Skip to main content

Fairness Doctrine

As I mentioned on Wednesday, I participated in NPR's discussion on the Fairness Doctrine.

Kim Pearson has a comprehensive post on the issue.

Some random thoughts:

1) Like Pearson, I had expected Prometheus 6 to come out stronger in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, he said there should be an "Honesty Doctrine." That's all well and good, but I seriously doubt that the government would be any better at enforcing an "Honesty Doctrine" than it would be at enforcing a "Fairness Doctrine." One major criticism of the Fairness Doctrine is that it made stations less likely to air some opinions because they then would have to air opposing opinions. When the result is "damned if you do, damned if you don't" with the government watching, the most logical approach is to do nothing. By doing "something," you give the government a reason to investigate you. But would the FCC investigate a station that aired no opinions. That's right, better to be damned if you don't without having any evidence...

2) Speaking of the term "Fairness Doctrine." I like it when government is clear about what it is doing. But "fairness"? Fairness to the Klan? To the Nation of Islam?

I like something David Boaz of the Cato Institute wrote last year about vague government terms: "The first restrictive immigration law was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. (Ah, for the days when Congress gave laws honest names. These days, a tax scheme is called Social Security and a grab bag of civil liberties violations is dubbed the USA Patriot Act. Back in 1882, when Congress wanted to exclude the Chinese, they called it the Chinese Exclusion Act.)"

I'm adding that if Congress wanted to exclude the Chinese today, they'd name it the Chinese Residential Act of 2007. So when I hear vague terms like "Fairness" used by government I'm suspicious to begin with.

3) Believe it or not, but I was in the "moderate" role on Wednesday's show. I guess it is appropriate in some ways because I'm not a conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican. And that's why a big part of the Fairness Doctrine debate is boring to me. Pearson highlights the things that conservatives have said and attempts to rebut those things.

But this is an issue of government control, not just about ideology. It was Dan Rather, hardly a conservative, who helped sink the Fairness Doctrine.

As Rather testified in 1985 before the FCC: When I was a young reporter, I worked briefly for wire services, small radio stations, and newspapers, and I finally settled into a job at a large radio station owned by the Houston Chronicle. Almost immediately on starting work in that station's newsroom, I became aware of a concern which I had previously barely known existed--the FCC. The journalists at The Chronicle did not worry about it; those at the radio station did. Not only the station manager but the newspeople as well were very much aware of this government presence looking over their shoulders. I can recall newsroom conversations about what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be. Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost.

Pearson and others may think the Fairness Doctrine is no big deal because it allegedly only enforced in a few cases, but based on what Rather said (and, yes, I'm always cautious about what Rather says), the folks on the ground and on air were more concerned than those in Ivy towers.

Another interesting angle is that it was the Eagle Forum, Accuracy in Media, and some other conservative organizations that wanted the Fairness Doctrine extended. From my reading of this a few years ago, conservatives feared that without the Fairness Doctrine in place that their opinions would be completely shut out of the media.

They probably had no idea that their thinking was short-sighted--and, of course, they probably had no idea that the Internet would take off the way it has and that conservative talk radio would dominate as it has.

Of course people are concerned with correct information being disseminated, but asking the government to monitor the "fairness" or "honesty" of media would be the equivalent of having Barney Fife wave down traffic on the superinformation highway...

4) Pearson does point out that the Fairness Doctrine is not applied to cable. And I'll add: Let's keep it that way! As tempting as it would be to slap the Fairness Doctrine on universities or the Daily Kos, I still say it is better to keep the government from getting involved in information dissemination. If there must be a Fairness Doctrine, limit it to the Big 3 networks and government sponsored media outlets.

CJL

Popular posts from this blog

Walter E. Williams hosting Rush Limbaugh tomorrow

Check your local listings! By the way, my co-host Eliot Morgan and I interviewed Professor Walter E. Williams on the Casey Lartigue Show on April 28 and June 9 . We discussed reparations for slavery and the minimum wage mandate. To access the clips above at rapidshare: 1) scroll down to the bottom, hit the "free" button. 2) scroll down to the bottom, type in the password, hit download, then listen... Or, you can download the clips from yousendit, available for one week: June 9, WEW, segment 5 http://download.yousendit.com/F8A128C94CEAD09C June 9, WEW segment 6 http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=9800ABE6204647B3 April 28 http://download.yousendit.com/72FB5F4718BC06A1 CJL

Park Jin welcoming remarks to FSI (and Casey Lartigue)

  National Assembly member Park Jin makes the welcoming remarks at FSI's conference featuring North Korean diplomats. Park Jin | Greeting message to FSI and Casey Lartigue mention - YouTube

Forgery or conspiracy? Memorandum 46

Here's an article I co-wrote that will appear in the Sunday Outlook section of the Washington Post . We'll be updating this page over the coming days. So check back for updates. Memorandum 46 timeline , as compiled by us. Audio from our last show on XM 169 before we got fired. That audio is divided into segments, this one is one large MP3 . Who says Memorandum46 is true? Former rep. Cynthia McKinney presents Memo 46 to the United Nations and defends it in a speech . Joe Madison presents Memo 46 at the annual Congressional Black Caucus gathering. Former D.C. delegate Walter Fauntroy, on the Joe Madison show on XM 169 (audio available, upon request) and on Michael Fauntroy's site Boyd Graves (see Exhibit 10 of his lawsuit against the government) The Final Call, with Brzezinski's name misspelled . Len Horowitz Blackelectorate.com Millions for Reparations Various discussion forums or discussants, such as: Greekchat , Jahness , Who says Memorandum 46 is a forgery? Brzezi

2020-05-21 Goodbye, Katty Chi

I had heard through the grapevine and now it has been verified: Human rights activist Katty Chi has passed away. She is one of the first people that I met when I got involved in this cause. The first time was in 2012, at an event at the South Korea's National Assembly. She was super cool, one of my favorites as I used to say even when she was alive. And that is the important time to say such things, when people are alive. Whenever we met, I would say to her, "You know what happens when you meet me?" She would say, "Yeah. Time to take a photo?" I'm glad we did. And from Hyun S. Song, a close colleague of hers: And from Liberty in North Korea, the definitive announcement, August 4, 2020

2018-03-08 Challenge Korea Global Award

  I am so proud to be the recipient of the Challenge Korea Global Award. Today I attended the awards ceremony, held at South Korea's National Assembly. It is quite an honor. There are about 50 million people in South Korea, about 2 million of them are non-Koreans. Out of all of those people, I was one of the 10 people to receive an award today (the Global Award). I'm not a celebrity, singer, actor, politician or rich man. I am just a man struggling to build an NGO in a foreign country empowering North Korean refugees. These days, I rarely leave my office, so I'm not getting this kind of award because of networking. It is the second consecutive year that I've won an award, and last month TNKR (now FSI) was honored as a finalist for the Asia Liberty Award. Incredibly, we have received a lot of press even though we don't have anyone focused on reaching out to media. We get this kind of attention because of our good work. I'm not sure that I really deserve this awar