Obama Should Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

| | Comments (1) |


Nothing sends conservative talk jocks and corporate broadcasters fleeing to the barricades faster than even the slightest hint, rumor and whisper that President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats might push for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. The jocks rushed to the barricades again when a few congressional reps recently said bringing back the Fairness Doctrine was a good thing. When top White House advisor David Axelrod coyly hinted that new FCC head Julius Genachowski might take a look at the Doctrine that set off even more panic that a return of the Fairness Doctrine was practically a done deal.

That's hardly the case. In June 2008, then Presidential candidate Obama flatly said that he did not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. And other than the stray remark from Axelrod there's no indication that Obama has changed his mind on the issue. However, he should. The Fairness Doctrine though vague, loose, and virtually unenforced during the decades it was on the books did at least give some pubic space on the airwaves to an occasional dissenting voice. The thought of that is too much to stomach for the anti- fairness Doctrine fear mongers.

Their stock retort is that the Fairness Doctrine obliterates free speech, will lead to a government takeover of the airwaves, drive corporate broadcasters into the tank, and effectively muzzle conservative views. Conservative talk jocks and the media syndicates used the same arguments to prod Reagan and Congress to dump the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. None of this was true then or true now.

The Fairness Doctrine did not require that broadcasters give equal time to liberal or moderate Democrats to counter the hot air of conservative talk jocks. The Doctrine did not tell broadcasters who should get a talk show, what the hosts could say, or who they had to have on their shows. By the time Congress shelved the Doctrine, the FCC had virtually ceased even enforcing it. The Fairness Doctrine simply served as a broad guide to insure that stations give at least some time to differing points of view, i.e. views other than those of conservative white guys, and an occasional token conservative woman or black.

If enough listeners complained that a station was too lop sided in the parade of conservatives it had popping off on a particular issue, than it had to give "reasonable opportunity" to the other side to give an opposing view. The FCC didn't tell the station how much time to give, who to give the time to, or when to give it. The tepid requirement that an offending station bring some semblance of balance to a discussion of an issue did not drive a single conservative jock from the studio mics, diminish the power and profit of the syndicates, or chill free speech. It did just the opposite. The number of conservative talk radio hosts grew bigger, their influence greater, and the profits of corporate syndicates soared. In 1999, the five largest companies operated one out of five stations and generated nearly 50 percent of industry revenue. In 2006, they controlled more than one out of three stations and took in more than sixty percent of industry revenue.

The few successful challenges to a station that hogged the air with conservative talk resulted in more not less free speech, since listeners got to hear a few differing views. No more. In the two decades since the burial of the Doctrine more than a quarter of all broadcast stations don't offer any local news or public affairs programming. An even greater number of stations simply plop in a few minutes of canned news headlines.
Conservative talk radio has been a treasure chest of riches for the broadcast syndicates, and their talk jocks weld a power over millions that emperors, kings and dictators would drool over.

A near textbook example of that is the ongoing debate over Obama's stimulus plan. There was some hint in the early days of the congressional debate over the plan that a few House Republicans might be willing to back the plan. The conservative talking heads went to work and quickly changed that. They railed against it as a fatally flawed pork barrel laden, tax and spend, power grab scheme by Obama and the Democrats. This stiffened the spines of the GOP rank and file against the plan. Now that they have flexed their broadcast muscles and whipped the GOP back in line, next up will be to browbeat, cajole, and bully any GOP dissenters on health care, the environment, and any other big ticket issue that conservative talk jocks deem an Obama and Democratic party power grab.

All this of course with not a peep of an alternative view to be heard on their talk airwaves. Obama should bring back the Fairness Doctrine and help make sure that lone voice is heard.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).

1 Comments

gregb Author Profile Page said:

If there should be a change to the Bill of Rights regarding government not preventing free speech, then it should apply to television, cable television and of course, newspapers.

I don't see any balance in the DN's editorial pages (what is left of them) or this blog.

Why is the opposition from the right on radio different than the biasness shown from newspapers/cable TV towards the left?

Besides, isn't there balance now on radio from (here in LA) from KTLK, NPR stations and Pacifica Radio? If progressives really wanted to listen to radio, then why doesn't KTLK have really strong, kick-behind ratings that would drive other broadcasters seeking that massive audience that attracts lots of sponsors?

Leave a comment

Friendly Fire comments

Due to the huge amount of spam, commenters on Friendly Fire must now register with the site and sign in to leave a comment.

Creating a Movable Type commenting account is easy: After you click on the "comments" link in a blog post (or are already in an individual blog entry), click "sign in." When you are at the Movable Type "sign-in to comment" screen, after the words "Not a member?" click "Sign up!"

You will be asked for a minimal amount of information, including an e-mail address, which we need to verify the account.

If you sign up and for some reason don't get a return e-mail confirming your new account, please e-mail Steven Rosenberg at steven.rosenberg@
dailynews.com, and he will activate your account and notify you. He can also help you with any other issues regarding signing up for or leaving comments on the blog.

Tip: To ensure that you receive the confirmation e-mail when you do sign up to comment on the blog, BEFORE you sign up, put the e-mail address online@langnews.com in your mail program's address book. That way, the message from the server to confirm your account won't get lost in your spam file.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Earl Ofari Hutchinson published on February 16, 2009 12:58 PM.

Make a Case was the previous entry in this blog.

I Demand a Recount! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Recent Comments

gregb on Obama Should Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine: If there should be a change to the Bill of Rights regarding government ...

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

Advertisement

Other blogs

Uniform Tweak in Inside USC with Scott Wolf
Rambis interests T-Wolves in Inside the Lakers
Ask Jim Fox, 2009 in Inside the Kings
Tuesday's Column: The Beckham Experiment (Chapter 3) in 100 Percent Soccer
Giving communities power over schools in The Sausage Factory