Today we did the debate on the Fairness Doctrine. The resolution was "The government should enact a 'Fairness Doctrine' in order to better ensure that coverage of political issues by broadcast stations be balanced and fair". I was on the negative side, which I readily volunteered for on the first day of class. Here is the text of everything I said in my introduction in case anyone missed it:
What’s important to remember about freedom of speech is that it is not a “right” given to people by the Constitution or any other government-issued document. Each individual is born with the natural rights to life and liberty. What the Constitution does is lay out what the government cannot do, not what the people CAN do. The freedom of speech and expression is part of liberty, of being free. The Fairness Doctrine, a bill passed in1949 by the Federal Communications Commission, infringed on these natural rights. This document required broadcasters to provide controversial news and public affairs, as well as quote reasonable opportunities for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints. Parts of it began to repeal in 1985, until it was finally completely repealed under the Regan administration in1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine quote had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance. But there are still politicians who advocate for its return. While the media portrays the opponents of the Fairness Doctrine as irrational fear mongers, this ignores the substance of the bill itself.
First of all, the point of having the freedom of speech is TO hear opposing viewpoints; why impose government mandates on something that already exists? In a melting pot like the United States, there are millions of different opinions and voices. Radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz exist and remain in popularity for the same reason people tune into Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC; they want that political slant. Liberals want to hear liberal personalities, and conservatives want to hear conservative personalities. While we would all agree that it is good to be exposed to differing points of view, there is no benefit in having some views forced upon us at the expense of others in the name of fairness. I take the time to listen to the SiriusLeft station on my satellite radio, not because I have to but because I want to. I think there are many people like me who enjoy listening to what they don’t agree with, and for that reason the Fairness Doctrine is pointless. Furthermore, government would be overstepping its bounds in telling broadcasters what they can and cannot say on their own programs.
My second point is, who is at liberty to decide what is “reasonable” but each individual? As mentioned, there are millions of different opinions in a society. No one opinion is exactly the same as the next, so what constitutes reasonable contrasting viewpoints?
Although it is mostly democrats that are in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, liberal Alan Colmes formerly of Fox’s Hannity & Colmes strongly opposes it. In an interview with Brian Jennings, Colmes said, “There is a better way than the Fairness Doctrine if increasing viewpoints is the goal. Diversity in ownership. Government should not be involved in programming content. But what government can do is discourage monopolies and make sure there are limits as to how much of the public airwaves can be controlled by one entity in a given market.”
Under the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters avoided controversy for fear of reprisal by the government. Programs were poorly rated and failed to generate revenue. British-Indian novelist Salman Rushdie put it best in these words: Without the freedom to offend, freedom of expression ceases to exist.
In case you couldn't tell -- my nervousness may have overshadowed it because I do so hate speaking in front of crowds -- I am very much an opponent of this bill.
I found it odd that the negative side made fun of my bringing up the subject of freedom of speech, because to me, that is exactly what this issue is about. What about it has nothing to do with infringing on that right? Opinions!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Fairness Doctrine Debate
Posted by Candice at 3:38 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I corrected some grammar errors and re-posted.
Great debate. I have insufficient knowledge of the fairness doctrine to form a full opinion yet, or even a tentative estimation of what is probably the wisest course of policy. My disposition may change based on further investigation. But I thought the debate brought out a good cross-section of the core difficulties in the matter.
I get the feeling that there are different interpretations of fairness. How is ‘balanced’ defined? How do we operationalize the concept of ‘presenting different points of view’? I’m not convinced that any mandate by the FCC would be completely effective in such a task, as broadcasters determined to present a one-sided perspective will probably find the means to do so. I’m not convinced that such a mandate is workable.
Then again, I’m appalled with the direction that one-sided broadcasters have gone during the last two decades, and the effect that it has probably had on coarsening the public forum. People naturally go towards outlets in the direction of their basic political assumptions, and partisan media outlets have little conscience about exploiting that tendency and escalating it. We can partly trace the breakdown of political communication to this source.
We should recognize that the media and other broadcasting outlets have extraordinary communicative power in a manner that ordinary citizens exercising their natural rights simply don’t – so I suspect that there should be a higher bar for honesty and objectivity than would apply for by an ordinary citizen under the First Amendment, based on the ability of the media to direct opinions and perceptions across a mass audience. Lying, of course, is protected speech in all but the narrowest of circumstances under the First Amendment, as defined by the Court. Being opinionated and one-sided is an undeniable inherent right. However, I do see merit in the view that media networks – or individuals representing those networks – of unusual power occupying a finite spectrum of media and assuming the role of socializing or persuasive agents may need an elevated standard in accuracy, much as we expect in commercial advertisers.
I should indicate that merit in an argument does not necessarily indicate that the whole argument is correct, and my musings are far from written in stone.
The crux of the matter seems to be: should we hold the media to a different and higher standard, or should we recognize them as merely being individuals exercising their inherent rights to expression?
Good debate overall, but I strongly disagreed with the idea that anything like this represented a freedom of speech violation. For one thing, corps just aren't the same as people. Individuals have rights that corps don't. If anything, you could stretch that into freedom of the press, but even that's a bit of a stretch.
Second, you implied that ANY intrusion was unacceptable. However, what about slander and libel laws? Surely those are a different story, right? If so, why? It's mostly the same as what a fairness doctrine proposes. Consider traffic lights. Every time you stop at one, your freedom of motion is being violated. Does that make traffic lights unconstitutional? Of course not, that tradeoff is just an inevitable part of living in a society.
EDIT: Oh, and "liberal" Alan Colmes? Really? By what standard. You know, other than those comparing him to nutters like Hannity and Beck.
Traffic lights are for physical safety. However speaking will never harm anyone physically. That was kind of assinine.
