Technology has made the Fairness Doctrine obsolete: Dems
posted at 11:10 am on November 6, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The time for a Fairness Doctrine has passed, two Congressional Democrats tell CNS News in an interview today. Senator Ben Cardin and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, both from Maryland, appeared skeptical that an initiative to reinstate the old control on political broadcasting could pass, and would be effective in any regard:
The government “has the responsibility” to make sure there are a “variety of opportunities for people to get information,” said Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) when asked about the Fairness Doctrine at the Democratic Senatorial Committee election night party on Tuesday.
Cardin and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) were asked if a station like the Washington, D.C.-based WMAL, which has a lineup of conservative hosts, including Chris Plante, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Marc Levin, should be controlled by the government so they offer more balanced content.
“Well first of all, I think that a station should have a balanced approach. I think they are doing their listeners a service when they provide all sides to an issue, but quite frankly, there is more variety today than we’ve had in recent years,” Cardin said. “We have a lot of radio stations that are providing all different types of points of view, and I think there’s a lot of self-selection here. There’s a lot of listeners who are saying, ‘Look, we are going to listen to stations that are balanced,’ so I think the market in some respects is working this out.” …
“I think it’s increasingly difficult because it’s kind of like a balloon. In other words, even if you wanted to go there — and I’m not saying we do — but if you wanted to go there, when you squeeze one end of the balloon, you know, simply the conversation can just go to others,” [Van Hollen] said. “I think even if you wanted to go back to the Fairness Doctrine, technology may have passed it by.”
The Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine twenty-one years ago, leading to a revival of the AM broadcast band, which had begun to die off with the explosion of access to FM and its superior signal quality for stereo music. At that time, the Internet didn’t exist as a commercial entity, and cable television was still primarily a rural phenomenon, although it had already begun gaining ground in suburbs and cities. Most people got information either through newspapers or regulated broadcast stations in television and radio.
Now, as Van Hollen points out, the world has changed. With inexpensive broadband increasingly available to all consumers, information flows in many channels. The Internet does not have federal content regulation or licensing requirements. Except for explicitly illegal content such as child pornography and expressions of violent overthrow of the United States, anyone can express any opinion on the Internet, with only self-imposed limitations. Cable and satellite television now dominate markets, most of which technically avoids FCC licensing regulations as well. Satellite radio has begun to make its own inroads in markets as cable TV did a generation ago.
Only broadcast channels such as terrestrial television and radio fall under the FCC’s aegis now. Imposing greater restrictions would inevitably lead to the demise of broadcasters, especially in the AM band. Without politics, most of these stations would cease to exist, and Van Hollen correctly notes that the content would just move to another medium. The FD would not keep anyone from accessing information that they wanted to get — it would just ensure job losses and irrelevance for AM radio.
It’s interesting to hear this from two Democrats. While they didn’t want to take a firm position against the FD, it seems that a reinstatement is only popular with a subset of Democrats and not with the party as a whole. Common sense about technology appears to be winning over partisan hackery — or at least we hope it does. Make sure to let your representatives in Congress know that Cardin and Van Hollen are right.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Uh. Because they can. 95% of people don’t even know what it is – but it sounds nice. 1/2 of conservatives even want it back, thinking they’ll get more even treatment as well.
Don’t believe me. Don’t. When it comes, don’t whine, though. You were warned.
lorien1973 on November 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM
So why on Earth should they silence a media that is no danger for them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t know about anyone else, but I connect my own dots. Ayres, and Obama are friends. Ayres really likes Chavez, and has visited him in Venezuela on more than one occasion. Chavez just today nationalized a gold mine, belonging to a company in Canada. He nationalized oil companies, owned by American oil companies, and nationalized all media. Tv. Newspapers, and internet, radio.
I think the state of things now are, not to say anything negative toward the great Chavez. Look how Obama reacted to critics Stanley Kurtz, and some pac’s? I personally don’t think he’d run his presidency with less vigor than he did his campaign, when it came to negative press. Prepare for thorough investigations, of major news personalities, when that happens, and if that’s not effective, he’ll nationalize all media outlets as well.
capejasmine on November 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Yeah, the 2 or 3 million people who listen to them. Who are already never voting for a democrat. Ever.
So who cares if they get pissed off, right?
The willful blindness on this site is simply astounding.
lorien1973 on November 6, 2008 at 12:38 PM
A glimmer of hope in a sea of Hope™.
OneGyT on November 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Ed,
Your response is suprisingly tepid. The world may have changed, but our rights haven’t. The First Amendment recognizes an inherent right to free speech, unshackled by government. The Fairness Doctrine was a step in the direction of overthrowing it. With the U.S. being much more leftist than it was 30 years ago, because those who remembered what a free country looked like are now aging or dead, the FD would be even more dangerous now.
If you think modern technology would prevent that, look to China for a counterexample. The forces of oppression are ever-busy and you should be outraged that the FD is even being seriously considered.
In particular, attack them on the basic principle.
That view isn’t just false, it’s malicious. It’s an attack on the very idea of free speech. The government has only one responsibility: to protect individual rights. When it becomes the violater of those rights, especially this most fundamental one, it is time to take the rhetorical gloves off.
Nice guys don’t finish last. They’re eliminated before the race begins.
JDPerren on November 6, 2008 at 12:43 PM
How do you prove that someone committed vote fraud? Does the term “Vote fraud” confine itself to voting more than once? No. It includes tampering with a voting machine, stealing ballots, etc…
In the context of the impending outcry of voter fraud, while I believe it to be true to varying degrees precinct to precinct, it will be completely impossible to prove.
Just exactly what evidence will a prosecutor have that proves someone voted more than once? What evidence exists anywhere, for that matter, that someone voted at all? Is it possible to walk to into a voting booth, and then walk out without having voted? Certainly, just like its possible you can walk into a bank, and then walk out without having robbed it.
The first hurdle for the Prosecutor is to prove you voted. Since there is not a single shred of evidence that proves you voted (side bar: if there was, THAT would be a violation of election law), how can it be proven anyone voted more than once?
Might as well attempt to prove that someone did not read a book.
BobMbx on November 6, 2008 at 12:50 PM
As long as Dems keep packaging it with swell names like ‘Labor Reform’,'Fainess Doctrine’ and ‘Immigration Fairness Act’ (my prediction), most Americans will say. ‘Wow, that Obama dude sure is a nice guy, they should pass this stuff’
GunnyRet03 on November 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I listen only once in a while talk show radio. I read the internet blogs, watch cable news tv (Fox and CNN)and my local tv stations. I read sometimes LATimes online (it doesen’t worth the effort to buy it)so is not going to affect me very much if that its what you imply.
Do I think that trying to resurect the Fairness Doctrine is stupid and contraproductive? Yes. Are they going to try to do it? Maybe. I am against the FD in principle:I don’t like cenzorship but I am although trying to be logical.
But my first question remains in play:how effective was talk radio in this race? And when you’ll reach an answer you’ll be more relaxed about the raising of the spectrum of the Fairness Doctrine.
clemycali on November 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Lets give Mrs. Kravitz a fair shake too. In case you didn’t realize it, there really was a witch living across the street from her……
BobMbx on November 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM
This one goes in your ear, this one up your nose, and this one up your ass.
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 12:54 PM
I’m always relaxed when government interferes with first amendement rights. Why do I care, if I’m not affected? I don’t listen to talk radio at all – sports sometimes. It’s a stupid echo chamber. That’s besides the point.
But I’m glad we got to the nut of your lack of concern. “Doesn’t affect me!”
lorien1973 on November 6, 2008 at 12:54 PM
We should all just relax about the whole idea of this ‘constitution’ thing some people keep banging on about. Like some stuffy old document is relevant today….like, y’know, it doesn’t even come in a podcast! What’s up with that?
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 12:58 PM
One update – my numbers may be off. I might have heard the broacast about GA turnout incorrectly. It may have been 77% turnout in 2004 with even lower turnout (in the 60’s percentile) this time around. I cannot find printed reports to verify but either way, this was reported to be lower turnout than 2004.
OneVision on November 6, 2008 at 12:59 PM
It’s the psychology of a weak mind that the Libs have figured out.
It works this way: A great looking, buxom blonde on TV smiles, leans over (so you can see right down to her knee caps between her tata’s) and says something. Then a phone number appears on screen. The weak mind applies some extraordinary calculations and comes to the conclusion that if he purchases that Chia pet, a great looking, buxom blonde will be delivered.
BTW, Chia pets suck. Most get broken in the mail…..
Same with Obamaman. The libs ordered hope and change…who knows what will come in the mail.
BobMbx on November 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I sell chia pets! I have had like 2 broken in the past few years through the mail. And I’ve sold thousands!
