if what they say is true and correct, and that won't change with this issue being moot. Obama will still be portrayed as the guy who wants to shut them up because it keeps their troops steamed, and, perhaps more importantly, THEY LIKE IT.
February 19, 2009 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Restoring the fairness doctrine to its pre-Reagan status was never a serious idea. It was just one of the endless series of paranoiac conspiracy theories that are what pass for "thought" among right wingers these days.
What's next, final closure on the birth certificate controversy? News that Obama has, on mature reflection, decided he's not going to fund the secret NAFTA superhighway project? Reporting that ACORN is not, in fact, under indictment and did not steal the election?
February 18, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
In related news, Elvis died a quiet death today.
February 18, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that the only one who will be sad about this is Rush Limbaugh. The Right is really going to have to find some new filler for all those hysterical emails I've grown accustomed to receiving.
Obama is very smart to have avoided getting tangled up in a sideshow issue like this.
February 18, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without the internet, the restoration of the fairness doctrine would have been on my radar screen.
The older group in this country votes and they have the least internet penetration in terms of where they get their news.
But the demographics now favor those who are on the internet so I'm okay with the fairness doctrine fading into the sunset.
February 18, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next, the RW finds out that Obama isn't going to take away all their guns.
I just don't know if facts penetrate their natural State of Delusion.
February 18, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But wait! Not so fast!
Only today there was an article at humanevents.com entitled ACORN Pushes Return of Fairness Doctrine .
So, not only is it still being pursued, IT'S BEING PURSUED BY ACORN!!!!
AAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!11!!!!ELEVEN!!!!11
February 18, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's all so silly. The Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1948 when over-the-air radio and television was all there was for broadcast media. Even cable TV was just another conduit for broadcast TV signals. The theory was (a) the airwaves belong to the people and (b) the airwaves are finite, so "balance" is a worthwhile goal. But long before the Internet, cable and satellite TV made the Fairness Doctrine obsolete, which is why it was abandoned. It has nothing to do with availability of the Internet as a source of news, although that certainly has changed the equation once again. But it has to do with the fact that Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and all their clones don't use the "public" airwaves, and every single person in this country has an unlimited variety of viewpoints to watch, hear, read, and absorb.
Another stupid right-wing red herring.
February 18, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
The fairness doctrine is not the equal time rule, your paragraph #1.
The Obama administration has the same goal as Bush II, Clinton, Bush I or Reagan administration in quashing the fairness doctrine:
Silence dissent... so Obama's White House staff, Wall Street Inc. and Little Timmy Geithner can go about their merry little looting the public for Wall Street profit way.
February 18, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If enforced, the rule would obviously create havoc in talk radio land where conservatives dominate the airwaves."
Give the telecom industries and the mainstream media time, and they will dominate the content and the comments of the internet and the informative sites like Taking Points Memo.
While there are other monetary factors heavily involved, control of what the American people hear, see and read on the internet is the ultimate goal.
Then, there will be no question(s) about "equal time."
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
February 18, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Problem Is" has got it absolutely correct!
President Obama has been President Rorschach for too many liberals and progressives. It WOULD be in his political best interest to square off against the liars who have poisoned the well of political discourse in this country over the last 25 years . . . . but it goes against his basically conservative nature and against the muddled thinking of his corporatist DLC inner circle.
February 18, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only medium the fairness doctrine would have affected is, essentially, AM radio (there are very few FM and TV stations that carry talk shows). Internet, cable "broadcasting" and satellite are not regulated by the FCC and, therefore, not covered by the doctrine.
As it's unlikely that cable, satellite and phone companies will ever be regulated for content, the issue is moot.
February 18, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, forget the fairness doctrine. Instead, break up the media conglomerates, limit the number of stations that any entity can control, and require that a hefty percentage of radio and tv stations be locally-owned.
In Boston, perhaps the most liberal market in America, there is not one liberal radio station -- not even the whisper of one. It's not an accident.
