Wednesday, January 17, 2007
So Happy I Could Cry
As a continuing (and, it would seem, eternal) student of all things mass communications, I try to keep taps on all the latest FCC changes, free speech news, etc. One of the most interesting and, yes, most missed pieces of free speech legislation that has always piqued my interest is the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters (both radio and television) to allow for equal airtime to be given to both sides of issues; for both Democratic and Republican points of view to be presented to the audience so they could make up thier own mind. Good idea? Goddamn right! In fact, most broadcasters nowadays still cite the Fairness Doctrine as reasons why they refuse to present any political content whatsoever, or why they refuse to endorse candidates for office. Imagine thier embarassment (and also, I should state, at least two of my college professors) to find out that we lost that in the REAGAN Administration. We have been without a doctrine allowing equal airtime for TWENTY YEARS. Fucking ridiculous. So, obviously, I was overjoyed when I read this article while skimming billboard.com:
The Return of the Fairness Doctrine?
I am all for the Fairness Doctrine, and not just because Rush Limbaugh is so vehemently against it (though that's usually a good reason to get behind almost anything). Why exactly SHOULDN'T people be allowed to be presented with two opposing viewpoints in order to form thier OWN OPINIONS? If you rant and rave against raising the minimum wage for 4 straight hours, shouldn't somebody be able to present 4 hours of counterpoints and arguments to your stated agenda? Wouldn't that be good for the free marketplace of ideas that is the idyllic goal to which all broadcasters are supposed to contribute to and be a part of? The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't put an end to Rush Limbaugh, but it would allow for someone to come on right after him and say "No, you're wrong Rushie-poo, and here's why" for 6 or so hours.
I say reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and the sooner the better. I plan on writing Mr. Kucinich (along with my state Rep) with my total support. I urge you all to do the same!
|
As a continuing (and, it would seem, eternal) student of all things mass communications, I try to keep taps on all the latest FCC changes, free speech news, etc. One of the most interesting and, yes, most missed pieces of free speech legislation that has always piqued my interest is the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters (both radio and television) to allow for equal airtime to be given to both sides of issues; for both Democratic and Republican points of view to be presented to the audience so they could make up thier own mind. Good idea? Goddamn right! In fact, most broadcasters nowadays still cite the Fairness Doctrine as reasons why they refuse to present any political content whatsoever, or why they refuse to endorse candidates for office. Imagine thier embarassment (and also, I should state, at least two of my college professors) to find out that we lost that in the REAGAN Administration. We have been without a doctrine allowing equal airtime for TWENTY YEARS. Fucking ridiculous. So, obviously, I was overjoyed when I read this article while skimming billboard.com:
The Return of the Fairness Doctrine?
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have indicated that they plan to introduce legislation this year that would require the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine, a rule that once compelled broadcasters to present all sides of controversial issues. Kucinich said that he will chair a new House subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee that will hold hearings on the role of the FCC and consider reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Most analysts agreed that the rule would have little effect on broadcast television networks, which generally attempt to observe at least the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, which was overturned in 1987 during the Reagan administration. But it would play havoc with talk radio stations, which currently are dominated by conservative hosts. Today's (Wednesday) New York Daily News quoted Rush Limbaugh as saying that the calls for reinstatement amount to a "hush Rush" campaign. Michael Harrison, editor of Talkers magazine, told the newspaper that the Fairness Doctrine "did nothing except chill free speech." He added, "Talk radio owes its explosive growth over the last 20 years to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine." Other experts doubted that it could be reinstated, noting that President Bush would almost certainly veto any legislation to do so.
I am all for the Fairness Doctrine, and not just because Rush Limbaugh is so vehemently against it (though that's usually a good reason to get behind almost anything). Why exactly SHOULDN'T people be allowed to be presented with two opposing viewpoints in order to form thier OWN OPINIONS? If you rant and rave against raising the minimum wage for 4 straight hours, shouldn't somebody be able to present 4 hours of counterpoints and arguments to your stated agenda? Wouldn't that be good for the free marketplace of ideas that is the idyllic goal to which all broadcasters are supposed to contribute to and be a part of? The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't put an end to Rush Limbaugh, but it would allow for someone to come on right after him and say "No, you're wrong Rushie-poo, and here's why" for 6 or so hours.
I say reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and the sooner the better. I plan on writing Mr. Kucinich (along with my state Rep) with my total support. I urge you all to do the same!
