Would the fairness doctrine work both ways?
I’m very troubled about the prospect of the fairness doctrine which would empower government bureaucrats to police the airwaves ensuring all viewpoints are given equal time. These regulators would, for example, force talk radio stations to match time broadcasting conservative programs with liberal programs or force the hand the programs themselves in making them spout both sides during their show.
Formats like liberal talk radio fail because no one likes them, not because of a lack of laws.
Things like liberal talk radio do not sell
Aside from infringing on free speech and the free market, this would cause problems for many of these businesses because liberal talk radio is a product that simply does not sell well. Air America has to pay stations to run their show.
If we ever find ourselves under a regime that implements this, I have some ideas on how the Fairness Doctrine could truly be fair.
The Fairness Doctrine should work both ways
Make it work both ways. Here’s how:
1. Eliminate the illusion of neutrality. Anyone who broadcasts or writes for the media has to take a side and register their political affiliation or leaning. No more posing as unbiased.
2. If talk radio stations have to take on equal numbers of conservative and liberal programs, every newspaper, network news program, and cable news network would have to have to hire and give equal time to journalists and broadcasters of both sides.
3. Politicians and candidates would have to give equal time too. For every minute a liberal candidate spends getting softball questions from a liberal Dan Rather or Katie Couric, they would in turn have to take questions from someone like Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram.
4. Those who enforce the Fairness Docrtine at every level need to be appointed equally by representatives from both sides of the aisle, regardless who controls Congress. Democrat appointees ensure the left half of the front page of the New York Times is written by Democrat-approved journalists and Republican appointees ensure the right half of the New York Times front page is populated with material by conservative writers.
A consumer-controlled media market is superior to the Fairness Doctrine
Don’t get me wrong, I want things to stay as they are where the market is free and controlled by consumers. But, if we have to go down that other road, politicians shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind those in the media who are sympathetic with them. Liberal dominated media organizations shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind a facade of neutrality.
If the purpose of the Fairness doctrine is ensuring citizens get both sides, the only way to truly do that is force those who want to govern us in front of journalists who will ask them questions they don’t want to answer and follow up by fact checking their answers.
If the Fairness Doctrine forced Obama to sit down with Sean Hannity would Democrats support it?
Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine do not want equal time
Something tells me those who promote the Fairness Doctrine will not like my proposals. They like the idea of neutering those who are most effectively spreading the conservative message, but they most definitely don’t want both sides given equal time across all formats. They don’t want half of the New York Times written by conservatives. They don’t want half of the NBC Nightly News hosted and reported by conservatives.
Let’s just keep things as they are.
Maybe everyone would rather just keep things as they are - which is truly fair - fair because consumers decide what they want and who they want it from. The consumer can lay down a newspaper if she doesn’t like it, change the channel, or switch stations. Broadcasters who produce a product consumers trust and enjoy achieve success.
This is an issue I want to see comments on. Let’s have them.
UPDATE: There is a great new blog about the Fairness Doctrine called “Unfair Doctrine” with excellent content related to this post.
The so-called fairness doctrine will destroy radio all together. To avoid violating the fairness doctrine radio stations will broadcast only music, and only instrumental music at that, and that will mean that advertising rates will have to drop and many of them will go out of business. Talk show hosts will resort to other methods of disseminating their message through mediums that are not controlled by government and advertising rates for these mediums will go up as more and more people choose to get their information from these new media. People will get what they want but in different ways.
Then an Obama dictatorship will insist that it has the right to develop standards for cable and satellite mediums and it will begin to shake down these companies as well. At some point, they will have to shut down all mediums that don’t agree with them as they do in some third world countries. Information will stop being disseminated and people will resort to listening only to classical music and reading books that are smuggled in to them from another country.
You cannot categorize freedom of speech. It is either free or it is not. The government does not own the radio airwaves, it expropriates them. To set standards and rules for communication is a futile endeavor. Who decides what is left or right? The government? Who decides what is right or wrong? The government? Who decides what people should hear? The government. We are getting to a point where people will have to spend half or most of their evenings going to group meetings held by the government where they are given the correct thoughts and indocrinated into the correct ways of thinking…thinking as a collective…because we don’t want the real truth, we want to hear “collective truth.” At this point, society will collapse because no new ideas can come forward. You cannot legislate what the human mind can think…you cannot control what people say…you can only cause people to become silent in order to stay alive. The Democrats want silence, not fairness. They don’t want anyone criticizing the government; they only want people agreeing with the government.
One cannot assume that politicians are always forthright, obfuscation of the facts are more the norm than the exception. The Fairness Doctrine is spelled out in Title 47 of the code (47 USC),
<<< The FCC’s statutory mandate to see that broadcasters operate in the public interest and Congress’ reaffirmation, in the 1959 amendment to 315 of the Communications Act, of the FCC’s view that the fairness doctrine inhered in the public interest standard, support the conclusion that the doctrine and its component personal attack and political editorializing regulations are a legitimate exercise of congressionally delegated authority. Pp. 379-386.