February 18, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because they suck...provide entertainment for listeners and you will succeed. Entertainment = listeners = advertisements = money for your program. Sucky program = no listeners= no money (= AirAmerica...lol).
February 19, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
F*ck the fairness doctrine. Break up the corporate conglomerates that control the media. It's anti-trust, not a bullsh*t fairness doctrine. Create competition and the problem goes away. That is the number one priority of the obama administration. Take a hint from that oh so republican Teddy Roosevelt, break up the trusts that control our media and feed us the right-wing propoganda that they spew. How can the republicans complain about that?
February 18, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
--The Fairness Doctrine
I think Mr. Cooper is missing the point. The reason that the FD has resurged in some quarters is that rightwing ownership of broadcast media has enabled suppression of leftwing broadcasts. This is not strictly a FD issue per se, but is an outcome of the fact that owners are no longer required to act in the public interest (which was the main purpose of the FD). So an owner who prefers Rush Limbaugh can keep Lardball on the air even if the audience demonstrably prefers Randi Rhodes.
In most markets, you can't get leftish talk radio unless you have satellite radio. But it seems likely to me that a better solution would be to reinstate restrictions on ownership, so that a single owner could not effectively buy up an entire market.
Thanks.
mp
February 18, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a leftwing broadcast made money, a station owner would put it out there, not block its content...Republicans are greedy, not principled...remember?
February 19, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"rightwing ownership of broadcast media has enabled suppression of leftwing broadcasts."
More like the rightwing money has enabled the wingnuts, while the left wing is much more populist rather than corporate, so the money just isn't organized. It's "there", (Obama's open-source campaign proved it), but it is just not organized in such a way that it can produce progressive media.
Special interests have hijacked the 4th Estate and converted it into a rightwing propaganda instrument.
Now they are selling it off to the highest bidder, if only there was some organization big enough and committed enough to wrangle just one of the media congloms away from the corps and get back to the most noble duty of 4th Estatism.
MSNBC was fortunate to stumble onto Olbermann, who righteously tapped the burgeoning anti-Bush sentiment as W's failures compounded.
And now they have added Maddow as icing on that progressive cake.
But they are still owned by some very conservative interests. And they give these progressives a venue only because their Nielsen ratings keep climbing. They can pull the plug with a penstroke.
In another light, the progressive side of the argument doesn't need legislation to assure it has an equual voice. Even as broadcast and print media flounder, the internet thrives. The blogs have changed the nature of the 4th Estate. Instead of our information being fed to us is daily doses and soundbytes, we can google our way to world events instantly, on blogs like this one and via You Tube highlights.
No one with an uplink waits for news any more, we seek it out at places like TPM. And that access to information has literally and virtually changed the world in a single generation. And made broadscast and, even moreso, print journalism, testaments to arcane inefficiency and environmental negligence.
February 19, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
We all know this is a canard. But, for whatever reason, it's something that wingers care about. I can't for the life of me imagine why we gave this away without getting something in exchange. Surely, we could have offered this to a wavering senator in exchange for his support on a real, if less controversial, priority. Then he could have gone on radio as the person who SAVED Rush. He would have been a hero, and we might have gotten something in return. All for something we don't give a shit about. I got nothing but love for the administration, but someone needs to send them a copy of "Getting to Yes" or something.
February 18, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
None. The doctrine no longer makes sense.
As for the political aspect, right wing talk radio is nowan asset for the left. The American people are no longer buying the BS. This will hurt the riht as their minority becomes more angry and smaller over time.
They are risking the same fate the GOP suffered in the 1930s. Let them have their talk radio.
February 18, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad this discussion is going away as I don't support enforcement of the 'Fairness Doctrine'. I am, however, firmly opposed to rampant Media consolidation - but that's another story.
