Fairness is a good thing; so is reasonableness, and no right thinking person would seriously contend otherwise. Labeling something fair and reasonable, however, does not make it so. Currently, there is an effort to reinstate the so called Fairness Doctrine in circumstances which are neither fair nor reasonable.
The Federal Communications Commission developed the Fairness Doctrine a long time ago, beginning with the Communist scare in 1949 and continuing until the doctrine as modified was codified in FCC regulations in 1967 and repealed in 1987. The rationale for its adoption was the scarcity of radio frequencies and stations, see FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364.
Years ago, many communities had little or no access to radio or television services and had neither cable or internet. The idea was that since radio frequencies were quite scarce, those who had them were properly obliged to use them in the public interest; this included the broadcast of news and public affairs programming. There was no requirement that such programming actually address controversial issues of public importance; each of those words, controversial, issue, and public importance, was critical; if such programming were in fact aired, opposing views had to be aired as well. There was absolutely no requirement that "equal time" be granted for the presentation of opposing views; that is a component of the extraordinarily arcane political broadcast laws and regulations, and is a totally separate issue; an interesting one, perhaps, which has benefited many communications attorneys, but one which is irrelevant to the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine required only "reasonable balance." Years ago, the doctrine made sense, at least theoretically.
It did not necessarily make much sense in practice, because radio and television stations discovered early on that few people were interested in public affairs programming, at least of the sort they were willing to offer, and so tended to present it at times when hardly anyone was in the audience and when, accordingly, there were hardly any advertisers who were interested in paying for it. Public affairs programming tended, on purpose, to be bland and non-controversial. Public service announcements (also mandated) were generally presented at these times in lieu of commercials-- "The Girl Scouts are having a cookie sale! Let's all buy some."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ Elliott
Good article.
This whole situation seems hilarious to me. The Left quite simply wants to muzzle right-wing talk radio. That's all this is about. There is no "fairness" about it.
Libs dominate the television news stations (ABC, NBC, CBS). Libs control most of the major newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, USA Today). Libs control most of the major news magazines (TIME, Newsweek) as well as the music/culture magazines (Rolling Stone, Spin).
The only area of the media where libs don't have the largest market share is talk radio. So, naturally, that's the really "unfair" thing that needs to be regulated by the government to ensure "fairness" ...
Of course, it's not as though there aren't any liberal talk radio shows. According to streamingradioguide.com there are actually more liberal talk radio shows than conservative shows (by a margin of 169-155). So it's not as if shows hosted by libs aren't available; it's just that almost no one wants to listen.
So the libs want to punish (conservative) success in order to be "fair" (to liberals), without regard for the free market. Typical.
2 - Baritone
RJs arguments are off base in a "typically" conservative fashion, but that's another argument.
The main reason that "liberal" talk radio doesn't do well, is that they tend to lower themselves to the Neanderthalic level of most of the conservative programs which is unpaletable to most of a liberal persuasion. The typical conservative discourse on talk radio is infantile at best. We "elites" don't cater to such bullshit.
Nevertheless, I do agree with Dan on this one. The so called Fairness Doctrine is archaic at best and unenforcable in any pragmatic sense.
But Dan, two things: I demand that you give equal time to the Camp Fire Girls - and remember its "either/or" and "neither/nor." ;-)
B-tone
3 - Doug Hunter
"The main reason that 'liberal' talk radio doesn't do well, is that they tend to lower themselves to the Neanderthalic level of most of the conservative programs which is unpaletable to most of a liberal persuasion."
Not really, the reason is becuase with many media sources leaning liberal anyway there is no reason for an alternative in that vein. As a libertarian that is a very frustrating thing.
I don't know about other people but within a couple of paragraphs of reading an article or a few sentences of listening it is very easy to see which side of an issue a jounalist stands on. It comes through in word choice and phrasing like a bright flashing light. Sure, there's always the obligatory token counter to their main thrust of their story but again the counter argument is usually simplified and made to appear petty or weak if they support the issue. If it's an issue they reject the reverse is true.
Starting from that point it is easy to see that most jounalists lean to the liberal side. Perhaps it's all those required indoctrination courses at college, perhaps it's simply that people who take a liberal viewpoint are more apt to choose journalism as a field. I don't know why, I just know it is true anecdotally and through most studies of the issue.
4 - bliffle
I think the author's values are inverted. He states:
"It should not be the function of the Government to mandate the broadcast by commercial broadcast stations or other commercial media of programming in which there is insufficient interest to be commercially viable."
The broadcast spectrum is limited, and so the charter of the FCC has always specified that they are to be operated in the public interest. It is just not possible to let anyone anytime broadcast anything at all. Pirate radio would soon obliterate licensed radio. In fact, the 'commercial' broadcasters are the most vigorous supporters of anti-pirate radio.