They don’t break often at all. :P
I demand fairness to expound upon my point!
lorien1973 on November 6, 2008 at 1:04 PM
lorien1973,
Before you acuse me please read my post carefully. I said that
.
So I say it once again:i am against Fairness Doctrine in principle because I see it as a form of censorship and not because I am a fervent talk show radio listener. Is it clear now?
clemycali on November 6, 2008 at 1:04 PM
What is so absurd about this whole discussion is the implicit assumption that the music happening on other stations that supposedly is “politics free” and therefore not under any potential Fairness Doctrine.
Art by definition, especially today, is chock full of political, social and moral worldview assertions that affect the consciousness of the society that listens to/observes it. Where’s the balance in the music industry? Where’s the balance in the classrooms?
“I knew a very wise man that believed that if a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.”
– Andrew Fletcher
spmat on November 6, 2008 at 1:07 PM
1 Bruce Springsteen song must be follwed by 1 Amy Grant and 2 Menudo songs. That should be balanced.
See? It’s easy! Balancing can be fun…
BobMbx on November 6, 2008 at 1:11 PM
…and every page of bible school must be followed by a page of porn.
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Brace for it. The government is about to get larger and freedom is about to diminish. Either massive voter fraud just took place or 52% of the population think that larger government is a good idea…well, to be fair, I think most people voted for Obama because they like the way he looks on TV. I’m not so sure they’re going to like it when the impact of his new social programs begin to manifest themselves.
jakabok_botch on November 6, 2008 at 1:29 PM
What about Renee Fleming and Susan Graham?
oldleprechaun on November 6, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I agree with you, lorien. Talk radio is squarely in their sights. Next they’ll find some way to go after FNC and filter the internet. The far left is historically intolerant, and these thugs are playing for keeps.
While they may pursue a revival of FD, I expect they’ll also attack talk radio through the back door with requirements for local ownership and management, along the lines proposed last year by nutroots’ Center for American Progress
Michelle Malkin has a post that explains the stealth plan: Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio
petefrt on November 6, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Rush just predicted they’ll use hate speech laws against talk radio, calling it ‘hate radio’.
petefrt on November 6, 2008 at 1:42 PM
What can I say. In my opinion Renee Fleming is overated anyway. I don’t know what to say about Susan Graham.
clemycali on November 6, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Correction: Rush was reading from Saul Alinsky Takes the White House, by Quin Hillyer in American Spectator
This is an excellent view into the coming thugocracy.
petefrt on November 6, 2008 at 1:53 PM
As long as it’s kiddie porn….I’d be OK with that.
//major sarc
BobMbx on November 6, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Uh… the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ won’t be FAIR, nor was it ever intended to be. The conservative side of any program would be the Andrew Sullivan, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker sort of conservative.
Carnivore/DCS-1000 and other word/name recognition software could easily be put in place at source by internet providers.
In Sweden the BBS law requires Internet service providers to check for, and remove, illegal items on their sites.
Data Retention laws. That means they demand that Internet companies and phone companies log who we phone, email with, chat with, which websites we visit, etc.
The Swedish Parliament (Riksdagen) passed a law that instructs all telephone and Internet operators to deliver a copy of all phone and Internet communication crossing Swedish borders to the Swedish intelligence service FRA. FRA will then use a big spying network and one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world to investigate the content of this communication.
Controlling the internet is not as difficult as most people believe and bear in mind they don’t need a 100% success rate. 70% to 85% compliance would be close enough for government work.
p.s. When they pass the FD they will call it something else.
sharrukin on November 6, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I like the balloon analogy. If only people would realize that it’s the same way with copyright laws and DRM.
Ortzinator on November 6, 2008 at 2:53 PM
… yet.
And who made that content explicitly illegal? The federal government. And who now runs the federal government? That one.
Never underestimate the power of Democrats to regulate just about anything.
GoHskrs on November 6, 2008 at 3:12 PM
technology has indeed passed the “fairness Doctrine” by. There are so many sources for information, between AM, FM, TV and the internet there are more sources than listeners.
tidybowlman on November 6, 2008 at 6:48 PM
When does the bailout begin for the NYTimes or the SF Chron, or any one of these media giants that’s beginning to fall? Wouldn’t that be a GREAT way for all of our friends in big govvamint to socialize the media?
Then, add the Fairness Doctrine, shut down Rush, Hannity, Beck…
Hope and change. I hope I have some change left after they disembowel the economy and my 401(k).
connectthedots on November 6, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2