Fairness, It's An AM Problem

As would be expected of the Toledo Blade, long a mouthpiece of liberal ideology, an editorial was published in today's paper on the Fairness Doctrine. They did this, in typical Blade fashion, after publishing a couple of news stories on the subject published in previous editions. 

While the drumbeat continues on the concept that liberal (or progressive if you choose to use a different spin on them) ideas do not seem to get a proper 'airing' on AM talk radio, the focus of the attack in this attempted revival of the doctrine now almost cleverly places the blame on the ownership of radio stations. It's not that Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity nationally, or Fred Lefebvre, Brian Wilson, and Maggie Thurber locally are successfully competing in the market of ideas with their conservative viewpoints. It is that the evil ownership of their local outlet, Clear Channel Radio, is able to stifle competition through its massive ownership of the radio airwaves. 

On the surface, such arguments might hold water, as Clear Channel (according to the 2006 numbers cited in the editorial) owns 1190 radio stations. However, when compared to other forms of media, the argument begins to leak like a sieve. Clear Channel does own an AM radio station in Toledo, but not the only one. Compare this to the Toledo Blade, the only daily newspaper in the city. Extend the comparison further in the newspaper market and we find that the overwhelming number of daily newspapers in the US Market remain in very few hands. 

In fact some 37% of the daily newspapers in US are in the hands of a very few corporate owners in 2005 (and the number continues to grow). More importantly however, 67% of the circulation of daily newspapers resides in the hands of those same corporate owners.* In the intervening years, these numbers have likely increased, as newspapers continued consolidation seeks to reduce its overall production costs. With rare exceptions, all of the corporate voices of these newspaper owners take a more liberal spin on the events of the day. *These numbers come from the reports of the media group Journalism.org. 

As for television, There are still only 4 networks on the airwaves with a voice. ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC are the only outlets for television news and opinions for those without cable or satellite channels. Even if we expand this to include cable and satellite channels however, the outlook changes little. MSNBC and the Fox News Channel, whose ownership is already represented on the airwaves, does little to expand the horizon; and even adding in CNN and CNN Headline News adds only one new voice. Here too, only Fox News leans to the right when voicing opinions on television, and while this is hardly a balanced output, little complaint is made (except of course about Fox). 

Now we know that the local talk radio station WSPD, is almost constantly at odds with the opinions expressed in the Blade, even often resorting to the use of derogatory terms when citing it. Yet the Blade, as illustrated by the above numbers, sits on the side of the majority voice in media in the US today. Their echoing of the liberal point of view expressed in other newspapers and on both network and cable television is inarguable. 

So once again, it begs the question: Why is AM radio the only form of media whose ownership and content are coming under scrutiny? As happens far too many times in Toledo, I must conclude that it is because any opinions, other than that of the owner and publisher of the Toledo Blade, must be thwarted. 

For another take on the subject of the Blade's editorial, I suggest a posting on the same subject in Thurber's Thoughts. 

It's Not Fair!

Having long fought the battle against the revival of The Fairness Doctrine I am finally throwing in the crying towel. At last convinced of the error of my ways, I now believe that the implementation of something like The Fairness Doctrine is absolutely essential to creating the level playing field so long missing from political discussion in this country.

Now for those of you unfamiliar with this principle (something highly unlikely if you have been reading this blog for any length of time), the FCC created the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Believing that the public airwaves are owned by the government, it created a policy designed to insure that media outlets, which it considered public trustees, provided fair and balanced coverage to the most important issues of the day. The Fairness Doctrine was thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1987 however, mostly because it was not properly mandated by Congress. Congress hastened to correct that fact, but their efforts were vetoed by then President Reagan.

So now you can understand how I, and anyone with a lick of common sense, has to believe in the concept of a return to fairness in media. Of course if we're going to do it, I want it for all forms of media and not just applied to the radio airwaves.

