In all Fairness, seriously.

I’m going to make an argument here. I was prompted to start this little rant; yes it will be a bit of a rant, by recent “news” surrounding one Rush Limbaugh. Let me first say, I hate this man. I think he is a stain on the media and on any political group he affiliates himself with. I’m not going to present an argument for banning him (as much as I’d love something like that), nor am I going to present any arguments for limiting his brand of “speech.” My argument will be for the establishment of balance, more specifically, the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (in some form).

First a little background fully available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation

So here’s my argument, with all the problems, most I don’t have answers for.

A Fairness Standard should be applied by the FCC for any broadcast not classified as “entertainment” or “bona fide news” broadcasts, OR more specifically it should apply to only “political commentary” programming.

I believe this standard should have three parts. The first being that any “political commentary” be preceded by a disclaimer stating the information presented may or may not be factual and any and all opinions belong to the speaker who may or may not have any expertise or education in the subject under discussion. The second being that all commentary should have an appropriate opposing response as would be provided in a standard debate. The third being that any viewpoint, regardless of its extreme nature, may not be suppressed or censored in any way except in the case of profanity or hate-speech.

That being said let me lay out a few things. First, I am not a fan of censorship, in any form. I believe passionately in the 1st amendment, and the free press. Second, I believe this would be in the best interests of the public in general. Third, I believe the rights of the general public trumps the rights of the broadcaster/holder of the FCC license, due to the potential damage abuse of that license can produce.

I believe this should happen for the following reasons. Current “political commentary” programming is becoming more akin to propaganda. The commentary is frequently unsupported by factual information, but it is presented as such, without disclaimer. If I have to see a disclaimer that the views and opinions expressed are solely those of the speaker before watching a DVD why should I not see or hear these before this type of programming? This slant, presented as “news”, sometimes even under the mask of editorial opinion, is dangerous when it is unbalanced. There are people that ONLY watch fox news, or MSNBC, and those people get two very different viewpoints. If you have never seen these two broadcasters present the same story, it’s ridiculous how slanted the “facts” can be presented. Now if you want to “slant” a news broadcast, the free press allows for that, it may be unethical, but that’s the risk that comes with freedom of the press.

Anyone can become a political commentator. It takes no education, no background in politics, and no expertise in anything. It’s like becoming a gym teacher in the broadcast world. While I think one should be qualified for a position like this, it’s not something that can be regulated or required. Again this is an ethical decision by the broadcaster. Since this hiring a qualified political commentator requires making a good ethical decision, qualified individuals rarely become political commentators. Therefore, with commentators who have no political background, or education, they will almost always be default speak to one side of any given issue, and that will be the side they are most comfortable with. If they were to have an opposing commentator, viewers/listeners, would be more likely to form opinions of their own rather than adopt the opinions of the personality they are listening to.

I also believe that this type of measure would not be necessary if all broadcasters made responsible ethical choices in the content provided to the general public. It is very easy these days to find all viewpoints from multiple media sources, but it takes work. The effort required to find and watch or listen to three or four broadcasts to get two sides to any story is beyond the capability of the average American. This is why I believe it’s important for EVERY broadcast to provide fair and factual information. I think this would be in the best interests of the public, and could very well help us on our way to becoming a utopian society.

The problems with this are:

Would this constitute an infringement of 1st amendments rights and therefore be unconstitutional? Short answer is no.

Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared: A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio 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.

What would prevent a broadcaster from reclassifying political commentators as news broadcasters? As far as I know, nothing. It is however pretty easy to tell the difference, and hard to disguise.

Is it possible this would just cause some broadcasts to de-evolve into a two person shouting match? It’s possible, if idiots are running the broadcast.

Would this actually be enforceable? I don’t know.

Who would be the judge of what is an appropriate response to any given viewpoint? Don’t know, but I think it would probably work in a similar way to how the FCC polices profanity. It’s usually reported back to them by a private citizen.

Wouldn’t this be a bit too “big brother”? I don’t think so, I think it’s less about controlling content, and more setting standard’s of content. If they can say you can’t use profanity or display nudity, they should be able to say, you have to let people hear more than one opinion.

Why should anyone care, can’t you just change the channel? Yes, you can opt not to listen or watch, but finding something else to watch is becoming hard. CNN had to start a program called “no bias, no bull” to try to fill this gap in the market.

I think the bottom line in my argument is that broadcasters are not being responsible, and the public has suffered. They have abused the naive trust their audience places in them to provide factual information. When people that should be responsible are not, regulation of some form is usually needed. It’s the same reason we have ethics laws and rules for our elected officials. Or why private businesses have dress code, and policies for computer use. It’s why doors have locks, and we have security guards.