Questioning the constitutionality of the FCC’s “Fairness Doctrine”
Posted on Saturday the 24th of June, 2006 at 6:10 pm in AmericanHistory has shown us that it takes as much government influence to protect free speech as it does to deny it. The government sometimes seems like a spinning top; one moment it is denying a form of free speech and another it is protecting a different form of free speech. For a large part of the last century the government, more specifically the FCC, had a policy called the Fairness Doctrine, this policy forced the media to be unbiased and give fair and balanced reports on political issues. The Fairness Doctrine ended under the Reagan administration in 1987, but supporters are looking to revive the decades old policy. This creates an interesting question, does the government forcing balanced political speech infringe on the media’s right to free speech or is it just another way to keep the media from controlling the information available to the population of America at large? The right to free speech that does not cause immediate harm to others is our most cherished right as Americans, and we would be remised if we forced anyone, media or not, to speak in any particular way, even under the guise of being fair and balanced.
The freedom of speech is an important value to America’s continued life as a democratic republic, the founding fathers themselves found it to be important enough to make it the very first of our God given undeniable rights as Americans. But forcing a person to speak is just as bad is forcing him not to speak, to require an organization to give time to issues or political views it does not agree with, takes a news organization and turns it into an information agency, nothing but a library of currant events. Of course one could argue that the media has an obligation to the people, to give them all the facts, the truth as it were. However, the truth is not yes or no, right or wrong, black or white, it is a multi faceted prism, light enters and comes out the other side with a rainbow of colors, likewise Truth goes into the prism of the human consciousness and when it emerges from the other side it is colored with the persons perspectives. If the government begins to dictate what is or is not balanced the government will also begin to dictate what is or is not Truth. In the early part of the 20th Century Justice Holmes wrote, “the best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market [not because a single entity considers it false.]” The Truth is always colored by perception and the only way ideas can freely compete in the marketplace is for them to float unhindered throughout the marketplace.
Governmental control of media organizations should be limited to promoting free speech rather than hindering it. This includes laws that restrict monopolies by single media organizations, but not laws that require balanced news reports. The government currently has laws on the amount of the American market any single news organizations can broadcast to. These laws are needed to prevent single entities from becoming so prolific in the never-ending quest for profits that they hinder the spread of new ideas, creating in essence a sand trap in the market place of ideas. Even though the supporters of the Fairness Doctrine believe that the fairness doctrine would help to expand the viewpoints and information available, if the government was allowed to direct what the media could say, it would have the effect of a single media organization that becomes too prolific. Either scenario would cause the marketplace of ideas to become so watered down with the same repetitive thoughts and would enable it to be eventually turned into a sort of propaganda machine, all spouting the same information over and over and over.
Does the restriction on the media truly violate the first amendment? According to some yes, according to others no, a simple answer doles not exists. According to Farah the answer is yes, he says “The [fairness doctrine]“had exactly the opposite effect”it had very negative unintended consequences.” The consequences he continues to say were the number of ideas that
First of all, the FCC’s fairness doctrine had two tenets. The first was that local issues that affected the community had to be brought up. That means that if there was an environmental problem that no one wanted to talk about, if someone brought it to the FCC’s attention, it had to be talked about. This is undeniably a good policy because if there is an issue that affects a certain group of people that don’t control the radio, their issues deserve to be highlighted as well.
Reply to SeanThe second tenet of the doctrine is what the above article is about. varying viewpoints serve to be heard when the media is being used as the largest supplier of information. Currently conservatives control 90% of radio programming. Should they be heard more just because they can buy the stations out and because they get higher ratings?
News needs to be unbiased. On the TV they say, “two inner city children were killed in a shooting today.” Not, “Some thugs had a shoot out and two burdens on the state were killed.” When talk radio and radio programming are being taken as news, they need to be represent the opposing viewpoints.
I’m coming in late to this conversation, but the way I see it is that to a point the market should decide what appears on the radio and what doesn’t. While governments should step in to prevent total monopolies, it is up to the people themselves to decide what is and what is not appropriate.
Don’t forget that things like radio and television are businesses, and businesses will always try to make the most money. If they get the most money by gathering donations from wealthy philanthropists with an agenda, than those who disagree need to do something about it.
Reply to MikeWhile I agree with the first tenet of the Fairness Doctrine, I don’t believe that the government should be dictating what is or is not balanced. Once they have the power to say that something is too liberal or conservative, it can be manipulated to decided that individuals are too liberal or conservative.
If conservatives run 90% of the radio, then you can be sure that 90% of the content on the radio is conservatively biased. It may not be blatant, but it is going to permeate all of the content.
I believe fake neutrality is worse than total bias because total bias is easy to spot.
Reply to Aaron