Welcome to the world of tomorrow ladies, gentlemen, and ambiguous newcomers. We currently live in a bright, wonderful, and altogether frantic world of Internet newspapers, blog-o-sphere rants, and a multitude of almost infinite TV channels with an even more diverse set of hosts, topics, and biases. This wouldn’t be America if we didn’t have the luxury of choosing either Fox News’ Republican finger-pointers with their Murdoch-Bible and concealed weapons permits, or NBC’s Demo-vangelists who smile condescendingly as they report with feigned astonishment the antics of “idiotic/misguided” citizens who disagree with their socialistic ideals.
So much information (or mis-information, depending on which way your wind blows), so little time; how can one be expected to sift through this array of opinions and come to the “right” (or left; PUN!!) conclusion? But try we must, as new waves of little citizens keep popping out and becoming more curious as to what the hell is making their world turn, and demanding from us the knowledge that will keep them up to date on world affairs between commercials. We look to our peers, our families, even our bumper stickers for advice on where to look, when to look, and when to cover our eyes in case we inadvertently view something that goes against our preconceived notions.
But what if someone were to relieve us of this responsibility? What if, somehow, a magical man behind a curtain in OZ swept away the pressure of having to actually choose which person or persons we get our information from? Instead of flicking through radio channels with one hand as we shave our face or apply our lipstick with the other on our race to work, what if we had every single media outlet report both sides of every single story? No more bothering with two different news sources, no more considering both sides of a political spectrum; we could just listen to one person and they’d say the exact same thing as the next channel we switch to.
This is the reality we may be facing as we head towards a new era of media-control with the possible reintroduction of the 1949 ‘Fairness Doctrine’. This policy was devised to ensure that, in a time of limited news sources in both television and radio, broadcasters would have to present both sides of a controversial issue so as to be balanced and fair. It came after the ever-popular FCC (which stands for Federal Commission of Communications, not Frightening Censorship Committee as I had once assumed) decided that broadcast station licencees were "public trustees", meaning their asses belonged to us, and therefore they were obliged to cram into our heads as much information from all spectrums of an issue as was humanly possible back in the 50's. Instead of the mindless drivvle we get on some channels today (The Mens Room, really? Just call it "Pissing Against a Wall with Cletus", why dont you), radio and television had an obligation to their communities to provide us with everything we needed to know to make our own decisions on whatever it was they had decided we had to consider. Whether we wanted to know whatever it was they wanted to tell us in the first place, they had the now FCC-sanctioned responsibility to give us both sides of it.
The doctrine came about during a time when people with a gift of the gab were clamouring for the chance to blah-blah-blah their way onto the airwaves, and the powers that be decided they didnt want anyone with an ufair amount of frequency to bogart their own particular viewpoint or agenda. So, the FCC/Radio Gestapo was to enforce this ideal that anyone renewing their licence had to provide evidence of their efforts to provide issues of concern to their community. This process was later known as the "Ascertainment of Community Needs", another way of saying that the station management was supposed to give us the low down on the down and dirty in the real world. A noble idea, and one that has gone to great lengths to give a nation of purposefully uninformed listeners the tools they need to take apart the machine that gives them freedom on a daily basis.
The Fairness Doctrine was also part in parcel connected to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which held that any broadcast featuring one particular political candidate for a position had to provide ample time to anyone vying for that same position, no matter their party affiliation. All these things together might smell somewhat like socialism, but back then the whiff was overpowered by the stench of ignorance that may have wafted over the populace if the radio waves didn't stand up to the task of producing the fine aroma of information. The FCC was even taken to the Supreme Court in 1969 after Red Lion Broadcasting Inc. was accused of not living up to the Fairness Doctrines' aspirations when the courts determined that an appeal for balanced airtime from someone who was presumed to be attacked on air was denied by Red Lion. However, it should be noted that The Fairness Doctrine was only FCC policy, whereas Section 315 was federal law.
