Deregulating airwaves would be the most sensible and free approach
The Fairness Doctrine is not about stimulating political discussion; it is an attempt to silence one group that another group doesn’t like. Many on the left think conservative talk radio helps the Republican Party, and would like to see that changed.
The Fairness Doctrine, in its attempt to create more political discussion, will fail. A governmental move to closely regulate political discourse will create a disincentive for radio stations and TV to discuss politics at all. The arbitrary nature of what is "fair" and "unfair" means the regulations would have to be vague. The cost and risks of erratic Federal Communications Commission fines would push business away from politically charged issues.
The best solution would be denationalizing the airwaves. This would create the most open environment for discourse. The people would decide, based on their viewing habits, which broadcast channel would pass the profit-or-loss test.
There are a limited number of airwaves on normal frequencies, but there are also a limited number of lecture halls, meeting spaces and professorial podiums. The limited nature of something is not ground for nationalization.
We shouldn’t want the government to force all Web sites to adhere to what it deems "balanced." In that spirit of openness and freedom, let’s free up the airwaves.†
--Blake Gilson
Internet neutrality more critical than broadcast news fairness mandates
It seems ludicrous to question the need for a leveling force in public discourse in the age of "fair and balanced" Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. However, opening a window of opportunity to attack net neutrality could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The doctrine held that broadcast media was a vital part of public political education and debate, required to air topical public issue material and publish contrasting viewpoints on those issues. There were also rules governing personal attacks and endorsed candidates for office.
The thing about truth is that it will always eventually reveal itself, like the whispering reeds in Aesop’s fable. Where differing viewpoints are suppressed in broadcast media, they manifest on the Internet, cable news and in the alternative press, among others. This country was founded, in part, on the idea of freedom of discourse and the use of publicly available media to effect change. Compromising the integrity of another invaluable tool such as the Internet is unnecessary to achieve this end.
As much as the fairness doctrine would be a responsible choice as an industry resolution, allowing the Internet to fall under the regulatory aegis of the FCC is far more damaging possibility at this stage. Perhaps the best revenge for free speech lies in living well.
-- Shai Mohammed
Fairness Doctrine would bring bizarreness that hasn’t been seen in ages
The Fairness Doctrine would make television and radio much more interesting. In its previous incarnation, the regulation required broadcasters on public airwaves to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." Imagine Rush Limbaugh on 90.1 FM immediately after Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! and the Rev. Jesse Jackson following Sean Hannity on the AM side.
This would create a dreamland for political junkies to overdose on an endless stream of drivel of all flavors.
But who is to dictate how each person’s political leaning is categorized? Conservative radio host Dennis Prager believes homosexuals are born gay, and that homosexuality is not a sin. Each time he says that, does it knock off one minute of opposing view time?
On television, the talking head cacophony would reach levels of pleasure only matched by psychotropic drugs. Imagine on Meet the Press a sea of 20 heads from all sides of the political spectrum babbling incessantly, all on one screen, each person sticking strictly to their political philosophies as their words crescendo into white noise. And imagine a federal bean counter making sure each one received "equal time."
Let’s keep our fingers crossed in the hope Congress will add this bit of spice back into our bland gruel of media.
-- Chris Webb