• I want conservatively slanted network news broadcasts after each of the liberal ones that I am forced to listen to each evening on either ABC, NBC, or CBS as a balance.
• I would likewise want conservative commentary on MSNBC, CNN, and CNN Headline News to balance the liberal voices who hold sway there. (and for those of you who think that the same thing should be done to Fox then, I'm with you...)
• I would like balance for the liberal bias in newspapers both in the editorial section and the news section (Let's not kid ourselves, they slant far too many stories to make their point.)
• I want NPR forced to carry an equal number of conservative voices or taxpayer dollars diverted to an NPR-like network to provide a balancing voice for it.
• I would like conservative voices in Time, Newsweek, and the rest of the so-called "news magazines"; as well as in the scientific magazines which also seem to take a radically liberal editorial perspective.
• I would like movie studios whose subliminal messages in plots preach everything from the evils of smoking to the dangers of global warming to be forced to produce an equal number of movies with a conservative message.

And I want all the pomp and circumstance for the process that Senators such a Stabenow are demanding (and not just because her husband is a major promoter and an owner of liberal talk radio networks).

• I want hearings with the owners of major networks (both broadcast and cable) and the heads of movie studios drug in to be pilloried while they try to explain the imbalance of the past, what their sorry excuse might be for years of abuse of fairness, and what their plans are to change that.
• I want publishers and editors about drug screaming and kicking before a committee to explain the liberal bias that they have long pushed on their readers while betraying the tenets of honest journalism, and I want them viciously castigated and demonized for these past sins.

Only then will we have the level playing field that liberals in both Houses of Congress have been demanding for years. Only then will the issues of the day be given the balanced coverage that they deserve. Only then will the facts and truth be properly served by all of our media outlets.

As for today, there is little doubt of how the situation stands: "It's Not Fair!" 

 

Fairness vs. Laziness

I recently had a chance to share a brief visit with my son Sean over the Christmas holiday. Now Sean and I share a number of common interests, including a love of reading and a certain computer game which will remain nameless (World of Warcraft). On the other hand, we do not share a common political view. While there is an overlap of our thinking some subjects, Sean leans a fair bit more to the left than I do. (I am sure that he would tell you that it is only that I lean a fair bit more to the right, but such is perspective.) 

As a consequence of these differences, any political discussion which occurs (and it invariably does) can be very lively. Both of us attempt to argue our point of view cogently and passionately, and while one may give ground to the other based on logical argument, such ground is given grudgingly. Such is the strong will and obstinate nature of the Higgins clan. (Yes, that means you too Laura.) 

The reason that I bring this up is that during our time together, we often make a journey by car. While my radio is invariably tuned to a local Conservative talk radio station, my son's vehicle is often to have it's radio tuned to National Public Radio (NPR), which is probably as liberal as radio gets. What the two of us listen to is a choice that we have made and a reflection of our political philosophy and taste. This divergent taste in listening material is also a great illustration of why we don't need a re-institution of The Fairness Doctrine. 

Now for those of you who do not know the history of the Fairness Doctrine (because you haven't been reading this blog) it was a policy enforced by the FCC beginning in 1949 as part of the licensing of a radio station. It was designed to insure that media outlets, which it considered public trustees, provided fair and balanced coverage to the most important issues of the day. It was thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1987 however because it was not mandated by Congress. When Congress sought to rectify this at the time, their efforts were vetoed by then President Reagan. 

Never a group to let a bad idea go to waste however, Congress has recently taken up the concept again. You see Congress, a group that has always proved itself the Huckleberry Finn of politics, believes that the American people are as lazy as the legislators who represent them. When Congress believes that we are too lazy to be charitable, they simply take the money from us and give to causes they choose. When they believe that we are too lazy to save for our own retirement, they foist the ponzi scheme of Social Security on us and again take our our choice and our money for "our own good". The Fairness Doctrine is simply the next logical step for a group of citizens who Congress believes are too lazy to change the station. 

In a time of unprecedented choices in media with cable and satellite TV and radio channels numbering in the hundreds, and where we can get information from more news sources than in the history of humanity, Congress is telling us that we are too lazy to push a button to choose what we will. Instead they would like to "mandate" equal time and points of view to insure that we are not burdened with choosing what we will listen to. They would like to decide for us what is fair and balanced, to insure that we are being properly exposed to what they consider are all points of view. 