The commercial operators see the spectrum as their private little playground (and so apparently does Dan Miller), but it was not always so. The creators of TV (Philo Farnsworth) and FM (Edwin Armstrong) envisioned their inventions as opportunities to bring the great writing and great music of human history to everyday people. Both of them were disgusted to see the inventions they worked so hard to create and build turned into the crass conveyances of mere consumer junk propaganda. Both were inspired by higher motives than, say, Dan Miller.
One can make the case that NO commercials be allowed in the broadcast band. Indeed, it is an easier case to make than the case against the Fairness Doctrine. Why should airwaves owned by the public be used for partisan commercial advertisements at all? Isn't that an unwarranted intrusion of commerce upon the public forum? And doesn't the manifestation of commercials represent a government choice between competing commercial interests?
5 - Baritone
Bush has earned every ounce of "anti dribble" he gets from whatever source.
When it comes to the MSM, with the exception of cable outlets - CNN, MSNBC and Fox I see little in the way of left leaning bias in most reporting. It is, rather, the predisposition of conservatives to assume the bias before they ever pick up the remote.
B-tone
6 - Clavos
"One can make the case that NO commercials be allowed in the broadcast band."
One could, but then no one would be interested in operating broadcast stations, so the government would either have to force private enterprise to operate them with subsidies, or operate them itself.
Either way, the government would have a major say as to the content being broadcast. Of course in the USA, the "Shining City on The Hill," this would not be a problem, for the benevolent, all-wise US government would ensure that all the arts and all peoples would be well represented on the airwaves, and we would all live happily thereafter.
The Messrs. Farnsworth and Armstrong were great engineers, but obviously not very astute observers of humanity if they "envisioned their inventions as opportunities to bring the great writing and great music of human history to everyday people."
The "everyday people" are, for the most part, not very interested in such things, as is obvious from the comparatively low audience ratings for NPR and other, similar outlets; they eat into their time available for viewing American Idol and Wheel of Fortune, while listening to pirated pop music MP3s on their Ipods.
7 - VoiceOfReason
What happened to the posts by JustOneMan? It seems that he was the only one presenting facts that support the issues of fairness and media bias...
Is BC really a left wing blog pretending to be "fair and balanced"?
8 - Jammin
Voice...I think your on to something! If you read this blog on a regular basis youll find the majority are typical holier than thou - liberal types...
9 - Christopher Rose
As I suspect both "VoiceOfReason" and "Jammin" - who share an IP address - already know, JustOneMan is banned from this site for persistently abusing people.
10 - Clavos
Which begs the question:
Could Susie and Voice be JOM??
Inquiring minds want to know...
11 - Dr Dreadful
'Jammin', as Chris astutely observed, I'm probably wasting my time explaining this, but there is actually a fairly good balance on BC between 'conservative' and 'liberal' views - at least in the comments space. As far as the articles go, the right-wing writers seem to be a bit more prevalent and prolific, but there's no huge imbalance one way or the other. There's certainly no blatant editorial bias: no-one is shouted down or suppressed, unless - like
VoiceOfReasonJamminJOM - they insist on being a complete dickhead even after a plethora of warnings about their conduct.12 - Dr Dreadful
As far as reinstating the Fairness Doctrine goes, I agree that it has no place in a free broadcast market as long as it can be demonstrated that 'free' is actually what it is.
For instance, the BBC in Britain is a quasi-governmental organization. The potential for abuse of such a broadcaster is obvious, which is why it is granted a (renewable but not indefinite) charter by the government under which it is mandated to be politically fair and balanced. That's not to say it can't give politicians a hard time: it can and does daily. But it must do it on an equal basis. Although government ministers and MPs and toadies of the ruling party often whine that the BBC is treating them unfairly, what escapes their squirrel-sized brains is that the reason they are being given such a hard time is that they are in power, and as such deserving of journalists' greater scrutiny - whether said journos are employed by the BBC or anyone else.
It all balances out in the long term. Most of the national daily newspapers in Britain are conservative, but they also tend to know which way the wind is blowing. If the Tories look as if they will do badly in an upcoming election (kind of odd that that could ever happen with such an unfair balance of control over the minds of the populace, isn't it?), it's amazing how sympathetic those papers suddenly become to the views of the other parties.