Alan Colmes describes himself as a staunch liberal Democrat. If someone calling themselves that is not a standard, then what standard do you measure them by?
As for the traffic lights...wow. I've seen some absurd statements, but this is a new low.
Your argument appears to be this: We have to have traffic lights in order to prevent people from having total freedom of motion. According to that logic, if we didn't have traffic lights, people would possibly die.
Your argument thus apparently extends to freedom of speech. If we don't have the Fairness Doctrine...then people die?
Illogical at best.
As for the so-called "inevitab[ility]" nonsense about living in a society, this is foolish at best. Apparently if we live in "a society" (defined as what, exactly?) then we must surrender our freedom of speech. Does not compute.
Consider this, the government is the only entity in our society that has the legal authority to deprive you of life, liberty, or property by force in order to accomplish its goals. Therefore, any relegation of authority or responsibility to the government must be seriously questioned as to whether or not it is absolutely necessary.
Obviously, government regulation in a free society is necessary to protect people from one another and foreign attacks. Thus, we have laws to prevent individuals from killing one another (deprivation of life), from stealing from each other (deprivation of property), or from holding others against their will (deprivation of liberty).
On the other hand, do we really need the government to protect our thoughts and feelings or dictate how we should seek and process information. Is it worth the threat posed to our freedom to grant these powers to the government. Free people need to aggressively question any proposal to hand over additional responsibilities to the federal government.
I find this concept of the "Fairness Doctrine" completely absurd. I have much more confidence in the ability of people to seek out their own sources of information and form their own opinions without any assistance from the feds. For example, look at us now -- we seem to be doing just fine on our own -- I see no need for a federal regulator here, but I bet you it is on the mind of some politician right now as to "how can we regulate the ideas people express on the internet".
I’m not persuaded that a traffic light is a satisfactory analogy, or even related to the matter at hand.
I’m not convinced either that the matter is as basic and simple as individuals expressing themselves, as this issue goes well beyond the actions of individuals and into the realm of media entities with extensive communicative and socializing power.
In order to form a more definite opinion, I would have to examine closely how the regulations applied during the period between 1949 and 1987 had an effect on programming quality and also on the quality of political discourse in that period. I’m not persuaded that such a regulation is a suppression of freedom of speech, or would even have any significant effect on ordinary individuals, given how freedom of speech blossomed and expanded during that period of history. Many of the cases which came before the Supreme Court during that era helped to greatly broaden and define First Amendment to its present strength today, like New York Times v. Sullivan, United States v. O’Brien, Cohen v. California. So, I’m not persuaded that the doctrine was a blight on that era which impeded individual expression; it seemed to have no effect on the vigor of dialogue from what I can discern. That entire era was characterized by free expression and social change. I would then also need to examine how other nations which adopted similar regulations fared; did the rigor of political discourse go up or down?
I need empirical data, and not assertions based on belief systems.
I’m not convinced that any such doctrine can be completely effective or enforceable, but I’m also doubtful that ‘fairness’ should be understood in the literal extreme meaning that a radio show must provide two heads persistently rebutting each other in order to avoid offending any potential listener who has opinions opposite to the original radio host. The regulation seemed to be broad and open to interpretation by networks, although I would need to examine impartial primary source material to be sure of that assumption. I just don’t know based on the information that I have.
In the end, I’m not persuaded that broad regulations requiring accuracy or ‘fairness’ is necessarily a strike on freedom of speech in this narrow and specific context, but I’m not sure either.
My point with that comparison was to reinforce the "slander and libel" part. During your closing arguments, you held that the fairness doctrine violated freedoms, with the implication that this alone was sufficient cause to oppose it. My point was that ANYTHING is a violation of freedoms to some extent or another. Some are justified, some are not, the argument is over where to draw the line. That being the case, it isn't fair to assume that any violation is unacceptable. I was not trying to claim that the two were equivalent. I do, however, apologize for my lack of clarity on the matter.
As for Colmes, if he is a "liberal Democrat", he does a piss-poor job of showing it. When, during his tenure on Hannity's show, did he ever call Hannity out on his more outlandish bullshit? I honestly can't think of a time.
That said, I do oppose the fairness doctrine, just for a very different reason. It seems to me a requirement to treat both sides equally only benefits the side without evidence, at the expense of the well-supported side. A better approach would be to present facts, data, and the like, rather that the "equal time" approach of the fairness doctrine.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I thought that I plainly stated that every individual has the right to life and liberty and that is ALL the government needs to protect. Free speech does not infringe on the rights of others. You're trying to say I implied the government should cease to exist, when I know I did not.
"My point was that ANYTHING is a violation of freedoms to some extent or another."
That's a piss-poor point, to use your own phrase. Outlawing thievery and murder is a violation of freedom?
As for Hannity, I couldn't care less what he thinks, but I do find it hilarious that you didn't actually point out anything he's done that's "outlandish bullshit." Surely you can point something out if you actually watched the show.
Now go desperately search Youtube for proof.
Your example of the Fairness Doctrine fundamentally misunderstands what the FD even is. Do you even read about the things you post about? The FD regulates time slots and causes other "sides" to be represented equally; it does not call into question anything about evidence.
Let me start by saying that while I may be hyper-libertarian, I am definitely not anarchist. I am also a humanist, so "God given rights" simply don't hold up for me.
"Without laws there can be no freedom" ~ Ancient Greek Proverb
Consider this: Anything I can take away from you with a gun is a privilege. A "right" is nothing more than a privilege that we, as a society, have determined we will defend. This is why the Founding Fathers made the common defense such an important issue. The Constitution outlines the privileges that we as a society will defend - against even the government. In fact the Constitution itself is in place to defend those rights specifically from abuse by the government.
I would get into this more, but this isn't exactly the best forum for it.
Post a Comment