Jesse Walker thinks that re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine is highly unlikely, even under an Obama presidency. Alas, he thinks there are many other things to worry about:
First the good news: The fairness doctrine is still dead, and it probably will stay dead even if Barack Obama becomes president. . . .
On June 25, in a savvy political move, his press secretary sent an email to the industry journal Broadcasting & Cable. Deftly deflating the scare, the secretary stated flatly that "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters."
Now the bad news. There's a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations' programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership.
In other words, pretty much what the FCC does now, to bipartisan cheers from Congress, whenever sex can be said to be involved.
Both public libraries and the airwaves are owned by the public. Perhaps we can extend this idea to public libraries, so librarians are forced to buy a balance of books determined by a fairness doctrine?
You know what else Obama hasn't forsworn? Mandatory, federally enforced gay marraige for everyone. In a worst case scenario, this would mean Obama himself, armed with a shotgun, rides from town to town forcing every individual in the country to marry a homosexual. Dark times (could very well) be ahead.
Los AngelesAmerica, I believe that you canlisten towatchDennis Prager ("all men are created equal"), Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'ReillyKatie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and the other guy on three different stations all at the same time! What could be more fair?"At Marquette law school yesterday we had an interesting panel discussion on the doctrine hosted by the Federalist Society. Had a local conservative talk show host, a local liberal talk show host/columnist, a university communications professor and a national pundit (can't remember his name, some surprisingly young man with a national show).
The liberal's big argument was that conservatives were conspiring to actively shut liberals out of (AM) radio and that there was no liberal bias in newspapers or TV. The professor had some interesting ideas but was generally shut out by the talk show hosts' bickering. The pundit was sharp though, and essentially unrefuted in attacking the doctrine.
To be blunt, rarely did you see anyone at all make an argument for the Fairness Doctrine rooted in the public interest. No, it was simply about diminishing the power of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or whoever. Maybe I'm just not enough of a hardball partisan but this agenda strikes me as very anti-First Amendment, and I like all of the amendments. Look, Rachel Maddow has a show and Congress didn't have to legislate it or anything!
At the end of the day, I really don't see this as something the Democrats are likely to do at all, even though there's clearly a segment of the base agitating for it.
It seems so. If I'm a single issue voter on anything it's technology issues. I like the fact that Lessig supports Obama. This article is full of "Obama could do this," but not much else.
Now only if we could get the candidates to commit to copyright reform...
Of course the newscycle has started to become dominated by the blogs and Internet rather than the big networks so even cries about the mainstream media bias (which is much more expansive than broadcast media but includes many heavy weights not covered by the FCC like newspapers, magazines and cable) are starting to look, well pretty dated.
I wouldn't support imposing the Fairness Doctrine but even if it was I'd be surprised if its application resulted in any noticable change in the media.
Who has a better record on civil liberties? McCain or Obama?
QED.
That's nice but I think the concern is whether President Obama would support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. As FantasiaWHT pointed out, presidential candidate Obama has demonstrated that he has no qualms about using the threat of legal action to try to intimidate some of his critics so I’m guessing the answer is probably “you betcha.”
How can that be fair? More people freely choose to listen to Limbaugh than Prager. That's not fair."
You guys misunderstand the point of my comments. I am not complaining about this saturation, as I believe that the approach of these commentators does not actually influence anyone who is not already a follower. Dennis' recent comments about equality being an anti-American/European value is priceless. Why would one want him off the air?
Re Couric, Gibson, et al, do you contend that they are somehow comparable to the talk radio guys? If so, how?
Hah! Sarcastro, that's a good one.
Oh, wait . . . .
So, because Obama hasn't foresworn these "other broadcast regulations," we can assume that he will implement them? To my knowledge Obama has not foresworn the Holocaust either; should we expect that, too?
What the heck are you guys talking about?! Do you honestly think an Obama administration is more likely to wield the FCC censorship stick than a McCain administration intent on appeasing/repaying its reluctant Focus on the Family supporters?
