The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
<< We Have to Sacrafice the Free Market to Save It! More Media Crisis >>
I Won't Make Jay Renounce the Democratic Party, But...

Yet another Democratic member of Congress is calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine:

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, said Monday she will work to restore the Fairness Doctrine and have it apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.

"I'll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it," Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.

The Fairness Doctrine required TV and radio stations to balance opposing points of view. It meant that those who disagreed with the political slant of a commentator were entitled to free air time to give contrasting points of view, usually in the same time slot as the original broadcast.
The doctrine was repealed by the Reagan administration's Federal Communications Commission in 1987, and a year later, Rush Limbaugh's show went national, ushering in a new form of AM radio. 
...
Eshoo said she would recommend the doctrine be applied not only to radio and TV broadcasts, but also to cable and satellite services.

"It should and will affect everyone," she said.

So now it's not just about bringing fairness to the supposed "public airwaves", but to the private ones as well.  Jay Bullock as you might recall, blogged not all that long ago about how Republicans are in a panic over this for no good reason.  When some bloggers, including myself, mentioned how Chuck Schumer talked about bringing it back, Jay said:

Gravatar Nick, if Chuck Schumer introduces a fairness doctrine bill, I will renounce the party and move to Mexico. FOX News bullied him into his comments, and he has--how to put it delicately--zero pull with the Obama administration even if he wanted to change the law.

In all fairness to Jay, Chuck still hasn't introduced the bill, and there is no evidence that Congresswoman Eshoo has any more pull with the Obama administration than Schumer does, so I won't make him renounce his party (but he's free to do so anyway if he'd like).  But let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of people in Washington who would like to see this happen in one form or another, or wouldn't like to use the threat of the fairness doctrine to bully broadcast media into other concessions.

# Posted at 1:43 PM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 2 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Stupid Laws

Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:13:28 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Of course not, Nick. That's not news. Threats are what Washington lives on.

Reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine will never happen, though.
Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:09:31 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
There needs to be better and renewed discussion about what can fairly be asked in return for exclusive use of the public airwaves and rights-of-way. The FCC has done a rotten job over the last few decades. It's a slow-moving dinosaur. It protects the turf of the established media. It ignores technological innovation.

If I want to use a fraction of the TV-band airwaves, what price and conditions are fair to ask? Is it unreasonable for government to ask to allocate a fraction in space (a channel) or time (as in the old Fairness Doctrine) to a public good, like education, government information, or a public access forum? If it's good that Fox News has free speech rights, isn't it also a good that there's a public square where anyone can speak even if they don't have Murdock's wealth?

Changing technology from off-air to cable shifts the medium but not the use of public space. What's a legit and fair price for the public to ask in return for letting cable and telephone companies use the rights-of-way in our cities for their wires, fiber and pedestals?

Which level of government should set the price or receive the funds? Why couldn't some channels be auctioned under several different conditions? Would an unrestricted channel fetch a higher price than one with Fairness Doctrine conditions? Why are some restrictions like those against profanity and nudity acceptable to many, but suggestions that a station strive to find some time-based balance in political speech are anathema to the same folks?
Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2010 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar