|
|
||
Fairness versus disclosure: Should we rate the media honestly on their political slant? Date published: 2/4/2007
SHOULD THE Washington Perhaps it's time for viewers and readers to know just what they're getting. Perhaps it's time for a caveat-oriented Disclosure Doctrine to supplant the return of the politically motivated Fairness Doctrine. When fairness was fairThe Museum of Broadcast Communications explains the Fairness Doctrine as valid for the 1940s' frontier days of broadcast journalism. Designed to make sure that newly licensed broadcasters (of which there were few) did not use their stations simply as advocates for a singular perspective, the doctrine mandated equal time on controversial topics; it became part of Federal Communications Commission regulations. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration repealed the doctrine as unnecessary for a now well-established free-market broadcast industry. Reagan's logic seems even more valid today--with countless information sources now available in print, together with a slew of satellite, cable, and broadcast outlets, and innumerable information sources via the Internet, the public has myriad information options. Paul M. Weyrich, the chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, agrees that subjects can be discussed without the dated logic of the Fairness Doctrine. "Liberals have tried [and failed] to imitate what conservatives have done with radio," he wrote. Having failed using a business model, conservatives argue, liberals in Congress are now attempting to utilize government control of the media by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine--forcing radio stations to balance popular programs like Rush Limbaugh's with an equal number of hours of opposite perspectives, whether listeners want that or not. Conservatives counter that popular conservative talk radio provides balance already, since liberal perspectives (they say) dominate newspapers and network news. The crux of the issue, then: anticipation that the doctrine's return would effectively shut down conservative talk radio, which Weyrich calls "our answer to The New York Times and The Washington Post." Distortion, ink?While newspapers like the Times and the Post clearly have an overall slant, their op-ed pages are generally not the problem. They are what they are, and most papers, including this one, run columns with opposing viewpoints and feature nationally
Date published: 2/4/2007
The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.
Over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.
Radio and TV broadcasters, though, use these airwaves free of charge - even though they make enormous profits from them. In return for this favor, by law, broadcasters are supposed to serve the “public interest.”
One single corporation, Clear Channel, owns more than 1,200 radio stations in the country, reaching over one-third of the U.S. population.
And ten companies control two-thirds of radio stations nationwide.
Radio is the medium closest to the people.
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
Corporations - Media or otherwise - have no First Amendment rights, the airwaves belong to the public, which licenses them to broadcasters, and the public needs and deserves a diversity of opinions on its airwaves.
Radio and television, however, use a precious resource that belongs to all of us: the airwaves. There is only so much æther to go around, and the broadcasters lease the spectrum from us, the American people. Because they are using a scarce resource, they have to abide by the terms of the lease; those terms are administered by the FCC. One of those terms is that you can't use our national resources to support one political candidate without giving others equal time.
Similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum.
Ian Gallagher
New Jersey
|
|
||||||||||||||