This well illustrates the difference between a liberal and a leftist. Unfortunately, it appears we are about to elect a leftist to the highest office in the land.
Yeah. They're using public airwaves to disseminate biased political opinions. No thinking person would claim that their bias is as pronounced as the talk radio people--the latter's is declared, after all--but I don't think anybody serious (that means you, Alterman) would say they're playing it down the middle, either. The Obama championing joke that's been their coverage this election, first in the primary and then, now, illustrates it pretty clearly. So if we're going to make things Fair, let's make it Fair.
It doesn't look that way to me, but in order to settle the argument, can we agree to look back in four years and use the Fairness Doctrine as a litmus test?
I disagree. Obama is too good of a campaigner to admit supporting the fairness doctrine, but as a politician he has seemed quite inept, or at best ineffective. What in his political life has led you to believe that he has the cajones to stand up to the entrenched leadership of his party?
The one exception is NPR, which totally is in the tank for journalistic integrity!
I don't think it's fair to say that Obama gets a pass no matter what else he does so long as he doesn't reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, but I do agree that every person who professes to be a libertarian or to care about the First Amendment should agree now to vote against President Obama in four years if the Fairness Doctrine has been reimposed in that time. Deal?
As I said in a separate post, I'm not worried about the Fairness Doctrine because I think even if were reinstituted it would be struck down by the court in this age of cable television and the internet.
That said, Sarcastro's quote above and other statements like it seem badly misplaced. Pelosi has stated her support for the Fairness Doctrine, as have other key Democrats in Congress. Even if Obama would not impose the Fairness Doctrine in a hypothetical world where he was a dictator, what's the basis to believe he wouldn't logroll the issue to get Congressional Dems on his side for legislation he feels strongly about but which they're ambivalent about? (And of course, even if he said "Read my lips, no new Fairness Doctrine," that wouldn't dictate what he actually did in the future)
Indeed, if Obama thinks (like I do) that the Fairness Doctrine is doomed in the Courts, then this would be a particularly easy issue to let Congressional Dems have their way.
Yet more fantasy and speculation. The article makes it very clear that "they" doesn't refer to Obama or his campaign.
Come on people.
So you're condoning politicians who violate their oath to uphold the constitution?
I think we should dwell on this more, as the undecided voters who come to this blog might be swayed by speculation about whether Obama will do what he says when he is elected or do something else entirely.
The way I see it, it all depends on how close Obama is to Stalin/Hitler. I think we should discuss that issue more.
Do you think it is good that if someone trashes you on public airwaves, that you don't really get a shot at giving your side to the same audience without spending a big bunch of $$$? Do you think there are any ethics that apply in this situation?
All of this "conservative vs. liberal" bullshit aside, I'm asking in the intellectual, ethical, and public good senses.
If people aren't exposed to multiple points of view, it's because they choose not to be. The liberal on our panel tried to make the same sort of argument, and it's futile, because (a) the person belonging to a group not favored by a certain genre of media can turn to other (also free) types of media, and (b) that person can also find the rare opposite side in that same media genre and listen to that. There ARE liberal talk shows out there after all.
The argument also assumes that liberals don't listen to conservative talk radio, which is patently false. Some people go to talk radio TO get the opposite point of view from their own.
Perhaps what some see as "a savvy political move" is really just an honest statement of a political position. Again, we essentially have accusations based on paranoia rather than facts.
The article itself says the fairness doctrine is dead, and then goes on to discuss some other issues, including criticism of current FCC policies.
Sarcastro -- you're completely right! This issue is irrelevant because some anonymous lawyer on the internet said he thinks the Fairness Doctrine will not survive a constitutional challenge. What makes anonymous me such a good lawyer is my unerring ability to predict court decisions with 100% accuracy. Clearly no one could be concerned about the courts upholding the Fairness Doctrine, especially when a previous Supreme Court decision did in fact uphold it!
Moreover, you're clearly correct that voters shouldn't be concerned with what politicians will do when they're elected. Instead, we should focus solely on the amount of times they say the words "hope" and "change."
Who thinks that the McCain-Palin campaign unambiguously agrees with this?
