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

2022-12-09 Seoul Honorary Citizenship (ceremony & media roundup)

  On September 29, 2022, I was informed that I had been awarded Seoul Honorary Citizenship. December 9th, I was one of the 18 non-Koreans to receive Seoul Honorary Citizenship.  I was delighted to have several colleagues and supporters join me at the ceremony. They all have had a special role in my activities here. Here's the media roundup so far: The Korea Times (English) https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/12/113_341484.html Yonhap (English) https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20221211001200320 (Korean) https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20221210022100004 (French) https://fr.yna.co.kr/view/AFR20221211001000884 (Spanish) https://sp.yna.co.kr/view/ASP20221211000900883 K-Odyssey https://m.k-odyssey.com/news/newsview.php?ncode=179556481389320 Newsis https://www.newsis.com/view/?id=NISX20221209_0002118460 Chosun https://www.chosun.com/national/national_general/2022/12/11/S2OA76535FCBHFIQI7R5P7HYYM/ Daum News https://v.daum.net/v/20221211111512898 MSN https://www.msn.com/ko-kr/news/n...

"Who would be free themselves must strike the blow?" --Lord Byron

Frederick Douglass loved that quote. Booker T. Washington would say it sometimes, too. I recently met two women from North Korea. That's right, that North Korea. I asked them many questions but held back somewhat. I suppose they still must be careful and I don't want them to think I'm a spy. Hey, I used to be a host on black talk radio, I was accused of many things then. Plus, if North Koreans are trying to track those folks down I suppose the last thing they'd want would be to have their photos posted on a blog. At some point I will write about meeting those ladies. * * * Yesterday I got interviewed by a Korean reporter about various political and social issues. After I confirm that my interview made it past the station's producers then I'll post the info here. CJL

Race, race, race

On the issue of race: Clinton goes first, (surprisingly) without her Selma accent. Biden doesn’t mention that there is a clean and article black person on the stage. Richardson says the next president must talk about race…we need less talk about race, and more about individual action. Edwards said something, apparently to help us transition to the only somewhat black candidate on the panel. Obama has the home field advantage being at Howard, but doesn’t do much with the initial question. Kucinich says that people are told to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, but then they steal the boots. He gets the loudest cheers. This will be a long night if that continues... Gravel —who? Dodd —like the 64th team in the NCAA basketball pool, Dodd should be one and done. Brb, I’m checking on the NBA draft… CJL

Common Sense on North Korea (Korea Times, April 2, 2012)

By Casey Lartigue, Jr. As interesting as Kookmin University professor Andrei Lankov’s writings are, there is nothing quite like attending one of his lectures. He can barely restrain himself behind the podium, often pointing and waving his arms. I also enjoy his unscripted speeches, but his answers in Q&A sessions are like the difference between watching Michael Jordan shoot baskets in warm-ups and an actual game. I have finally discovered the secret behind Lankov’s consistently solid analysis about North Korea: Use common sense. At an Asan Institute conference last summer, he argued that North Korea watchers should try to understand North Korea from its perspective. Don’t most people know that you must understand the mindset of others you are dealing with? Yet, common sense in theory gets ignored politically. From the North Korean perspective, nuclear weapons are the best thing they’ve got going. They will NOT give them up easily, even if President Obama ...

Breen's column that outraged Samsung

“What People Got for Christmas” Michael Breen The Korea Times December 25, 2009 At this time of year when Seoul’s bare winter trees are wrapped in beckoning lights ― blue and white are the in colors ― and Merry Xmas signs at hotels and department stores are really saying come-hither-gentle-reveler-and-empty-your-purse, and when expensive restaurants belch noisy year-end office party groups onto every street and the karaoke rooms are full, it is tempting to declare that Christmas has lost its soul. But that would be a mistake. Christmas is a time for giving, and, before they can be given, gifts have to be bought. Commerce is good. Here, as proof, is a round up of some of the gifts given and received today by people in the news. Samsung, the world’s largest conglomerate and the rock upon which the Korean economy rests, sent traditional year-end cards offering best wishes for 2010 to the country’s politicians, prosecutors and journalists, along with 50 million w...