by Andrew
By request, some more discussion regarding the Fairness Doctrine.
One basic tenet of my beliefs regarding government is that government should act only to address specific problems. Some will no doubt disagree with this, but even those with far greater faith in the ability in government than I can probably agree that government action can cause as many problems as it solves if it is not carefully crafted (and even sometimes when it is). So, before we make any decisions regarding a new fairness doctrine, we ought to ask just what the problem we're trying to solve is.
In this case, I believe the problem people perceive is the lack of detailed information from varied political perspectives on television and radio. When most media take on issues, they have an unfortunate habit of taking a spokesman from each side, repeating what that spokesman says, and calling it 'balanced.' When television programs do take on issues with an eye towards offering potential solutions, it is in a sound bite short answer format that rarely delves into issues beyond scratching the surface. Radio, meanwhile, seems to offer programs heavily slanted to one side or the other, from Rush Limbaugh to Air America. People who are seeking more in-depth information about most political topics of the day have to seek out their information from sources other than the TV or radio. While many people can locate information via libraries and the internet, it is a much greater investment of time, time many people are unable or unwilling to invest. And so we end up with an electorate that is markedly uninformed on most of the major issues of the day.
The thesis of a new fairness doctrine, then, (I think) is to encourage broadcasters to put more and better information out for people to use in understanding major events. But while I concur that there is a problem (although I am skeptical that many people would bother watching programs that did present the complexities of most modern issues), I'm not sure how a new fairness doctrine would stimulate such programming.
The old fairness doctrine required the networks to present both sides of an issue. Billy Hollis at Q and O pointed out the basic fallacy of this approach.
Let's take global warming as an example. There are a bunch of views:
- "It's real and we gotta do something now before the ocean swallows us."
- "It's real and it's bad, and we're causing it, but there isn't much we can do about it."
- "It's probably real, and it's probably our fault, so let's do the best we can to mitigate it."
- "It's real and it's bad, but it's a natural phenomenon and people don't have much to do with it."
- "It's not real. It's a best a minor fluctuation in climate."
- "It's real, but the benefits outweigh the costs, so sit back and enjoy it."
(Please
no nit-picking over whether this is a correct or comprehensive list.
Global warming is just an illustrative issue - the topic at hand is the
Fairness Doctrine.)
If the Fairness Doctrine were in effect, and
you went on the radio with, say, #2, which of the others is the
opposing view? Well, to some extent, they all are.
Some might recommend that only reasonable views be required to be carried on the air, but that strikes me as a dangerous precedent. Who gets to decide which views are reasonable and which can be safely ignored? When religious conservatives are in charge, it seems plausible to me their regulators will deem intelligent design a side of the evolution debate, and therefore will mandate a representative of ID when it is discussed on TV. I don't watch much TV, so I wouldn't really care, but it is my personal opinion that forcing people who want to learn about evolution to hear someone talking about ID is a terrific waste of their time. Then again, if nothing can be kept off the air, a new fairness doctrine would still require an ID representative; either way, this seems like a bad idea.
Let's say we just use the two parties as our poles: equal time is calculated by allowing the Republicans and Democrats equal time to present their points of view on TV and radio. This eliminates concerns over fringe views being permitted to gain access to the airwaves and government censors preventing views they would prefer not be aired from entering the debate. But then we're back to where we stand today, with only mild change at best. Neither party is a source for in-depth discussion of issues. Political parties run on a mix of sound bites and very simple ideas: tax cuts, universal health care, good schools, and so on. It is the rare politician who likes to get into the details of these programs. Even detail-oriented pols tend to save their passion for the back rooms, not the campaign trail. If the parties were guaranteed a certain amount of air time each week, would they use it to get into the depths of their programs, or to use slogans and sound bites to attempt to raise the popularity of their ideas?
Or let's take radio. If a station that broadcasts Limbaugh would be required to give equal time to (for example) Al Franken, would that really be an improvement? I'll admit I don't listen to either man, but from what little I've heard of each of them, their methods tend towards the selective use of evidence to buttress their beliefs. I'm not sure that three hours of that from either side of the spectrum is likely to improve political dialogue. Further, the audience for that kind of program is generally political partisans, I believe, so it is unlikely the same people would be listening to both programs in any case.
I agree that it would be nice if it were easier for the average citizen to access more detailed information about the problems our nation faces. But before we decide that there is a government role in fixing the problem, I think we need to make sure that government action has a reasonable chance of actually solving the issue before we invoke government intervention, and this seems far from clear in this case. For those who disagree, I would be interested to hear how you would craft a law that would have a reasonable expectation of improving the quality and quantity of good information available in the public media. Or do you see the problem differently than I do, in which case, what is the problem you're seeking to solve?
Update: With impeccable timing, Slate has a piece up about abolishing the FCC.
Recent Comments