13 - Howard
The liberal bias states that no one should have any presidence over their personal persuasions. The sexual revolution of the 1960's has mushroomed into a culture that expects to see sex performed by a male and female in almost every movie and many TV programs. There is no longer any normal affection between men. Prior to 1960, if a girl got preganant in High School, she was forced to leave school in shame and dis-honor. Abortion was un-fathonable at that time in history. Birth control was newly discovered, as well as penicillin; both of which contributed to the new "morality". At that time, most couples decided not to get married when they shacked up together, largely because flagrant lusts and un-hampered promiscuity was actually spurned by the media. At that time in History, those ideas were attributed to the new left, or liberal dogma. The morrays and social disciplines prior to the 1960's were the inverse and extreme opposite of where they are in the new millenium. Color television and computers are responsible for introducing the pramatic dogma that persuaded society away from the established moral codes of the early industrial world. Radical new ideas in all aspects of life were promulgated by the media. They caught on, and many people now are living in moral and psychological disarray. Alcoholism is at an all time high; drug addiction is tolerated in the streets, augemented with drug paraphernalia shops in every city. There is a plethora of movies and TV shows centered around drugs and police. Crime is rampant in government and officials are being indicted and convicted in continuously growning numbers. Rarely can a man afford to keep a wife and family at home, divorce is over 50%, people are beginning to accuse the government of lying, women are proclaiming they don't need a man or husband to raise children. Business, especially telecommunications companies are guilty of fraud, and business executives are being jailed, etc, etc, etc. When it comes to con/serving, who's "con"ing whom? The social permissiveness that has grown out of the 1960's is now being examined and distained by a growing number of people. The avant gard of that era was considered the arch liberal. Now that objections are being raised against the "new" morality, which in essense has become the establishment, the evolved liberals are in a position that requires them to fight to conserve the ethics that support their philosophies. They have devoloped into a faction that must stuggle to conserve the rampant immorality by which they have prescribed to so that their "right" to choose what ever their lusts desire, should also be the predominate focus of the media. The new morality is so ingrained in our media concerning evolution, and all the social havoc it entails, it has actually taken the place of the old morality, thus making it the paradigm of the establishment. The new religious right is now the advocate of change, making them the new "avant gard", because it is unquestionable that the United States is no longer a God fearing nation.
14 - Dr Dreadful
Just as Ruvy can jump into any thread and change the topic of conversation to Israel, so Howard attempts to turn any discussion into a badly-spelled rant against the Sodom and Gomorrah that is, apparently, contemporary America.
And Howie, what's with the lack of paragraphs? Is it because the Bible doesn't have any?
15 - Deano
"huh?"
16 - bliffle
Clavos claims some credit for his modesty, and he deserves it: he has much to be modest about.
Clavos' cynical attitude about the public is undeserved. The modern commercial bias of broadcasting has been foisted on us by an increasingly shrill and peremptory network system. When I was a lad, every family and every person I knew reserved sunday afternoon to watch "Omnibus" hosted by Alistair Cooke, which presented scenes from famous operas, Leonard Bernstein, etc., and fine documentaries of Americana as well as world culture. We ALL watched and gained from it. In glorious black and white. Families of immigrant laborers watched it and thrilled to what they saw. Their children watched it and learned about America and the world and the great names and works of culture.
One can make a better case for the broadcasters lowering our character (the better to train us to accept their egregious demands on our attention and our wallets) than for our intrinsic low character demanding crap television.
Clavos himself has noted the degeneration of the American character. From whence could that proceed if not from the incessant yammering of TV and radio commercials? Has it not been shown over and over the effect of propaganda on populations?
And Clavos is wrong again when he states that:
"no one would be interested in operating broadcast stations, so the government would either have to force private enterprise to operate them with subsidies, or operate them itself."
Not at all. From the early days of radio there have been amateur radio operators and 'lite' commercial operators who only allowed a modest announcement of business support. Same for TV. All the pioneers in broadcasting were either amateurs or shoestring operators.
Early TV/radio had very modest commercial interests. The modern monster of TV was created by people whose only interest is to sell, sell, sell.
What they've created is a high stakes business that only they can afford to enter. And they control the spectrum monopoly through their puppets at the FCC, who simply ignore public opinion and public requirements.
Even a modest FM station in a metro area costs about $100million to purchase. That's not for the FCC license (which I think is $40 a year now), that's not for the electronic equipment (which is a few $100,000 purchase), it's to buy your share of a MONOPOLY. That's to join the fraternity. The basic value is nothing like that. Consequently, your major operating expense will be debt service.
However, there are some small pirate radio stations! And there are some very old FM stations who got their licenses before commercial interests raised the stakes. And they continue on. It must be galling to the commercial folk that the best signal in the SF area is KPFA, a threadbare operation founded in 1948 by a bunch of Quakers and Pacifists.
Of course ordinary people would operate stations. A few years ago the FCC offered to open up some of the guard bands between major stations to Low Power FM (LPFM) local use. But they got so many requests from eager enthusiasts (including myself, hoping to broadcast Cantatas 24 hours a day from my hilltop nest overlooking SF Bay) that they had to create dreadful restrictions to suppress it, which they did totally, under the demands of the networks (including PBS, you might like to know).
