Letters to the Editor
Frankly, my dear, ...
Published Letters: 638
-
All's fair in broadcasting?
[Read the article: Howard Kurtz on why media outlets ignore the "military analyst" story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mona: Yes, and Hitler hated smoking -- thought it was unhealthy. Me and Hitler, walking together...
Yes, I sincerely doubt that Hitler would have favored a fairness doctrine either.
The issue is not which retrograde persons agree with me or Dirks, but on what basis anyone can defend the Fairness Doctrine as a government regulation as to what constitutes fair use of the airwaves.
Because the airwaves belong to the public and the public, through its representative government has the right to regulate what the airwaves are used for. The FCC introduced the fairness doctrine in 1949 and it was in effect for 38 years. A whole generation was not subject to Rush Limbaugh or his like. Congress tried to make the fairness doctrine into law but it was vetoed by Regan. Then the fairness doctrine was withdrawn by the FCC in 1987. Rush's rise to fame began the next year. The people have tried to regulate the airwaves but their attempts have been quashed by executive fiat.
(I imagine Malkin also thinks sodomizing toddlers should be illegal, as I do.)
I'm not sure I'd agree. I imagine that if Malkin thought she could get some Afghani to tell here where Bin Laden was (or even just give her a lede for her next column) she'd have his toddler sodomized in front of him in a heartbeat. But how can anyone defend a government regulation against sodomizing toddlers?
Just what glorious result do you imagine would result from a resurrection of the FD? And why?
I'm not sure that anyone who puts fairness and accuracy in broadcasting in the same category as sodomizing toddlers is really interested in the answer, but the most immediate result would be the demise of rightwing hate radio. Why? — because they couldn't afford to give up the time for rebuttal that they would have to under the fairness doctrine. They can only exist in the first place because there is no fairness doctrine any longer. The FCC still regulates obscenity on the airwaves, but personally I find a little bare titty on TV much less offensive than most of what Limbaugh says. But as long as he doesn't use obscene language, he is completely unaccountable for anything he says. The only people who can regulate him are his corporate sponsors. As long as he makes them money, whatever he says is fine with them. In fact, the more controversial, the better. You brought up Hitler, so I'm not breaking any taboos when I say that Hitler knew that hate sells. So does Rush. Every time he talks about "Hitlery" or "feminazis" or dreams of riots in Denver his audience eats it up. And it's all because there is no regulation that says that controversial or inaccurate statements must be provided an opportunity for rebuttal.
-
Nope
[Read the article: Howard Kurtz on why media outlets ignore the "military analyst" story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Paul Dirks: Another point about Rush is that subjecting him to the fairness doctrine could be construed as depriving his listeners of their right to listen to him unencumbered.
This is a straw man. Nothing requires that rebuttal take place in the same time frame as the original commentary. The fairness doctrine does not require a point-counterpoint presentation. What it does require is that if the presentation is controversial or inaccurate that time be made available for rebuttal.
Freedom of speech is meaningless if it doesn't include the freedom to be an idiot.
I agree completely. I wouldn't want to interfere with Rush's right to say any idiotic thing he wants to. But when he makes a distortion (i.e., lies through his teeth), those affected by the lie should have the right to present the undistorted version to the same audience. If his version is not distorted, then the fairness doctrine doesn't enter into it.
-
Apples and avocados
[Read the article: Howard Kurtz on why media outlets ignore the "military analyst" story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mona: And what of right-wing blogs? Should they be subject to an Internet version of the FD, so that their inaccurate and controversial statements can be rebutted? How about Glenn's blog; should govt oversee his posting as well?
The internet and print media are not licensed by the FCC as the public airwaves are. The public airwaves are limited by spectrum band and by the frequency range required for each broadcast station. It is not like a line in plane geometry which consists of an infinite number of dimensionless points. There are only a finite number of broadcast channels and each one is licensed by the FCC. By contrast, anyone has access to the internet and similarly, anyone can start a newspaper. Print media are not and never were subject to the fairness doctrine and the internet should not be either.
This is why net neutrality is so very important. Once corporations get control of bandwidth and precedence on the net then we will have the same thing we have with broadcast media without a fairness doctrine.
The internet should not be regulated because there is equal access for everyone. Broadcast radio and TV does not have equal access for everyone and those who are licensed to use it are not given a monopoly on its use but are given a public trust to act in the public interest and, if they won't honor that trust, they need to be regulated the same way other license holders are.