It's like GOP Reefer Madness, cont'd
February 16, 2009 12:19 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
If the Fairness Doctrine didn't exist, I don't think anyone on the left could ever concoct a scheme that would so effectively drive conservatives in the press to such degrees of distraction. (They're trying to hush Rush!!) Has a political movement ever spent more time issuing dark warnings and assembling its troops for a piece of legislation that hasn't been on the books in two decades and isn't even being publicly debated?
Not that I'm complaining. It spectacle provides endless entertainment.
The latest three-alarm fire on the right stems from the fact David Axelrod didn't give a Fairness Doctrine answer that right-wing bloggers liked. (There's a shock, right?) Worse, Democrats are allegedly "brainstorming" with progressives regarding FCC initiatives. How dare they!! You'd think Dems had won an election, or something.
And, of course, if you don't correct them, they go on believing it anyway.
See, here's the thing... These are the guys who made it possible for the US to occupy two foreign nations in resource wars. They made it possible for torture to become normalized. And the way they did it was with BS arguments like the one about the fairness doctrine.
The current rediscovery of this idea by the wingnuts is just another way for them to feel like a valiant minority. And that is their only strength.
These are the guys who made it possible for the US to occupy two foreign nations in resource wars. And the way they did it was
by way of the Public Airwaves, by broadcasting political opinions (set-up and contrived to a specific purpose) at the American People, selling them IRAQ and BUSH on the Public Airwaves: they worked BUSH and IRAQ 24/7, and most of it was by way of broadcasting political opinions at the American People, and on our public resource the Public Airwaves.
A very precious privilege it is to broadcast to the American People, by way of an FCC License to use that public resource: precious, as in you can't ever get one of these FCC Licenses, ever! ...and privileged, as in nobody (broadcasters included) has any right to broadcast on the Public Airwaves: a License is required to do so.
EQUAL TIME on the Public Airwaves, if broadcasting Political Opinions; and REPLY TIME on the Public Airwaves, if broadcasting Personal Attacks.
It's not so radical... actually, it was good enough for President Eisenhower, and Truman and Roosevelt before him; and for Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon and Ford and Carter too, and even during Reagan's administration, until the old movie actor deregulated our Public Airwaves in this manner, and without our or Congress's consent.
You're exactly right. And the minute his FCC did so, the stations IMMEDIATELY dumped their liberal talk-show hosts. What does that tell you?
FDR knew this would happen in the early 30s-- and in fact, the FD was the brainchild of conservative ham radio operators, who were afraid of socialistic type government takeovers !
It was an act of deregulation that is unusual, as it was not authorized by any Congress ever, nor authorized by any popular referendum; which is to say it is no more Law than it is mere administration policy: yet think of the consequences of that unilateral deregulation of the Public Airwaves (of that mere administrative policy if you will), the consequences of granting an unfettered power to private broadcasters, to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People...
And isn't that exactly what has happened as a result, since 1987 I believe?
Doesn't that act of FCC deregulation, which may be described also as mere administration policy (for having no authorization fromy any Act of Congress, or other Democratic authority)... doesn't that administration FCC policy become the seed of what becomes the many weeds that so plague our Democracy presently, that we have a need for Media Matters for America, or that we have the concerns registered by them and us and many more...
Isn't it time to say "It didn't work. It was an experiment, but it created an unhealthy abuse of a public resource the Public Airwaves, for purely private and political ends." (Think IRAQ and BUSH, and then think FOX)
It's at the root to what plagues us here. It was the seed for all of this, that act of deregulatory administration policy by the old movie actor's administration: the old fool, he sold us out!
If broadcasters use the public resource that we allow them, the Public Airwaves, if they broadcast POLITICAL OPINIONS on our Public Airwaves, then they are to yield also our Public Airwaves in EQUAL TIME, to the different or opposing political opinions of the American People (whose own public resource it is we speak of)...
And if it is PERSONAL ATTACKS that broadcasters misuse our Public Airwaves for, then they are to yield REPLY TIME on the Public Airwaves, for whoever was personally attacked by a broadcaster's abuse of our Public Airwaves.
It's easy, it's simple, it's fair and balanced, it's just plain right, and above all, it's a public resource it's Public Property it's the PUBLIC'S AIRWAVES we're talking about, the American People's public resource, our Public Property.
If it was good enough for General Eisenhower (or Presidents Roosevelt or Kennedy too), then it's good enough for me.
EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME on our Public Airwaves.
Eric, you wrote:
The amusing part is that the Fairness Doctrine actually doesn't exist. It hasn't existed since Reagan did away with it.
So, they really are howling about nothing.
Literally, nothing.
But, if you're a conservative, that has to be better than trying to come up with new ideas about fixing the economy. Because, if you're a conservative, there are no new ideas about fixing the economy.
No, the Fairness Doctrine still exists, it's just that the FCC won't enforce it-- it was never a law, just an early 30's FCC policy.
When Congress tried to enshrine the FD in statute, it lost. Long story short.
About the FD: I well remember talk radio 1966-1986, and the FD worked very well. All it meant was that stations would have to have a variety of voices-- at no time was anyone censored or program content controlled.
In fact, the Right benefited greatly from the FD in the 60s and 70s, when radio stations were required to have guys like Bob Grant or Joe Pyne on the air.
Younger people don't remember the FD so they scoff at it-- but it worked and it worked well-- the whole idea was to prevent what we have today: a wholesale takeover of the airwaves by business interests. FDR and his folks knew that this would happen....
The right answer on the Fairness Doctrine (imo): I'm against it because, like other government regulations on content (such as draconian fines for f-bombs and wardrobe malfunctions), it makes free TV/radio less competitive with other less restricted options (satellite radio, cable). But there is nothing inherently outrageous about the FD.
Say it this way, and you don't let the right wing sneak in a bunch of other assumptions concerning the regulation of a scarce resource like the broadcast spectra.
It's not a regulation on content. There are no specific requirements about specific content.
Cigarette ads are banned from the airwaves. That's bad?
The FD worked extremely well. The minute the FCC stopped enforcing it, business did exactly what the creators of the rule knew they would. Immediately.
But there's so much to do, and such a huge friggin mess to clean up, that I'm not sure even a liberal president would get around to that.
The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio in order to serve its sordid or its benevolent ends.
The Fairness Doctrine was in effect from about 1935 to 1987 and it didn't do any of that at all.
In fact, it benefited conservatives during a time when no one wanted to hear them, circa 1960-1980. If it weren't for the FD, there would never have been a Bob Grant, for example-- stations had to hire someone like him for balance.
These are public airwaves, not private.