17 - Dan Miller
Biffle,
I agree that All commercial content should be prohibited in the broadcast media. However, I submit that the prohibition should extend as well to the print media, cable television, the internet, billboards and everywhere else where such content thrives. The result would be their demise, giving us all more tranquil lives and true inner peace. We would no longer feel a need for stuff beyond necessities, and the culture of consumption would disappear. Many more people would be able to enjoy such tranquil lives, because they would no longer be employed. A minor flaw may lurk somewhere in the above argument, but I can't imagine what it might be. It is very puzzling that no one thought of this before.
Dan
18 - Clavos
bliffle, ever the garrulous know-it-some, says,
"When I was a lad, every family and every person I knew reserved sunday afternoon to watch "Omnibus" hosted by Alistair Cooke, which presented scenes from famous operas, Leonard Bernstein, etc., and fine documentaries of Americana as well as world culture. We ALL watched and gained from it. In glorious black and white. Families of immigrant laborers watched it and thrilled to what they saw. Their children watched it and learned about America and the world and the great names and works of culture."
A typical old fart's idealized foggy memory of the "Good old days..."
Very few of the hardscrabble immigrants living in New York's Lower East Side during bliffle's youth even had time, let alone money enough, to own and listen to the radio. Maybe in whatever middle class neighborhood (s)he grew up in...
Then, bliffle tells us:
"And Clavos is wrong again when he states that:
"no one would be interested in operating broadcast stations, so the government would either have to force private enterprise to operate them with subsidies, or operate them itself."
Not at all. From the early days of radio there have been amateur radio operators and 'lite' commercial operators who only allowed a modest announcement of business support. Same for TV. All the pioneers in broadcasting were either amateurs or shoestring operators."
Ignoring the obvious point that ALL new industries start small, and are generally offered free (or nearly so) of charge in their infancy. An example from my own industry:
The world's first scheduled airline service in heavier-than-air aircraft, the St. Petersburg-Tampa Airboat Line, was started on New Years Day, 1914 by a pilot named Tony Jannus.
As a former committee member of the Award Committee for the Tony Jannus Distinguished Aviation Society, I know that Jannus charged only $5 each way for his service, which, even adjusted for inflation, is considerably less than a taxicab charges today for the same run, from Tampa airport to downtown St. Petersburg.
19 - Dave Nalle
To go waaay back:
Not really, the reason is becuase with many media sources leaning liberal anyway there is no reason for an alternative in that vein. As a libertarian that is a very frustrating thing.
Why? The 4th largest synidcated radio show is hosted by Neal Boortz, who is a libertarian. Other libertarians also have pretty popular shows, including the irrascible Dennis Miller.
And if you're a Ron Paul pseudo-libertarian and fan of the John Birch Society, Alex Jones can be heard in just about every major market, plus he's a regular guest with George Nouri on Coast to Coast AM.
What's interesting to me is that libertarian talk radio is so much stronger than left-leaning talk radio. There are scores of libertarian-leaning shows on the air with significant syndication. Leftist shows remain relegated to the wreckage of Air America or Pacifica or other weird little networks or local Coop stations.
Dave
20 - Dan Miller
Clav, A typical old fart's idealized foggy memory of the "Good old days... indeed. Hang your head in shame, joven. I well remember those good old days, when the Lone Ranger rode off into the sunset with his faithful Native American companion, Tonto. To this day, I still refer to all indigenous people by that same term of affection.
Dan
21 - Dr Dreadful
As Baritone observed earlier, the poop-flinging, back-slapping-phone-in style of political talk radio doesn't really work in the left demographic because we're more refined and fair-minded than that. ;-)
I used to listen to Air America quite often before it was dropped by the carrier in our area. For me at least, the calmer, jokey approach taken by Stephanie Miller and the rational, discussion- and news-based style of Rachel Maddow were far more appealing to the ear than the vitriol-laced invective of the likes of Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz.
(BTW, rumors of AA's demise have been greatly exaggerated. It has new owners, is still carried in dozens of markets, is available on satellite radio and, for the truly determined, on iTunes.)
22 - bliffle
Clavos is not only wrong, he immediately contradicts his own argument. Oh well.
23 - Clavos
Where?
24 - Krutic A
Just like Democrats don't want public financing limits now that their candidate has more money, I bet once a few influential liberal radio talk shows emerge, they will give up on the fairness doctrine too.
But yes, so far left of center radio hasn't been successful so they want the successful ones (which happen to be right of center) stifled.
Its normal behavior on the Democrats part.
25 - bliffle
That's normal behaviour on anyones part.