That is why the government really needs to force people to take in media they disagree with.
The Fairness Doctrine really doesn't accomplish this, though. People might turn off the radio for the part they don't like and remain ignorant.
Thus, the only real way to accomplish this is some kind of compulsory political education system wherein the government figures out your political position and then sends you to a
campschool of the opposing point of view.No cheating, government! We need two separate, but equal schools! I’m trusting you on this!
I see no problems with implementation or ethics with this plan at all!
Don't forget McCain's crusade as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee to regulate video game and movie advertising in the wake of Columbine.
Well, we can look at the Obama campaign's recent acts, given that Obama has pointed out his campaigning ability as executive experience. Under that metric, we've seen :
Lawsuits threatened against broadcasters who ran ads negative toward Obama, including loss of broadcasting license, and even subtle criminal violation threats.
Obama Campaign official e-mails encouraging individuals to call in, and presumably overload, a radio show to prevent an interview from occurring. The e-mail, in particular, said
"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves."
The Obama campaign has cut off further interviews to an entire network for a single woman asking combative questions, for at best the remainder of the election.
These are well within the Obama campaign and Senator Obama's rights; stomping off in a hussy should any hard questions be asked, shouting over the voices of dissenters so they can not be heard, and initiating frivolous lawsuits are what make us American, after all. But it really doesn't look good if you want to see how a Presidential Candidate is going to interact with the press.
Guess what? Neither President Obama, nor Communist Nancy Pelosi, or Evil Reid are going to reimpose the fairness doctrine.
They're not even going to try. Assuming some random Congressmen tries, it won't even get out of committee.
I hate to break this to you, but no one really cares -- it's moot in this day and age.
Someone brought up Daily Kos -- they mock the idea of bringing back fairness doctrine on Daily Kos, because what's the point? You've got a zillion news channels and an entire internet, free to get whatever you want.
Hell, most of Daily Kos thinks the media would work better if they just started wearing their partisan biases on their sleeve like they do in England.
Worries about the fairness doctrine are right up there with worries that UN black helicopters are going to take your guns.
He may not be able to predict what the Supreme Court will do, bt he can predict what Obama thinks the Supreme Court will do and how he will act based on this thought.
People's concerns about Presidential candidate's future policies means it's our duty to speculate based on little or no information!
Only through rampant accusation and fear mongering can the truth be found!
"As I said in a separate post, I'm not worried about the Fairness Doctrine because I think even if were reinstituted it would be struck down by the court in this age of cable television and the internet."
This was the line on McCain-Feingold, and that Bush was against it as well. And yet its law.
I disagree! Since it's impossible to know what presidential candidates will do, we should never speculate on their policies. That's especially true when other leading members of their party like the Speaker of the House of Representatives is on record supporting a particular policy, since that's little or no information. Instead (and I hate to repeat myself), we should focus on the "hope" and "changeyness" instead of the actual policies that might be enacted by a particular President in concert with a particular Congress. Where the amount of hope and change speak is equal, we must flip coins since we can never know what policies they'll pass, since that's impermissible speculation!
I understand what you are saying. However, I'm talking about something slightly different. Don't you think that in some sense that the "spirit" of the fairness doctrine falls under the heading of "Libertarian Paternalism" by getting opposing points of view in front of people? After all, they're free to disagree with them as the wish, yes? Is getting opposing points of view in front of people should an improvement to the public good?
Also, you kind-of ignored my second question about the ethics of a situation where someone getting trashed on public airwaves might not have the resources to respond...
Again, please leave "conservative vs. liberal" at the door for a minute.
I think it is important to focus on issues where there is little evidence about what sorts of decisions a candidate will make. After all, everyone knows Obama's health plan, tax plan and foreign policy will be, right? I mean he talks about those issues all the time! All one can really do with that is concentrate on a small ambiguity and say it's evidence Obama's a Marxist and McCain's some kind of tax-cutting Socialist. Bor-ing!
