Note: This is a story written some time ago. Given current events and FCC actions regarding the new "localism" rule making, it seems to be more relevant today.
- November 1, 2007
The big story on talk radio lately is the Fairness Doctrine. I can certainly understand why talk radio has launched a crusade against it. The Fairness Doctrine, a law being reconsidered that dictates that any communications outlet that utilizes the public airwaves present balanced coverage within the political realm, would pretty much end talk radio—and, by the way, AM radio. The Fainess Doctrine is not a new idea. It first came on the scene in 1949. Eventually the law and its enforcement was assigned to the FCC. Various court challenges all but eliminated the Fairness Doctrine entirely over time. It is really hard to believe that in 2007, with the many editorial voices that bombard and saturate the public from so many sources, that Senators Kerry and Durbin would think such a law is necessary. The Fairness Doctrine would erode a basic freedom that was of such importance as to have been rated number one on the freedoms that Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the constitution set forth. The Fairness Doctrine opens the door to fascism and threatens every constituency—after all—who is to be the judge of what is “fair”? Talk radio may be the target today, but enforcement of such a law will know no party over time. As the political pendulum swings, any voice that is in opposition runs a risk of being squelched or diluted under the guise of fairness.
Using the FCC to control the media is not a new concept. Because electronic media utilizes public airwaves and spectrum, other rules have been drafted in the name of fairness. The Cross-Ownership Restriction, a law that prohibits a newspaper from owning a television station within the same market, grew out of an instance involving Senator Fritz Hollings, where he had disagreement several decades ago with his treatment of a story in his home state of South Carolina. Since the local newspaper and television station were both owned by the same company, he felt the story might have been told differently had there been two, distinctly differing voices within the market. [Interestingly, most television stations were begun by newspaper companies; in a sense, we have them to thank for the television we watch today. Most newspaper companies were gambling on the new medium of television by erecting expensive towers and powering up expensive transmitters at a time when less than one in every ten households owned a device over which they could watch television.] The restriction on cross-ownership was drafted at a time when there were three editorial voices in any market: newspapers, television, and radio. Whether the law was necessary then is questionable, but why now, in a day where the Internet makes anyone a publisher overnight–where positions and various opinions abound? If a newspaper wants to own a television station in a market, let them. Let them all own a television station. It seems that allowing cross-ownership would create more editorial voices, not fewer. If a newspaper owns a television station, would not the other television stations in the market have a strong incentive and motivation to start a newspaper to compete? In the electronic age, publishing a newspaper is possible with a minimum of capital. Even so, it is a very shallow argument to say that denying cross-ownership encourages a broader array of editorial voices in any market. Senator Hollings, in the age of the Internet, continues to push to deny waivers to companies like Fox. In the final analysis, the law will almost certainly be struck down in the courts as unnecessary and outdated.
We should oppose any obstacle that jeopardizes the long-term survival of the press. The press represents an all-important fourth leg of the stool in our governmental process. Alongside the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government, the American press has long stood as an important member of the governmental process as it seeks to hold the powerful accountable for their actions and inactions. We can ill afford to live without an American press any more than we can exist in a government absent of the judicial, legislative, or executive branches. Bloggers cannot fill the shoes of the American press. The majority of the subject matter of most bloggers is reaction to information in the press. While we love to disagree with the American press and label it “biased” or “unfair”, the press has been instrumental in the governmental process since the days before we even had constitutional rights. Circulation of newspapers continues to fall; television viewership continues to erode. We should be fearful of a society where newspapers and television stations can no longer afford to staff newsrooms with journalists who not only inform us, but enforce honesty and integrity among those we elect to power.
Recently during a conference of Internet and technology professionals, we were told of a newer, faster Internet being developed by the government in Alexandria, Virginia. The new Internet promises unparalleled speeds and greater reliability with greater security. I, for one, am skeptical and fearful of an Internet that is controlled by the government. It was because of the lack of government intervention that the Internet grew as it has to become the medium that it has. It is unwieldy and uncontrollable. Yes, it has avenues where the undesirable lurk and criminal behavior is one link away at any time. There is both morality and immorality everywhere on the Net. It is a spray of everything the world has to offer. It, for better or worse, is a reflection of society, warts and all. The government, given the opportunity, will likely not only tax the Internet; they will seek to control the message, squelch dissent, and the censor content, as evidenced by history. We have only to look to the Fairness Doctrine and the cross-ownership restrictions on our American press to gain a glimpse of the potential.
The Fairness Doctrine, if it were to be reenacted, would drive talk radio and any other voice of dissent to the Internet. We can only hope that our most basic freedom–the right of free speech is still alive and well.
Comments