*Here’s section 315 of Title 47 USC
<<<Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or………….
So the fairness doctrine address’s equal time for political candidates, that’s it. Period.
It’s voluntary, and the question now is what broadcast stations?
Some history first
The FCC is the birth child of the Federal Radio Commission , formed in 1927,it was a treaty, and dealt with radio broadcasts from sea going vessals.
Here’s a link form wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Act_of_1927
The above mentioned legislation dealt with mobile radio braodcasts, sometimes the message was relayed by *ground base stations.We all know that Congress has authority to enter in to treaties, and even treaties are constrained by the Constitution. The First Amendment protects free speeech, so we should expect the fairness doctrine to conform.
So lets take a look at 47 USC SECTION 315, and the regulations(very important) to find out what radio stations are covered, so here it is.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/usc_cfr.cgi?title=47§ion=315
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/usc_cfr.cgi?title=47§ion=315
<<<CFR parts for which 47 USC 315 provides authority
This is a list of parts within the Code of Federal Regulations for which this US Code section provides rulemaking authority. It is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities provided by NARA at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/parallel/parallel_table.html. It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the NARA site.
· 47 CFR 22
· 47 CFR 80
· 47 CFR 97
So the first listed authority is 47 CFR 22, listed below are the pertinent parts, this regulation deals with cellular radio, as in hand held units.
<<<Title 47: Telecommunication
Browse Previous | Browse Next
PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
§ 22.1 Basis and purpose
(a) Basis. These rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et. seq.
*NOTE et. seg. Means everything after 47 USC 151 which would include 47 USC 315
(a) Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to establish the requirements and conditions under which radio stations may be licensed and used in the Public Mobile Services
(b) § 22.3 Authorization required
Stations in the Public Mobile Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules in this part and with a valid authorization granted by the FCC under the provisions of this part.
<<<§ 22.99 Definitions
Mobile station. One or more transmitters that are capable of operation while in motion
Public Mobile Services. Radio services in which licensees are authorized to offer and provide mobile and related fixed radio telecommunication services for hire to the public.
So where is the authority to regulate mobile radio services, does it reside with the FCC or is it part of a treaty or convention, lets consult the definitions provided by the FCC.
<<< Federal Communications Commission
§ 2.1 Terms and definitions.
(a) Where a term or definition appears
in this part of the Commission’s
Rules, it shall be the definitive term or
definition and shall prevail throughout
the Commission’s Rules.
(b) The source of each definition is
indicated as follows:
CONV—International Telecommunication
Convention, Malaga-Torremolinos, 1973.
RR—Radio Regulations, Geneva, 1982.
FCC—Federal Communications Commission.
*Mobile Service. A radiocommunication
service between mobile and land stations,
or between mobile stations.
(CONV)
So the regulations for Mobile Service is based on International Telecommunication
Convention, Malaga-Torremolinos, 1973, a treaty, terms of a treaty are not enforceable in the several states of the union, see Supreme Court decision Downes v. Bidwell. This by definition would eliminate all private radio stations in the several states.
So 47 CFR section 22 has nothing to do with private radio broadcasting stations. that are not cellular by nature.
Now let’s consult 47 USC section 80 for the next authority
TITLE 47–Telecommunication
PART 80–STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES
§ 80.1 Basis and purpose.
This section contains the statutory basis for this part of the rules and provides the purpose for which this part is issued.
§ 80.5 Definitions
Maritime mobile service. A mobile service between coast stations and ship stations, or between ship stations, or between associated on-board communication stations. Survival craft stations and EPIRB stations also participate in this service.
These regulation have nothing to do with radio stations that aren’t in maritime service (exclusively shore to ship) So lets look at the last regulation 47 CFR 97
PART 97–AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE
§ 97.113 Prohibited transmissions
<<<<<(b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules; nor shall an amateur station engage in any activity related to program production or news gathering for broadcasting purposes, except that communications directly related to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to the public where no other means of communication is reasonably available before or at the time of the event
So the last regulations deal with Amateur Radio Stations, which by definition are not permitted to broadcast.
Has anyone ever seen any one of these radio stations covered by the regulations, which implement 47 USC SECTION 315 with Facilities for candidates for public office. This gets ridicules after a while doesn’t it.?
This is the way Congress operates, write the laws and regulations, to implement the law, with very limited applications. This is very needful, to avoid being struck down by the Supreme Court. Congress is very adept at using public ignorance and so-called experts to ramrod their agenda.
Instead of having somewhat moderate network anchors replace them with real liberals like James Carville. Conservatives think that just because they act tough it makes them right. Sean Hannity wouldn’t last fifteen seconds in a real debate with a tough liberal.