Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Fairness Doctrine

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 18:01, 13 November 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 18:05, 13 November 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
Next diff →
Line 70: Line 70:
*'''[[Argument: Fairness Doctrine opens the door to government abuse| Fairness Doctrine opens the door to government abuse]]''' [http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993] - "FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)" *'''[[Argument: Fairness Doctrine opens the door to government abuse| Fairness Doctrine opens the door to government abuse]]''' [http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993] - "FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)"
-*'''Fairness Doctrine can be used to push outrageous perspectives.''' [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTlhN2UxNjY0YmFhMmM4NGIyYjM3NjRjMGZkMmU4N2I= Barbara Comstock & Lanny J. Davis. "What’s Fair Is Fair. And fair is not the 'Fairness Doctrine.'". National Review Online. 20 Oct. 2008] - "The doctrine also resulted in lawsuits such as one in 1978 when NBC aired a show on the Holocaust and was sued by a group demanding air time to argue that the Holocaust was a myth. The network had to defend itself for over three years."+*'''[[Argument: Fairness Doctrine can benefit outrageous perspectives| Fairness Doctrine can benefit outrageous perspectives]]''' [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTlhN2UxNjY0YmFhMmM4NGIyYjM3NjRjMGZkMmU4N2I= Barbara Comstock & Lanny J. Davis. "What’s Fair Is Fair. And fair is not the 'Fairness Doctrine.'". National Review Online. 20 Oct. 2008] - "The doctrine also resulted in lawsuits such as one in 1978 when NBC aired a show on the Holocaust and was sued by a group demanding air time to argue that the Holocaust was a myth. The network had to defend itself for over three years."
*'''Fairness Doctrine falsely presumes "two sides" to every issue.''' [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTlhN2UxNjY0YmFhMmM4NGIyYjM3NjRjMGZkMmU4N2I= Barbara Comstock & Lanny J. Davis. "What’s Fair Is Fair. And fair is not the 'Fairness Doctrine.'". National Review Online. 20 Oct. 2008] - "as for the idea of hearing from “both sides” of an issue — who assumes there are just two sides? If any two or three people could disagree as to how many sides of an issue exist — as we are sure we would — can you imagine government bureaucrats deciding first, how many sides of an issue there might be and second, how much “fair and balanced” speech each and every side would be allocated?" *'''Fairness Doctrine falsely presumes "two sides" to every issue.''' [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTlhN2UxNjY0YmFhMmM4NGIyYjM3NjRjMGZkMmU4N2I= Barbara Comstock & Lanny J. Davis. "What’s Fair Is Fair. And fair is not the 'Fairness Doctrine.'". National Review Online. 20 Oct. 2008] - "as for the idea of hearing from “both sides” of an issue — who assumes there are just two sides? If any two or three people could disagree as to how many sides of an issue exist — as we are sure we would — can you imagine government bureaucrats deciding first, how many sides of an issue there might be and second, how much “fair and balanced” speech each and every side would be allocated?"

Revision as of 18:05, 13 November 2008

Should the Fairness Doctrine be Reinstated?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987.

Does the Fairness Doctrine breach the First Amendment?

Yes

  • Fairness Doctrine ensures diverse viewpoints on scarce frequencies U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969. - "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."
  • The Fairness Doctrine improves the public discourse Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) - "for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."[1]
  • Fairness Doctrine protects against odious views gaining legitimacy "TV View; Why the Fairness Doctrine is Still Important". New York Times. 15 Sept. 1985 - "Microphones and cameras are beguiling. They confer identity and status on the people who use them. Those who believe themselves to be disenfranchised can find a home[...]In a way, that's what the dispute over the television coverage of terrorism is all about. Causes, no matter how odious, may be legitimatized by media exposure. Under the Fairness Doctrine, a radio or television station that advocates an odious cause may be held accountable if it does not present a countervailing view. In the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, there is no necessity for it to do so. Indeed, in the absence of any restriction, an odious cause may not only be heard; it may control the radio or television station itself."
  • Fairness Doctrine helps advance Free Speech values. Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.”
In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: "The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion."
  • Fairness Doctrine applies only to controversial broadcastings. "TV View; Why the Fairness Doctrine is Still Important". New York Times. 15 Sept. 1985 - "broadcasters are not required to extend the reasonable opportunity for inconsequential issues; they are required to extend it only for controversial issues. It's hard to understand how this impedes broadcast journalism. In fact, the Fairness Doctrine is predicated on what seem to be the most elementary rules of journalism."

No

Governor Mario Cuomo who also opposed the Doctrine pointing out - "Of course there are limits to liberty and lines to be drawn … But curtailing First Amendment rights should be allowed only when the need is so clear and convincing as to overwhelm with reasonableness the arguments in opposition. And the case for government intrusion, for the Fairness Doctrine, is certainly less than compelling at its very best."[2]
F.C.C. concluded that the Fairness Doctrine "restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters."
  • Fairness Doctrine opens the door to government abuse Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993 - "FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)"
  • Enforcing the Fairness Doctrine would be too expensive. The Fairness Doctrine would be difficult to enforce, as it would require government officials oversee nearly every broadcasting network to ensure "fair and balanced" broadcasting. This would be expensive.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

Pro/con sources

Yes


No

References:

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.