Thus, we must turn to issues with one, maybe two ambiguous statements and no concrete actions have been taken. That leaves us open to let our creativity and paranoia blossom as they were meant to do on the internet!
My sentiments exactly. I have argued that we should leave TV and radio alone, since they are ultimately dying methods of delivering information. Debating the Fairness Doctrine just gives right-wing talk radio something more to rail against (like Bre'r Rabbit, they probably would love to see a fight about the FD for their ratings.) What the left should do is deprive talk radio of its oxygen.
The liberal/left is much better organized in cyberspace, where websites, like DK, Talking Points Memo and Huffington Post (which has had some great original reporting, such as Obama's "bitter" remarks), have really taken over. From Politico:
Let the right-wing talking heads keep blathering. New media (Internet, satellite, cable) is where it is at.
In order to reach the noble goal of paranoia we should focus on what candidates have not forsworn. Reparation camps for whitey!
Someone missed the hard hitting countertop analysis by Michelle Malin. Onward citizen journalists!
He told the country he would change NAFTA, then sent his guy to tell the Canadians he really wouldn't.
Thankfully, we're in agreement again! Particularly in that we agree we can measure "how accurate such speculation is" before someone is elected. I know predictions about Obama's tax plans is accurate since politicians always do what they say they will do, and Congress also agrees to the President'splans without any changes, and that speculation about the Fairness Doctrine is inaccurate for the same reason. Moreover, we all know once getting into office politicians only focus on the things they talked about extensively on the campaign and ignore everything else. And we also know that politicians are never influenced by other powerful politicians within their own party!
I fearlessly predict that the FCC in an Obama administration will suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press in many dreadful ways.
Because they’re doing it now under the Bush administration.
There is only one certain way to protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press from the FCC. Kill them all.
Not only did you give me a great time arguing on the internets, but you've convinced me!
Discussing the fairness doctrine is as useful as discussing any other policy concern. Campaign promises are useful as a predictor of ideals, but not of policies. The Fairness Doctrine is an important issue, and therefore arguing over what will happen is at least somewhat useful. Even if our predictive power is low, it is not zero.
That being said, I still am not terrible confident that Obama will try to bring it about.
Though if Congress passes it, he is less likely than McCain to veto it.
But I only hear a few Dems talking about it, about the same as talk about impeachment or the draft. Granted, one of them is Pelosi, but I still don't hear much more than rumbling.]
On the Fairness Doctrine, as I said above I personally don't think it's a big issue because I think it would be struck down by the courts. Though as David Warner points out, I could be entirely wrong on that.
As far as whether it actually will be passed, it's always hard to know how much of what politicians do is just talk and what is serious. I agree with you that Obama probably won't try to bring it about, but Pelosi and other Dems have said they're in favor of it. I do think that Pelosi and other might try to re-impose the doctrine as a kind of "red meat" (or is that "blue meat"?) to their base, and that Obama would have a much harder time vetoing it than McCain. For that reason, I think the Fairness Doctrine coming back is higher under Obama than McCain, even if it's probably pretty low under both.
Finally, of course the Fairness Doctrine is only one issue among the many, many that are out there among the parties, and any individual may or will decide that other issues or combinations of issues are more important. That said, I think/hope we agree it's at least something worth talking about.
The Dems will push the FD or something like it. They'll have to, of course, come up with another Orwellian name for it first.
However, note that CAP - a group linked to BHO - supports changing station ownership rules. So, the FD might come back disguised as that.
But just because Pelosi wants it doesn't make it so. And, not that this is determinative either, has Reid said he wants it too?
And there is also public opinion to think about. I think most opinion leaders nowadays think that the fairness doctrine is a bad idea, though it does seem good at first glance (see GTT). In fact, a public debate about it could be a great thing, assuming it goes down in the end.
As for the sarcasm, I highly recommend it. It's insulated me from the anger of most political arguing (except I still had to stay away from early Palin threads). It's made this blog the highlight of my day!]
OMG! Obama is supported by a liberal group! I think he's adopted everything they support.
Also: Orwell.
I win! Nothing stops the Orwell!
