Skip to main content

Fairness Doctrine

As I mentioned on Wednesday, I participated in NPR's discussion on the Fairness Doctrine.

Kim Pearson has a comprehensive post on the issue.

Some random thoughts:

1) Like Pearson, I had expected Prometheus 6 to come out stronger in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, he said there should be an "Honesty Doctrine." That's all well and good, but I seriously doubt that the government would be any better at enforcing an "Honesty Doctrine" than it would be at enforcing a "Fairness Doctrine." One major criticism of the Fairness Doctrine is that it made stations less likely to air some opinions because they then would have to air opposing opinions. When the result is "damned if you do, damned if you don't" with the government watching, the most logical approach is to do nothing. By doing "something," you give the government a reason to investigate you. But would the FCC investigate a station that aired no opinions. That's right, better to be damned if you don't without having any evidence...

2) Speaking of the term "Fairness Doctrine." I like it when government is clear about what it is doing. But "fairness"? Fairness to the Klan? To the Nation of Islam?

I like something David Boaz of the Cato Institute wrote last year about vague government terms: "The first restrictive immigration law was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. (Ah, for the days when Congress gave laws honest names. These days, a tax scheme is called Social Security and a grab bag of civil liberties violations is dubbed the USA Patriot Act. Back in 1882, when Congress wanted to exclude the Chinese, they called it the Chinese Exclusion Act.)"

I'm adding that if Congress wanted to exclude the Chinese today, they'd name it the Chinese Residential Act of 2007. So when I hear vague terms like "Fairness" used by government I'm suspicious to begin with.

3) Believe it or not, but I was in the "moderate" role on Wednesday's show. I guess it is appropriate in some ways because I'm not a conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican. And that's why a big part of the Fairness Doctrine debate is boring to me. Pearson highlights the things that conservatives have said and attempts to rebut those things.

But this is an issue of government control, not just about ideology. It was Dan Rather, hardly a conservative, who helped sink the Fairness Doctrine.

As Rather testified in 1985 before the FCC: When I was a young reporter, I worked briefly for wire services, small radio stations, and newspapers, and I finally settled into a job at a large radio station owned by the Houston Chronicle. Almost immediately on starting work in that station's newsroom, I became aware of a concern which I had previously barely known existed--the FCC. The journalists at The Chronicle did not worry about it; those at the radio station did. Not only the station manager but the newspeople as well were very much aware of this government presence looking over their shoulders. I can recall newsroom conversations about what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be. Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost.

Pearson and others may think the Fairness Doctrine is no big deal because it allegedly only enforced in a few cases, but based on what Rather said (and, yes, I'm always cautious about what Rather says), the folks on the ground and on air were more concerned than those in Ivy towers.

Another interesting angle is that it was the Eagle Forum, Accuracy in Media, and some other conservative organizations that wanted the Fairness Doctrine extended. From my reading of this a few years ago, conservatives feared that without the Fairness Doctrine in place that their opinions would be completely shut out of the media.

They probably had no idea that their thinking was short-sighted--and, of course, they probably had no idea that the Internet would take off the way it has and that conservative talk radio would dominate as it has.

Of course people are concerned with correct information being disseminated, but asking the government to monitor the "fairness" or "honesty" of media would be the equivalent of having Barney Fife wave down traffic on the superinformation highway...

4) Pearson does point out that the Fairness Doctrine is not applied to cable. And I'll add: Let's keep it that way! As tempting as it would be to slap the Fairness Doctrine on universities or the Daily Kos, I still say it is better to keep the government from getting involved in information dissemination. If there must be a Fairness Doctrine, limit it to the Big 3 networks and government sponsored media outlets.

CJL

Popular posts from this blog

Mentoring while Black (Korea Times 2/16/2023)

  Mentoring while Black by Casey Lartigue Jr. February 16, 2023 www.patreon.com/caseylartigue

Get rid of that watermelon!

Part 1: When I was a youngster I used to collect Confederate money, posters and photographs with caricatures of blacks, and "No blacks allowed signs." I loved the money because it was a reminder of how far the sorry Confederacy had fallen. I had one poster of a dark-skinned black boy munching on a watermelon. I would look at that small poster and wonder, "What in the world is wrong with anyone wanting to eat watermelon?" Yes, white people, I'm talking to you. Your parents, grandparents, and other ancestors who thought making fun of blacks for eating watermelon were crazy ! Even people who say that nothing has changed in race relations must acknowledge that the many stereotypes of blacks are no longer prevalent. But then, there are also some ready to remind us of days-gone-by by debunking stuff that doesn't need to be debunked today. According to the Washington Post: The sound you just heard was yet another racial stereotype going kersplat ! Some ...

Random photos from today

I went walking around today. Whereas some people like to go walking in the mountains, I enjoy walking around in the city. Well, not D.C. or other cities with many homeless, crazy and/or armed people walking around... * * * Here's where I had lunch today. About $1.90 for a hamburger hamberger.   * * * Ha-ha! Bet you never would have guessed that Batman is a drinking place in Korea! * * * Man Clinic? The Koreans walking by seemed to be very curious about why I was taking a photo of a "Man Clinic." They may know something I don't know...Actually, I wasn't curious enough to go in and find out what it was... * * * Right down the street from the Man Clinic...there's a Love Shop! I love the euphemism. "Love Shop" sounds much better than Sex Shop. I'm guessing that if you don't go to the "Love Shop" to buy condoms that you may need to visit the Man Clinic a short time later? * * * Nobo...

Scam? Yo Momma!

Note: This was originally posted shortly after Jesse Lee Peterson's book was published, reposted in 2005, and now because of a fight between black customers and a Korean merchant in Dallas, Texas. Scam? Yo Momma! During the summer of 2002 I was an observer to a dispute between the Asian owners of a Chinese takeout and some of their black customers in Washington, D.C. The month-long boycott began when a local activist accused a cook at a Chinese takeout of attempting to cook a piece of chicken he had allegedly dropped on the floor. Despite the best efforts of human rights activist Dick Gregory, popular talk-show host Joe Madison, and Rev. Walter Fauntroy, the protestors were unable to coax any media to report on the protest. On some days there were, by my unofficial count, as many as 100 people chanting songs and marching. But one key person was missing: Rev. Jesse Jackson. It was important to the foot soldiers at the boycott that someone from the media report on...

March 26 is a special day (with Eunmi Park)

  March 26th is a special date in Eunmi Park's life, for two different reasons, as she will explain one day. It was also special for us today because we (FSI co-founders Casey Lartigue and Eunkoo Lee) got to spend it with her. We set a new record today: Eunmi spent almost seven hours at our office this lovely Saturday afternoon-turned-night. Most evenings when she records a video she is at our for three to five hours Today she recorded two more videos for her YouTube channel . After years of silence, Eunmi has posted six YouTube videos her first two weeks of speaking out and now has three more videos recorded to be uploaded next week. They run the range of emotions. One video is heart-warming and inspirational, one is infuriating, and the last one... I am not sure how to describe it without giving away the story, but there are some sensitive points in it. To get ready for the video, Eunmi first sends the script to FSI co-founder Eunkoo Lee. She translates it, then I (and sometimes ...