Over the years a lot changed. The argument that initiated the doctrine -the fact that there were only a few radio frequencies and therefore possible chance of agenda-bogarting- was becoming a moot point due to the influx of new cable TV channels and even more radio accessibility. Also, the once thought strict FCC was starting to loosen its stranglehold on the genitalia of a nations media and was starting to realise the possible negative drawbacks of a slightly oppressive doctrine that forced reporters and broadcasters to think twice about anything controversial that might accidentally pop into/out of their heads. In 1985, an ironically titled Fairness Report asserted that not only was the doctrine possibly unnecassary, it wasnt achieving its intended goal and might even be violating the First Ammendment. This obviously would have a detrimental effect on the hordes of media soldiers who use the Amendment as both shield and weapon, and sometimes even a safety blanket. After the courts declared the doctrine was not mandated by congress, it was dissolved by the FCC in 1987. Congress had tried to put it into law so that the FCC would be forced to uphold the doctrine, but this was the wild, wacky, and deregulatory 80's, and Ronald Reagan vetoed this attempted legislation. So did soon-to-be-ex President Bush Jr. when congress reared its controlling head again.
The revival of this Fairness Doctrine seems to be spearheaded by an array of people-loving Democrats, whilst the opposition varies between Liberals and Conservatives alike, joing forces to try and beat back the rearing head of speech suppression. A key note I must make is that many supporters across the party line have the exact same argument, flinging it back and forth at one another as if they had first come up with it; the News Media is dominated by the other sides supporters, and therefore this doctrine would force those ne'er do-wells to be fair and balanced as was originally intended. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans claim the same thing of each other is apparently lost on these people, and so the flinging continues like a visit to the zoo. Everyone feels as though their opposition has an unfair hold on whichever medium they care to talk about and it has to be regulated so as to give us - the ignorant masses - a much more intellectually stimulating and all together equipoise level of informaion on the issues.
The debate is heated, with arguments from both sides compelling me this way and that in a dialogued storm that is beating me from one side of the ship to the other, and Im running out of paper bags. On the one hand it would be nice to think that with the magnitude of different resources available to us through the Internet, TV, radio, papers, and even well-meaning bums with billboards on the street, we could make an educated decision for ourselves regarding important controversial topics in todays stream of current affairs. On the other hand we cannot ignore the fact that many individuals and groups of people resign themselves to whichever medium or channel is most convenient, most entertaining, or even the most sporadicaly loud and obnoxious. With these two conflicting factors, how can anyone be sure we're getting an equally confusing amount of information from both sides of a subject we barely care about in the first place?
As you may have noticed, throughout this blog I have hinted towards my preference regarding the resurfacing of the Fairness Doctrine. I have also strived to show both sides of the issues and facts, with various sources at the bottom of the page for your convenience and my safety. This was my perogative, and I don't feel comfortable with the idea that a government enforced agency could be allowed to tell me what content I should include so as to be fair and balanced (my delusions of grandeur hold no boundaries). It is the right of journalists and reporters to convey their news to us however they so choose; be it through well informed arguments and debates or through rock music infused tirades rooted in their own personal convictions. It is our right and responsibility to sift through the metaphorical and literal teetering towers of paperwork to form our own opinions on particular controversial issues. We should not have to rely on our government to organise our lives into neat little segemtns just in case we happen to sleep through the latest scathing report on how the Conservatives give free passes to big corporations, or if we accidentally switch channels once the red faced man starts yelling about the Democratic ploy to socialise America.
The Fairness Doctrine would be expensive for broadcasters to enforce, and it has been proven in the past to restrict creative thinking as well as scaring people into avoiding controversial topics. We as a nation need to stand up and recognise that if we continue to exude this air of passive ignorance, those in power will start to think we need help in discerning what it is we want to know and who from. Republicans wish to be rid of the angry Liberal media, and Democrats want to silence the angry Conservative media. If they both feel so strongly that the other has the upper hand in this field, doesnt that naturally indicate that the balance so vehemently sought by Congress over the last 60 years has finally been acheived through natural means?
You decide.
Seriously, YOU decide. Or someone else will.
SOURCES (for your perusement, so I dont look like Im talking from an unsavoury orifice)
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-defends-fairness-doctrine-as-fair-and-balanced-2008-11-04.html
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm
http://volokh.com/posts/1185579292.shtmlhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79273
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63310