“I say so what if they put this back into effect. I recall several totally liberal radio stations that couldn’t make enough money to stay in business. The clown in Minnesota that is still trying to steal the election is another fine example.”
This is the most common confusion over the “fairness doctrine”. Not that I would be for any government control over freedom of speech, but lets suppose that all it meant was that there was “balance” on talk radio. For one, since there is a finite amount of time in a day, if liberals got equal time, then that would knock some conservative broadcasters off. But you may say, thats the price we pay for a fair viewing of all political opinion. The problem is that broadcasters are businesses and are in business to make money. If they are required to air liberal commentators who havent made money then the broadcasters will lose money by putting them in slots that were previously occupied by money making conservative broadcasters. Fine, you may say, because its the price for those broadcasters to pay for the right to air on public airwaves where local content and diversity are wanting. Wrong. For one, who is to say which conservative host should be tossed over the side? Is it the national hosts like Rush and Hannity? Or is it the local conservative host. Likely, any government imposed “balance review board” will choose to toss out Rush and Hannity and try and “balance” with local conservative hosts, claiming that those nasty big name hosts don’t represent the local communities. Forget about the fact that the only reason broadcasters air these guys is because local communities listen and they generate revenue. Fine, you may say. We must have an equal sharing of political views. Fact is, we already have that. Its called the free market of ideas. If an idea is worth being aired then broadcasters will figure a way to air it and make money off of it and some venues are more supportive of liberal ideas over conservative ones. Liberal povs hold sway over tv and press, and conservative views hold sway over radio. I’d prefer it be the other way around but I wouldn’t want to governmentally mess with it. Fine you may say, let the government meddle with fairness in the name of diversity or localism, its the price we pay for a free society. Wrong. What will happen is that broadcasters will get sued by third parties(read ACORN) until they choose not to air any political talk radio at all. And if you don’t think thats possible, well that was exactly why there was almost no political talk radio until the fairness doctrine was rescinded.
Putting aside for the moment that there isn't a black and white division between left and right, but many shadings including libertarian, communist, anarchist, etc, the real goal of this is right there in that word "balanced".
Let's say Obama comes up with, oh, I dunno, a $1 trillion stimulus bill, and the American people don't have 48 hours to see this material. Instead, they rely on the media to give them the scoop.
What do they have now?
The paper of record, the New York Times, and CNN, MSNBC, the alphabets on one side, and various newspapers without the rep of the NYT (which is fading because of revelations about its extreme leftism and lying reporters...which no one would know much about without opposition newspapers) and FOX.
And...talk radio, which is the ONLY one of these outlets which allows an ordinary citizen to pick up the phone and almost instantly get his or her opinion out to the public, and add to the discussion.
TV allows occassional call-ins that last seconds. Newspapers allow one page of letters a day.
So talk radio is the ONLY outlet for the ordinary person.
OK, so shouldn't ALL voices be allowed to--
Stop right there.
"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Talk radio is an arena for free speech (as well as for freedom of the press, peaceable assembly, and petitioning the government due to calls for representatives to do certain things; this becomes literal when you realize that talk hosts can often get representatives on the phone and air when "regular citizens" can't).
Here are definitions of "abridge" from dictionary.com (I quote at excessive length to drive the point home):
to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.
To reduce the length of (a written text); condense. To cut short; curtail. See Synonyms at shorten.
To make shorter; to shorten in duration; to lessen; to diminish; to curtail; as, to abridge labor; to abridge power or rights. "The bridegroom . . . abridged his visit." --Smollett.
She retired herself to Sebaste, and abridged her train from state to necessity. --Fuller.
2. To shorten or contract by using fewer words, yet retaining the sense; to epitomize; to condense; as, to abridge a history or dictionary.
3. To deprive; to cut off; -- followed by of, and formerly by from; as, to abridge one of his rights.
Not enough?
Here is the definition from Websters:
Main Entry: abridge Pronunciation: &-'brij Function: transitive verb Inflected Forms: abridged; abridg·ing
: to diminish or reduce in scope abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States —U.S. Constitution amendment XIV> —abridg·ment or abridge·ment noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Back up to that list of TV stations and papers (I only mentioned the NYT but you know there are more). No one forced or forces them into being balanced. They are free to publish what they will.
Put aside the conservative angle--the reason politicians want this is in order to water down the ONE part of the media that is made up in large part of the voice of THE GOVERNED.
The Fairness Doctrine will ABRIDGE the right of free speech in this country.
Really, what else need be said?
BTTT!
IOW the Fairness Doctrine, in any guise, attacks the business model of any venue which isn't slanted toward the Democrats.Well said (if not particularly well formatted . . .).
I have only one question: "Is journalism objective?"If it is, then the Fairness Doctrine makes sense, since journalism, being objective, will fairly critique unfairness in broadcasting.
But the question is, how does anyone go about proving that journalism is objective? One example of coverage of a controversy which seems objective to you now cannot suffice to prove the proposition; it would be necessary to examine all coverage over all time - including the unavailable future time - in order to make that conclusion. And even then, how would you know that you were objective in making that determination? Who is to be trusted to make that exhaustive determination?
The Constitution has a clear answer. Article 1 Section 9 ordains that:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United StatesThe First Amendment requires thatCongress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.It follows that nobody has the right to unquestioned determination of what is fair in public discussion.The assault on liberty which we-the-people are faced with comes from a group of people who own, or work for people who own, printing presses or radio/tv broadcast licenses and who belong to an organization styling itself the Associated Press. And we have the co-extensive group, the "National Press Club." And notwithstanding the uncontroverted fact that not just newspapers but also books and magazines are produced by printing presses and are covered by the First Amendment, or the fact that broadcast journalism is not produced by printing presses and is transmitted under government license as books and magazines and newspapers are not, the Associated Press/National Press Club presumes to be "the press" and presumes to have rights superior to the people whom it presumes to have the right to exclude.
Any person who styles himself "the press" arrogates to himself the right to exclude people - most people - from equal right to participation in the public discourse. The right to freedom of the press is not a privilege of the government, and it is not a privilege of noblemen. It is a right of the people. And the right of speech and press is not a right of the speaker and the printer only, but equally is a right of the voluntary listener and reader, without which the right to speak and print would be mooted.