Your problem is apparently that everyone everywhere (except Fox and townhall.com) is biased against McCain.
Your solution is that McCain should invite more people to his barbeques.
Sarcastro:
Did you influence the Cuban American Foundation's endorsement of Obama?
That said, according to this link, Durbin and Feinstein both supported it publicly in 2007. So there are powerful Democrats in both chambers of Congress who at least outwardly support it. And I think it's fair to say there's a high likelihood that conservative talk radio and news programs will be putting in an effort to strongly criticize Obama and the Democratic Congress, which may encourage those parties to try to bring back the Doctrine.
On the public debate front, I agree that it could spur a discussion reminding people of why we have the First Amendment, but making sure it goes down in the end will be much easier with McCain than Obama in the White House. (And again, to be clear, I'm in no way suggesting this is the only issue and any one should single vote on the Fairness Doctrine; it's just one issue to be weighed in the scale among many)
1. The FD is not some kind of delusional invention on the part of paranoid conservatives. It REALLY EXISTED for a lot of years, and not so long ago.
2. A number of prominent Dems are on record as supporting the FD, including Speaker Pelosi.
3. The Dems are expected to control the WH and both houses of Congress.
4. In the present media environment, the most noticeable effect of reimposing the FD would be to force the cancellation of radio talk shows, the most successful of which are overwhelmingly conservative. Cable and internet programming would be unaffected. Thus, the Dems would have a strong strategic incentive to reimpose the FD. In predicting they won't do so, you're basically asking conservatives to TRUST Obama, Pelosi and the Democratic Congress not to take a step, clearly within their reach, to cripple a major medium of conservative communication.
5. Although reimposition of the FD may seem preposterous even to a majority of Dems, that doesn't mean it won't be attempted. I remember when the idea that gay marriage would be legalized seemed preposterous; that was only a few years ago. Or, to take another example, it seemed preposterous to me that anyone would seriously object to the idea of voters being required to present photo ID in order to cast a ballot; yet it took a recent USSC decision to usher in that common-sense reform. In an America where the Kelo decision can happen, you'll have a hard time convincing me that an idea as bad as the FD could never make a comeback. We've seen nuttier things happen.
To be clear: I'm not predicting the Dems will bring back the FD. I just don't trust them not to. Obama in particular has flipped on a number of issues (e.g., opting out of public financing), and has a history of using hardball tactics for political gain (e.g., getting opponents kicked off the ballot). He's already earned my skepticism. Perhaps ascending to the seat of power will enlighten him and enhance his civic-mindedness. We'll see.
1. As Sarcastro pointed out, a handful of Democrats supporting the Fairness Doctrine does not amount to a stealth campaign to bring it about.
2. For 1st Amendment supporters, the Fairness Doctrine is hardly all that important. It has NOTHING to do with Fox News (Fox is a cable channel, not broadcast). The only people impacted are people who get broadcast licenses. These are not treated as personal property but as public goods that are given away to broadcasters because they are supposedly 'serving the public' Suppose techonology was such that only two or three TV and radio stations were possible. Something like the Fairness Doctrine would probably be a good idea. What has changed is that there are numerous competitors to broadcast media, inside the world of broadcast there are more 'channels' than before and technology holds out the hope for even more broadcast capacity (wi-fi, cell phones and so on).
If you're going to judge the candidates from a 1st Amendment POV you should consider that John McCain is known for his campaign finance reform and has made it clear that is one area he will not reconsider his stances relative to his right-wing base. Obama has, perhaps unintentionally, reset the entire campaign finance debate by demonstrating it is possible to build a hugely effective campaign off of numerous small donars. The traditional argument for campaign finance reform, that big donars will corrupt campaigns, has been turned on its head. McCain, likewise, is stuck in what sounds like a version of 'speech socialism' arguing that there needs to be some type of cap on campaign spending. Of course a cap would impact not just the broadcast media that the fairness doctrine does but also all types of media spending.
So on the fairness doctrine you have Obama with the right words but as of yet we don't know what his actions will be should the issue come up.
