George Will and Keith Oberman on the Fairness Doctrine - Who Least Wants It To Return?
In a Sunday column, George Will revisited conservative commentators' biggest fear - the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Will went into depth on the history of the doctrine, the growth in the number of broadcast outlets in recent years, and growth in talk programming since the doctrine was abolished, all to argue against its reimposition. This column prompted a response on MSNBC's Countdown Program the next day, ranking Will third on Keith Olbermann's Worst Person's segment - not for Will's argument against the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but for his even bringing up the issue of the possible return of the Doctrine. Olbermann in effect accused Will of inciting unfounded fears of the doctrine's return, citing President-elect Obama's statement that he did not favor its return, and claiming that the Democrats in Congress otherwise were not pushing for its reimposition. So what's the truth here?
As always, the truth always seems to lie somewhere in between these two extreme points of view. The President-elect has indeed stated that he did not favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine and, while there have been no major efforts to reinstate the Doctrine yet announced, there is a proposal in almost every Congress for its return (see, for instance, our post on Congressman Kucinich's proposal to reimpose the Doctrine made two years ago and another post about the suggestion in support of its return made by Congressman Dingell six months later). Other Congressional statements have also not ruled out an effort to bring it back, including a statement by Senator Schumer of New York who, when asked about the Doctrine, asked: who could be against Fairness? While we won't see the Doctrine return in what little is left of this year, who knows what efforts could be made next year to try to resurrect it - though the changes in the media landscape since the FCC declared the doctrine unconstitutional, as outlined by Will and about which we have written before, would seem to make its justification almost impossible on constitutional grounds (e.g. there is seemingly little scarcity that would justify the rule applying only to broadcasters and not any other medium). But a simple matter of probable unconstitutionality has never stopped Congress from considering legislation before, so who knows what we might see considered this year - though, as Olbermann and Will's comments demonstrate, it seems as if neither end of the political spectrum really want the Doctrine to return.
The truth is somewhere in between? That Obama is not for it has nothing to do with it. See Tony Blankley's 12.10 column where he quotes Nancy Pelosi as for it. The Dems do want it back and that IS not a point in between.
Conservatives should refine their messaging, rather than brooding and speculating about externalities. Their messaging is obviously a problem and, as was demonstrated in the 2006 and 2008 elections, they are not saying that the majority of American people believe. Rush Limbaugh and others are successful because they target a particular market. There will always be a market for opposing views.
The myth of the liberal media is just that--a myth. The rich conservatives who control the "liberal media" are concerned with market demand. The reason why many news shows lean liberal is due to market demand, not necessarily ideology. If Olberman is topping the numbers, it is irrelevant to MSNBC execs whether he is an ideologue.
By harping on the Fairness Doctrine, conservatives are barking up the wrong tree.
Conservatives' time would also be better spent thinking about how to fix their internet strategy rather than worrying about the Fairness Doctrine. Speculating about the Fairness Doctrine is like speculating about whether eight tracks will be reintroduced. It's an inane inquiry.
More voices do not guarantee more truth being accessible. Asking for equal opportunity for alternative viewpoints does not mean equal time. A lazy consumer who only tunes into one or two channels hears one viewpoint. The fairness doctrine mandated some responsibility on the part of the broadcaster.
An informed electorate hears multiple viewpoints. Broadcasters get a lot of spectrum free, unlike cable operators who have to pay at all levels of production and distribution. For broadcasters to have to inform the public on viewpoints outside of the media owner's own agenda is not unconstitutional. Red Lion has not been overturned.
What has been lost is any sense of social responsibility on the part of many broadcasters.
So, Rick, are you saying that every broadcaster should have an obligation to cover all sides of every story - so in essence each station would express the same points of view to protect the lazy viewer who can't or won't change channels?
Imagine this kind of regime imposed on newspapers, where there is effectively no competition in most markets - people would scream that it is a violation of the First Amendment to impose speech on a paper. Yet papers get free space on street corners for newsboxes, and cable gets rights of way along or under streets - so "free" spectrum is not the reason for the distinction (and there are very few broadcasters who didn't pay someone for their spectrum - either buying it from a previous owner or from the FCC itself which now auctions the spectrum for new stations).
The Fairness Doctrine is a relic of another age of media scarcity. The FCC had it right when they declared the Doctrine unconstitutional, and Congress will have a difficult time trying to bring it back, if they ever decided that they wanted to.