The 'Fairness Doctrine' is essentially predicated on the fact that the public, not private enterprise, owns the airwaves (indeed this is true), and therefore opinion media and content on the airwaves should be a rough reflection of the general public. Right now this is not the case. The Right is represented 10 to 1 in the medium of talk radio.
The problem I see with adopting this Doctrine is that our cherished Internet is also dependent on much public infrastructure to function. Under the 'Fairness Doctrine' it could be argued by some that the Internet should be subject to the same regulation.
The bottom line for me is that absolute free speech on the internet must be safeguarded at all costs. Let the conservatives have their radio; the internet is the future and we cannot afford to have it compromised.
February 18, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go back to flames!!!
February 19, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lol, oh jeez.
February 19, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrect. The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast media. No one has proposed applying it to the internet which is not broadcast over the air as tv and radio are.
February 19, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
And in 2009 all broadcast media also operates on the web. What distinguishes CNN from CNN.com? Well, my guess is the courts will decide and I personally would rather not let Scalia n' Pals even get their hands on that.
Do people really want to open the door to internet censorship just to get a token liberal Alan Colmes or two on FOX and another Scarborough on MSNBC? Will someone explain to me what is the point of that?
If people want liberal AM radio then push for Telecommunications reform to break up the Clear Channel monopoly, but this 'Fairness Doctrine' nonsense is a zero-sum game.
February 19, 2009 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
people here again miss the point.
this is not about fairness. its about corporate controll.
the reason you see only conservatives on talk radio is because liberals/progressives who score higher ratings on the fringe radio networks, ie:randi rhodes, (who actually had her station bought out simply because she was trashing rush in the reatings), will never get COMMERCIAL support.
the internet WILL be totally controlled within 2 years and it is already partially controlled.
this site and all so called main stream internet sites are dependant on ad revenue.
print the wrong story, make the wrong expose tell the truth about the wrong country and the ad revenue is gone.
its the same way over the entire internet.
most people think these are progressive sites and they are free of conservative controll.
that simply is not true and this site and other so called liberal sites only respond to the mass medias set agenda when they accept ad revenue.
there are some great reporters doing fine work like greg Palast,have you ever seen him here??
the entire internet self censors for fear of being labled to radical and sites that do expose, receive little attention because no one wants to defend being called a nut for using them.
even so called enlightened people as most here consider themselves fall into that trap.
its only going to get worse.
obamas administration has shown NO desire to make the persuit of truth an issue.
its more of bush.
February 18, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Intellectually, I think the idea is weak and the administration seems to think so, too. After all, it hearkens back to a pre-internet era when finding an opposing view was harder."
I simply cannot think of a better example of a typical out of touch, almost pathetically naive liberal statement. This is why liberals are so God Damned easy to beat most of the time. It's the broadcast equivalent of Pelosi's idiotic declaration upon becoming speaker that impeachment is "off the table." Nothing like that familiar DC Democrat refrain of advance capitulation and surrender! Why bother even bringing the subject up when you can eliminate it from the discussion altogether? It makes further concessions so much easier.
So because the smart people like "us" smart, affluent liberals can find an opposing view on the net we don't need even any consideration of restoration of the Fairness Doctrine? I guess ya think the average American is checking out the blogs for diverse opinions and viewpoints regularly huh? Last I looked, the typical American gets almost all of his/her information from the teevee set in their living room, bathroom, bedroom, kitchen, game room and even in their cars and vans! New media may be hot but it carries almost no weight in comparison to the mainstream/corporate network and cable news shows. Televions remains the biggest dog of all when it comes to news and how many people it reaches daily.
It is no surprise that Obama's White House dismisses this so foolishly right off the bat. There seems to be no corporate interest they aren't out to placate, but I would think TPM could produce better caliber thinking.
February 18, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM does produce better caliber thinking and that's why nobody should give a crap about getting mired down trying to enforce the ineffectual 'Fairness Doctrine' and instead should focus efforts on the real prize: overhauling the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and breaking up the corporate media monopolies.