On the larger issue of campaign finance you have McCain with the wrong words and actions.
I report, you decide.
RPT - Didn't you know? I blame the schools. Equality of legal treatment (equality of persons before the law) was an American value. Equality of income, basketball scores, or brains never was (save among the squishy Left).
Leftie Kurt Vonnegut wrote the best fictional attack on mandatory equality back in 1961: Harrison Bergeron.
In any case, Right Wing Hate Radio (RWHR) would migrate to netcasting. With everyone soon carrying mobile comm devices with full time high speed networking, access would be as widespread as transistor radio.
Cable wouldn't be affected so Fox would still be there.
Other regs would be more problematic. Lefties have proposed putting political officers on the boards and in the management of licensees. These "community representatives" could force programing changes.
Major problem for the regulators is that they could seize the existing outlets only to find those outlets fading away either because of straight economics or customer abandonment in favor of uncontrolled media.
I grew up with very early RWHR station KTRG in Honolulu during the '60s. Owner, management, talent, and guests were prosecuted for census resistance in 1970 by the US Attorney. The 9th Circuit upheld a rare "selective prosecution" defense to the action. License challenges for fairness and personal attack forced its closure in 1972.
Mercifully, with all of the ways of communicating in the modern era, such control is no longer possible.
The existence of many new communications media, to me, is an argument FOR the fairness doctrine--individuals have plenty of ways to communicate their message, so no one needs to monopolize the public airwaves.
That said, I have zero expectation that we'll get another fairness doctrine, and I don't think it's the most important issue facing the nation, so it didn't play a role in my vote.
Your problem is apparently that everyone everywhere (except Fox and townhall.com) is biased against McCain.
Your solution is that McCain should invite more people to his barbeques.
I do not know what the barbeque reference means. I can say I don't think everyone except Fox and Townhall is biased against McCain. Just (pretty much) everyone in the media. Even most Obama supporters confess as much.
Sweet! It's not me that's biased, it's the rest of the world!
In practice, we already know that the effect of the FD is to drive political/current events talk shows off the air completely, because it forces for-profit stations to air programming their audiences don't necessarily want to hear.
Those of you who are skeptical that an Obama administration would permit the reimposition of the FD need only read some of the comments on this board. Clearly, a lot of people think, for one reason or another, that it would be no big deal to bring it back. They may not especially want the FD, but they are clearly not motivated to stand up against it. A determined Dem leadership and president could easily push this through, invoking exactly the kind of "ho-hum" rationalizations that are being used on this board: "These are public airwaves"; "Limbaugh can do his show on the internet"; "This won't even affect Fox News"; "All they have to do is give equal time." They'll make it sound as innocuous as possible and all the Dems will fall directly into line.
But again, for me, this isn't a priority issue.
Who is monopolizing the airwaves? How are they doing it? I get about 20 AM stations and 20 FM stations. I detect no monopoly. Where does such a monopoly exist? How is it enforced? Does anyone live in an area where there is a monopoly over radio stations?
It is obvious to even the most casual observer that this move is directed at the only segment of the broadcast and print media not completely dominated by liberals.
Silencing the only remaining conservative forum is what Obama and Pelosi desperately want to do. They can not abide any point of view contrary to their own, little dictator-wannabes that they are.
If it walks on webbed feet, has feathers and quacks, it's government censorship of free speech by a fancy new name. Let's trust that the SCOTUS will see clearly what this proposal is: a direct attack on the 1st Amendment and freedom of expression by requiring a gang of leftist naysayers disputing everything a non-Kool Ade drinking citizen dares to say. To mix metaphors, a rose by any other name smells the same.
That's what the country will get if it elects the complete empty suit who failed upward through affirmative action, and only has friends and acquaintances who are coming from the far, Socialist left, or who are or outright Communists intent on destroying the First Amendment... first.
Um, yeah, you may actually want to know what Prager was talking about, unlike Olbermann. Prager was making the point that equality of outcome is a Eurpoean/leftist value, while equality of opportunity is an American one.
Try actually listening to Prager, since you live in LA.