Shut up. We’re trying to watch the news.

By adam || June 13, 2007

What began as a simple frustration that the recently broadcast succession of presidential debates should be, but is not, easily and freely accessible online, quickly turned my attention back to something to which Republicans, for some reason, instantly bristle: The Fairness Doctrine. This was a simple codification of the idea that broadcast airwaves were, first and foremost, meant to serve the public good, and as such, FCC regulations mandated equal time for ideas on both sides of controversial subjects. In 1986, Ronald Reagan put the final nail in the coffin for The Fairness Doctrine when he vetoed a congressional attempt to protect its statutes through law. And so was born the likes of MSNBC and Fox News, of Crossfire and Hannity and Colmes.

Here’s the problem: As much as you may agree that The Fairness Doctrine was unnecessary government regulation, or that it in many ways worked against some tenets of The First Amendment, it’s important to realize that WE CLEARLY NEED IT. We’ve reached a point in our social discourse where we actually need to legislate two-way conversations. In the last twenty years, we have seen an explosion of “media” on cable TV, and yet find ourselves in a time when you can now get arguably more reliable “news” on Comedy Central. As a matter of course, we’ve learned to accept soundbite-driven bark fests in lieu of substantive conversation.

Partisan broadcast networks, both left and right wing, are purposefully divisive out of greed. They eschew open dialogue not because there isn’t a genuine need for it, but because partisanship gets them better ratings and makes them more money. Right now we’d be happy enough if we could just frickin’ download the presidential debates from iTunes or C-SPAN, but moving forward, it seems like maybe we’ve got kind of a bigger problem.

We recommend Lowell Bergman’s excellent Frontline series “News War”, and if you don’t already, we recommend you support your local NPR affiliate where thankfully, there is still a preponderance of real information available.

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati

[ Topic Politics | ]

3 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. NPR as a source for “real” news? Hmmmm… it seems to me that NPR is very much a left-leaning outit, as are the New York Times, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, et. al. Yes, Fox news and talk radio are clearly biased to the right. But almost all of print media and the other major television networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) are left leaning. So why do we need a Fairness Doctrine? The free market has provided parity.

    Comment by kristian — July 18, 2007 #

  2. My point is that the “parity” we have achieved is just divisive, partisan hackery (on both sides), and what is lost is any sort of substantive conversation. This is a win win situation for the Rupert Murdoch’s of the world, but I can’t help thinking that us modest Americans are on the losing end of the battle.

    Comment by adam — July 18, 2007 #

  3. I agree, but the answer isn’t more government programs institutionalizing “fairness.”

    Comment by kristian — July 23, 2007 #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>