Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Fairness Doctrine

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 20:34, 13 November 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Background and Context of Debate:)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 20:41, 13 November 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
Next diff →
Line 80: Line 80:
:F.C.C. concluded that the Fairness Doctrine "restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters." :F.C.C. concluded that the Fairness Doctrine "restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters."
-*'''Public can judge extreme viewpoints; Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.''' Democratic House Appropriations Committee+*'''Public can judge extreme viewpoints; Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.''' Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin - "We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now. Rush and Sean (Hannity) are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56509]
-Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin - "We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now. Rush and Sean (Hannity) are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56509]+
*'''[[Argument: Fairness Doctrine falsely presumes "fairness" can be determined| Fairness Doctrine falsely presumes "fairness" can be determined]]''' [http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993] - "Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities[...]Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it[...]The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of "fairness" itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, "fairness" apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement." *'''[[Argument: Fairness Doctrine falsely presumes "fairness" can be determined| Fairness Doctrine falsely presumes "fairness" can be determined]]''' [http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993] - "Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities[...]Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it[...]The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of "fairness" itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, "fairness" apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement."

Revision as of 20:41, 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.

Until twenty years ago broadcasters in the USA had by law to follow the federal government’s “Fairness Doctrine”. This rule, formally introduced in 1949, required radio and television stations to give “ample play to the free and fair competition of opposing views”, so that listeners and viewers received a range of opinions and individual stations were not able to promote particular viewpoints to the exclusion of all others. The doctrine was also supported by Congress in legislation, although there is argument over whether this required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate broadcasters in this way, or simply allowed them to do so if they judged it necessary. A 1969 Supreme Court case found that the Fairness Doctrine did not infringe the constitutional freedom of speech.

In 1987 the Reagan Administration’s FCC judged that the Fairness Doctrine was an outdated and unnecessary interference in the broadcasting business and it was repealed. Congress made an attempt to reimpose it but President Reagan vetoed this and the doctrine has never been brought back since.

Since the Fairness Doctrine was removed in 1987 talk radio has become much more prominent, bringing a brash and lively style of political debate into many American homes (and cars). Conservative viewpoints dominate their agenda, and hosts such as Rush Limbaugh make no attempt to hide their own political opinions or to provide a platform for views which disagree with their own. Such stations are now seen as hugely politically influential, with loyal audiences which they can mobilise to lobby, vote and protest on key issues. This was particularly seen in the collapse of immigration reform in 2007, when some Republicans as well as Democrats began to call for talk radio to be reined back, perhaps through the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

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 remains important for broadcasting, despite new media. Nick Carr. "Who killed the blogosphere?". Rough Type. 7 Nov. 2008 - "When "the wireless" was introduced to America around 1900, it set off a surge in amateur broadcasting, as hundreds of thousands of people took to the airwaves. "On every night after dinner," wrote Francis Collins in the 1912 book Wireless Man, "the entire country becomes a vast whispering gallery."
....But it didn't last. Radio soon came to be dominated by a relatively small number of media companies, with the most popular amateur operators being hired on as radio personalities....That's not to say that the amateur radio operators didn't change the mainstream media. They did. And so, too, have bloggers. Allowing readers to post comments on stories has now, thanks to blogging, become commonplace throughout online publishing. But the once popular idea that blogs would prove to be an alternative to, or even a devastating attack on, corporate media has proven naive."
  • 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

John McCain said in 2007, "had a chilling affect on free speech, and it is hard to imagine that the American people would support reinstating a policy where the federal government would be required to police the airwaves to ensure differing viewpoints are offered."[2]
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."[3]
F.C.C. concluded that the Fairness Doctrine "restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters."
  • Public can judge extreme viewpoints; Fairness Doctrine unnecessary. Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin - "We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now. Rush and Sean (Hannity) are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected."[4]
  • 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

External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.