What next? Could we move from that to government approved radio stations? (Can you say Pravda or Al Jazeera?) My response is pretty simple ... No! At little over fifty years, I have managed both the strength and the ability to change the channel when Seinfeld, Friends, or any reality show came on TV for some time. I have likewise managed to go through life while changing the radio station when rap music came on or the Howard Stern Show aired. While many might consider me now in my dotage, I believe that I am still capable to continue in such responsibilities. What our government looks at as The Fairness Doctrine is more than taking for granted our physical laziness though, it is using it is an assumption of intellectual laziness which I for one will not tolerate. I will prove my ability to choose by making two additional choices instead: the choice of a free marketplace where ideas can compete and the choice to keep government out of my freedom to choose. 

Fairness Or Pornography

Sen. Charles Schumer (D.-NY) has come come out strongly in favor of The Fairness Doctrine.“I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?” he said during an election day interview on Fox News. Encouraging the FCC to move forward with enforcement (which may be a bit premature since the FCC has no legal mandate to do so), he compared insuring such fairness to regulating pornography on the airwaves, and called any other plan "inconsistent".

 Now I'm not the experienced politician that Mr. Schumer is, but I can't help but find his argument less than persuasive. In fact, one could make the argument that by Sen. Schumer's rules, the pornography that he brings to the table for comparison should have an equal place on the airwaves, something that I think that he and few others would concede. But such comparisons do little to advance the discussion on the Fairness Doctrine, and Sen. Schumer's argument is therefore nothing more than distracting. In fact, this argument is less about what goes out over the airwaves and more about who decides what goes out. 

Current law says that the Federal government owns the airwaves and grants licenses to companies to use portions of them. As part of that licensing the FCC created the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, a policy designed to insure that media outlets, which it considered public trustees, provided fair and balanced coverage to the most important issues of the day. 

The Fairness Doctrine was thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1987 however, mostly because it was not properly mandated by Congress. Congress hastened to correct that fact, but their efforts were vetoed by then President Reagan. It lately seems to be getting a lot of traction with Congress though, as the political left feels that talk radio is unbalanced in favor of the political right (while ignoring that the exact opposite appears to be the case on television). With a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and Executive branch apparently coming in 2009, it appears likely that some form of such regulation is likely to see the light of day soon. 

As for me, I would like to see as little government interference with what goes out over the airwaves as possible. With all of the choices in programming that are out there today, I have to think that there are more than enough alternatives available and that we the listening public have more than enough intelligence to choose which of them we will listen to. If you don't like what someone is saying, change the channel. If you think that it is wrong or objectionable, call the station and complain. If that doesn't work, call the advertisers. 

What you don't do is force a government to mandate its version of pornography, morality, or fairness on everyone as an alternative. For by such standards, one might equally argue that Christian radio stations be balanced by the opinions of those of the Jewish or Muslim faiths, or even that of the atheist; and be forced to broadcast them as a consequence (as someone, somewhere probably is).

Isn't the act of choosing in this case, more comparable to the right to assemble peaceably, something that is guaranteed to us in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution? Isn't listening to those we agree with, whether on a street corner, in a town hall, or on the radio very much in keeping with the precepts which the Founding Fathers laid out for us? Such freedom should not be taken lightly, nor subjected to the monitoring of a government agency. Before we go down that long, dark road, let me remind everyone of a couple of surprisingly intelligent things that some equally intelligent people have said over the years:  

"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire  

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert Humphrey  

And one of my favorites, a great little line from a movie about the personal crisis and triumph of a liberal chief executive called "The American President",

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
- President Andrew Shepherd (as played by Michael Douglas)  

... that sounds fair to me.

 

TFP Column: The Fairness Doctrine

 
I have decided not to bore you with my normal weekend rhetoric. My belief is that like me, you are beginning to run out of the duct tape required to keep your head from exploding from the non-stop assault of political commercials, and I saw no reason to contribute to that. (I also understand that there is an acute shortage of duct tape currently and didn't want to add to the problem.)

This is not to say that I will allow you to exit unscathed, as I direct you to the second of my columns on "The Fairness Doctrine" published in the Toledo Free Press this weekend. With luck, it will prove to be both entertaining and enlightening (yeah, right).

Have a great weekend ...

By the way, did you know that duct tape is like The Force, from "Star Wars"? It has a dark side and a light side, and it binds the universe together?