Obama's Radio Address is Streamed on the Internet - Demonstrating Why There Need Not Be Any Return of the Fairness Doctrine
Last week, President-elect Barack Obama delivered his first weekly radio address since he was elected President. The broadcast made news, not only for its content, but also because it was streamed on the Internet, particularly on You Tube, but also retransmitted on many other websites. The fact that the Internet makes such transmissions not only possible, but so easy and so widely available demonstrates one of many reasons why all the worry about the return of the Fairness Doctrine is unwarranted. With access to so many diverse opinions not only on the radio but also through all of the new technologies, why should the government care that one radio station may not cover all sides of a controversial issue? If one station does not put on a strongly held viewpoint on an important issue, you can bet that someone who holds that viewpoint will find some way to transmit it to others.
The return of the Fairness Doctrine has been the great invisible monster in the room since the election - with many commentators, particularly conservative ones, worrying that the Democratic Congress will attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Off-hand comments such as those made by Senator Schumer on Fox News, have fueled this speculation, even though the Obama campaign has specifically rejected such a return. The Fairness Doctrine is one grounded in scarcity of the electronic spectrum - from the fear that if one side of an issue was allowed to dominate one of the few means of communicating with the population of a community, it would effectively be able to stifle the ability of those with contrasting viewpoints to get their message out. But, to use a phrase that is becoming increasingly popular - that thinking is so 20th Century.
The FCC itself abolished the Fairness Doctrine in the last century finding it unconstitutional, especially in light of the growth in the number of media outlets. Since the abolition, the number of available media outlets has increased exponentially. Just look at the recent elections, when blogs and other websites often drove the political conversation, identifying issues that were later picked up by the mainstream media, and debunking arguments and talking points that were disseminated by the mainstream media. The growth of the Internet alone shows how communications has become so diverse that there is no scarcity that could justify the imposition of a fairness requirement only on the broadcast media. There is so much other media that is delivered to any home - whether by new broadcast outlets, or by satellite or cable delivery, or even in print, that there can no longer be any scarcity justification for the Fairness Doctrine. Earlier this week, I attended the Future of Television Conference in New York City, where much of the conversation was on the delivery of television programming to cell phone handsets or other mobile devices. There is simply an explosion in the number of media outlets - and no justification for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
Those who even discuss the return have to consider what it would mean. We have written about how it would be a prescription for the return of bland programming. Stations that run talk programming - whether it be Rush or Air America, would have to avoid the opinionated messages that they now air so that all sides of issues could be presented on every station. Why force every station to air the same opinions, when with the number of broadcast outlets available in most markets, there can be a real diversity of voices among the competing stations? I've heard some broadcasters say that the return of the Fairness Doctrine and the end of opinionated programming would effectively signal the end of the already ailing AM radio band which now relies very much on talk radio, compelling to niche audiences, to bring in audiences. Others forget that issue-oriented commercials also had to be "fair" - so if one side of an issue was able to buy advertising time on a station and the other side could not afford to buy time to respond, the station had to give the other side airtime - for free! Just imagine if such a requirement were put on newspapers, magazine or websites. In a moment, the Courts would declare any such government requirement unconstitutional.
So let's hope that, in this multichannel universe with almost unlimited media outlets, the rumors of the return of the Fairness Doctrine are just that - rumors. In an administration looking to bring about change and take America into the future, let's not look at yesterday's rules to further imperil broadcasters in a very competitive, very uncertain time.
In the spring I drove from Dallas to Idaho Falls through Colorado. I chose the more direct routes that would take me through small towns, rather than the major freeways. Usually I could only receive a few radio stations.
The choices almost always were between either right wing talk radio programs or conservative christian political sermons. Only when I was near Denver, was a single progressive talk radio program accessible.
To give you an example of the available programming:
1)Rush limbaugh, and in his words, why should he consider another viewpoint when he was the expert on every subject?
2) Shawn Hannity arguing the position of why cops should be able to break the heads of so-called "thugs" during an arrest.
3). A christian authoritarian sermon explaining why a "christian", although he was wrong, was instantly transformed into right because he put on Christ's "Cloak of Righteousness". Even acts of murder were okay, because God was on his side.
This was very disconcerting, as I pondered the possible extent of the indoctrination of the people that lived in these isolated areas. If issues are unfairly and dishonestly represented you have disseminated propaganda. The results of which is effectively brainwashing.
The effects of isolation of opposing viewpoints came into clear focus on my arrival in Idaho Falls.
My family has clearly and effectively been indoctrinated into this cocoon.
Previously conservative, center right politically, my father would consider differing viewpoints, discuss or weigh the facts, and form his opinions on the basis on objective reason rather than ideology.
Not any more.
In the nine years since my last visit, the shift from conservative to radical is profound;
Authoritarianism determines truth. Alternative views or facts are preemptively denounced before consideration or research, if they threaten the narrative or the ideology. Even to the degree that support of a particular side of an issue is against his own best interests.
Not only only are opposing viewpoints intolerable, so are those that hold them.
The result is of disagreement is predictable: ad hominem attacks, labeling, killing the messenger, and scapegoating.
Although my father is intelligent, he has lost the ability to discern and think critically. As a truck driver, he listens to this form of talk radio all day long, 5 days of the week, every week. My step mother, a follower, merely adopts all the viewpoints of my father. Neither one of them get their news from the internet.
It would not surprise me at all to see either one of them break out in a fascist salute while working themselves up into a lather during the nightly Fox indoctrination series programming. Real news has been replaced with punditry, and he has absorbed it all very well.
What will our nation become if our citizens cannot weigh more than one side of an issue, especially as our education system further deteriorates?
Understanding history is also crucial if the past is not to be repeated.
Critical thinking, civil discourse and debate are skills that must be taught. It is more crucial than ever that good examples of discourse be set in the public media or it ripples down through society.
There is no doubt in my mind that small town midwesterners are being systematically groomed to become an ignorant and violent mob. Our civilization is crumbling.