February 19, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't an either or proposition and the Fairness Doctrine was thrown out by Reagan, but until then it was not by any means ineffectual.
February 19, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I'd be happier if Obama put more energy into upholding the principle of public access to information. If he's going to dismiss the Fairness Doctrine, he should actively promote something else to break the stranglehold of monied interests on the public airwaves. Promoting net neutrality is fine but not enough - Obama needs to convince Americans that the airwaves are public property and access to them shouldn't require financial clout. Legislators need a clearly stated goal and how it's achieved is negotiable.
February 19, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all need to chill the f*&k out. We typical Americans may be fat and dull and lazy, we have too many televisions, and maybe we don't read so good, but bias on the TV can't be working too well, or Democrats wouldn't have both houses of Congress and the presidency.
February 18, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad idea. If nothing else, make it applicable to media outlets that reach a certain level of largesse.
How many people still watch corporate media as their ONLY source of information.
And who owns the airwaves anyway?
February 19, 2009 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about allowing Americans to select what programing they'd like to listen to? If no one listens to Rush, he goes off the air, which is why Olberman is on shaky ground...lol
February 19, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's to select if there's no menu? As has been mentioned above, the corporate oligarchy has a lock on all of the media outlets, including the Internet (who do you think actually owns those ISP's?). If you want to guarantee the access to the information you currently enjoy, someone better bust the Info Trust. Otherwise, in pretty short order the menu selection will be spam; spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam; or Lobster Thermidor à Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provençale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle paté, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.
February 19, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't say I'm disappointed, because I already knew Obama didn't care about the fairness doctrine, but we should take every opportunity to reduce or dilute the influence of idiots and maniacs. If someone offered you five minutes of airtime a day to explain how Rush Limbaugh is a lying fascist dirtbag, you wouldn't want it?
Oddly, where I live, Entercom has a station that broadcasts Bill Press, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, and Alan Colmes. They put it in place to compete with a locally-run left-wing station that carried Democracy Now! among other things. That little local station is gone now, but they left this corporate liberal station on the air. Nonetheless, it would be superb if all the Entercom stations in my area were forced to use the people's airwaves for something besides promoting authoritarianism and ill-informed sports commentary.
I'm starting to think that the motto of American liberals is "it's not a big deal." Obama had a chance to take some space back, to gain some territory, but he just let the Republicans win by default. Again. Oh well.
February 19, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
TV and radio stations should be required to give over blocks of program time to people outside the corporate mold like MoveOn, Iraq Veterans Against War, the ACLU, the War Resisters League, even Bread and Puppet Threatre (from Vermont).
The current awful programming wouldn't be changed even if there were a Fairness Doctrine: we'd just see a token liberal trotted out for a few minutes after the formal deliverance of an "opinion." What the hell are the Fox people doing all day long if not broadcasting noxious opinions? Outsiders need the right to program, to alter the wasteland of 24/7 hate radio and televised titillation and propaganda.
February 19, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Radio station licenses come up for renewal, perhaps some need to be revolked for not serving the community. The District of Columbia is about as blue as an area can be, and yet we just lost the one progressive station we had. How is it possible that a progressive region like DC and Maryland would have ONLY right-wing talk?
Maybe balence should be saught in stations rather than in the programing of each station. In any event, the programming available should match the political stripes of the listeners.
February 19, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
With respect to the Fairness Doctrine, every politician is afraid of being called an anti-capitalist or a Socialist. They won't touch this with a ten-foot pole.
So we need to start playing the game by their Capitalist rules. Start listening to right-wing broadcasters and find out what corporations are supporting them and write and tell them to stop supporting these fact-free shows or you won't spend your money on their products. Write to the broadcast stations and tell them you won't support their advertisers. And don't let them off the hook by also advertising on Lefty shows. Tell them to pick a side and stick with it.
Then, of course, you have to actually stop using them if they don't comply.
February 19, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink