the unfairness doctrine...the censorship doctrine..the protect the liberal doctrine.. the shutup the opposition and damn the constitution doctrine..but surely not the fairness doctrine.
On Dec 7, 9:28 am, NavyBrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ran in my local paper this morning...thought it was well written and > informative. > > WILL: Fairness Doctrine schizophrenia > By George F. Will, The Washington Post > Published December 7, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. > Text size 0 Comments Email Print > > George Will > Reactionary liberalism, the ideology of many Democrats, holds that > inconvenient rights, such as secret ballots in unionization elections, > should be repealed; that existing failures, such as GM, should be > preserved; and, with special perversity, that repealed mistakes, such > as the “Fairness Doctrine,” should be repeated. That Orwellian name > was designed to disguise the doctrine’s use as the government’s > instrument for preventing fair competition in the broadcasting of > political commentary. > > Because liberals have been even less successful in competing with > conservatives on talk radio than Detroit has been in competing with > its rivals, liberals are seeking intellectual protectionism in the > form of regulations that suppress ideological rivals. If liberals > advertise their illiberalism by reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, the > Supreme Court might revisit its 1969 ruling that the Fairness Doctrine > is constitutional. The court probably would dismay reactionary > liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has > changed vastly, pertinently and for the better. > > Until the Reagan administration extinguished it, the doctrine required > broadcasters to devote reasonabletime to fairlypresenting allsides of > any controversialissue discussed on the air. The government decided > the meaning of the italicized words. > > When government regulation of the content of broadcasts began in 1927, > the supposed justification was the scarcity of radio spectrum. > > In 1928 and 1929, when Republicans ran Washington, a New York station > owned by the Socialist Party was warned to show “due regard” for > others’ opinions, and the government blocked the Chicago Federation of > Labor’s attempted purchase of a station because all stations should > serve “the general public.” In 1939, when Democrats ran Washington, > the government conditioned renewal of one station’s license on that > station’s promise to desist from anti-FDR editorials. > > In 1969, when the Supreme Court declared the Fairness Doctrine > constitutional, it probably did not know the Kennedy administration’s > use of it, as one official described it: “Our massive strategy was to > use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing > broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them > that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to > continue.” > > Richard Nixon emulated this practice. In 1973, Supreme Court Justice > William Douglas, a liberal, said the doctrine “has no place in our > First Amendment regime” because it “enables administration after > administration to toy with TV or radio.” The court’s 1969 ruling > relied heavily on the scarcity rationale. > > But Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer, in their book A Manifesto for > Media Freedom, note that today there are about 14,000 radio stations, > twice as many as in 1969, and 18.9 million subscribers to satellite > radio, up 17 percent in 12 months, and 86 percent of households with > either cable or satellite television receive an average of 102 of the > 500 available channels. > > Because daily newspapers are much more scarce than are radio and > television choices, should there be a Fairness Doctrine for The New > York Times? The 1969 court dismissed as “speculative” the possibility > that the Fairness Doctrine would cause broadcasters to “eliminate > coverage of controversial issues.” But the proper worry was that the > doctrine would continue to stifle the flowering of controversy. A > court that considers the doctrine today will note that whereas in 1980 > there were fewer than 100 talk radio programs, today there are more > than 1,500 news or talk radio stations. > > Further subverting the “scarcity” rationale for government supervision > of broadcast content, some liberals now say: The problem is not > maldistribution of opinion and information, but too much of both. > Until recently, liberals fretted that the media were homogenizing > America into blandness. Now they say speech management by government > is needed because of a different scarcity — the public’s attention, > which supposedly is overloaded by today’s information cornucopia. > > And these worrywarts say the proliferation of radio, cable, satellite > broadcasting and Internet choices allows people to choose their own > universe of commentary, which takes us far from the good old days when > everyone had the communitarian delight of gathering around the cozy > campfire of the NBC-ABC-CBS oligopoly. Being a liberal is exhausting > when you must simultaneously argue for illiberal policies on the basis > of dangerous scarcity and menacing abundance. > > If reactionary liberals, unsatisfied with dominating the mainstream > media, academia and Hollywood, were competitive on talk radio, they > would be uninterested in reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Having so > sullied liberalism’s name that they have taken to calling themselves > progressives, liberals are now ruining the reputation of > reactionaries, which really is unfair. > > George Will’s e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
