Fairness Doctrine
One commenter very astutely asked about the Fairness Doctrine. Rather than explain my own votes, or lack thereof, as FCC chair, I thought I would ask a prominent, if perhaps too friendly, Washington media attorney what did I do, as chair, on this topic. He [anon.] provided the following response to me:
"The Reagan FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and this repeal was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (with a panel that I believe included then Judge Ken Starr). The idea behind the FCC's decision (other than the Reagan FCC's desire to deregulate everywhere it could) was that by the late 1980s there were many more broadcast and other mass media outlets to ensure controversial issues of public importance receive full and balanced coverage.
You joined the FCC in 1993, so you obviously had nothing to do with the repeal. There was no call to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which would have been difficult anyway given the relatively recent decision to repeal and the court decision affirming the appeal. In any event, while the Fairness Doctrine sought to advance important objectives, it suffered a flaw that plagued nearly all FCC public interest obligations: it was so vague as to be almost meaningless and unenforceable.
During your campaign as FCC Chair, you led a strong campaign to make broadcaster public interest obligations more clear, more specific, more meaningful. This led to one of the significant successes: a clear rule established by the FCC in 1997 that each broadcast TV station should air at least 3 hours of kid's educational TV every week. This rule is still on the books today.
You also fought to quantify broadcaster public interest obligations in other ways. You and Bill Kennard advocated for more free air time for political candidates during election season, and for more specific targets for news and public affairs programming. Unfortunately, these efforts were strongly opposed by the broadcast industry and a Republican Congress, and have gone no where under the Powell / Martin FCC."
"During your campaign as FCC Chair, you led a strong campaign to make broadcaster public interest obligations more clear, more specific, more meaningful. This led to one of the significant successes: a clear rule established by the FCC in 1997 that each broadcast TV station should air at least 3 hours of kid's educational TV every week. This rule is still on the books today."
Unfortunately, "The Simpsons" counts as "kid's educational TV."
Apparantly, there were some loopholes in that "significant success.
December 5, 2005 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Simpsons isn't nearly as bad as some other shows that probably count too. Remember, despite its farfetched (and funny) storylines, The Simpsons is about a family with a mother and father who stay together through thick and thin and who love their kids and do their best to raise them right. Meanwhile, the kids are bright (although Bart frequently misuses his talents) and often brave.
Compare it to the Family Guy, also a funny show, but not one I would ever feel comfortable with kids watching. The son is stupid, the daughter is constantly being told that she's ugly, the baby is homicidal and the dog is a cocaine addict. Like I said, a funny show, but not for kids.
I don't watch The Simpsons often, but it is consistently amusing and not nearly as destructive as a lot of so-called kids programs/products.
Way more disturbing to me are the Bratz dolls, which teach little girls that it is fun to look slutty.
December 5, 2005 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I would like to know is what happened to our anti-trust laws. I find it hard to believe that it is legal (let alone ethical) for 6 or 7 mega-corporations to own OUR airwaves. Perhaps it's time to rethink the whole equation.
If the airwaves are indeed "public property" then the networks and media companies should only be allowed to "rent them."
The payment? Why broadcast time in the public interest. That would entail 3 hours of educational broadcasting that would have to be approved by a board,(perhaps the FCC,) as containing actual educational materials, equal time for political discussion, moreso during elections, as well as limited adult content between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Undoable you say? I hardly think so. it isn't anything we didn't have before Clinton signed the damn 1996 Telecommunications Act and Reagan killed the fairness doctrine.
Oh, and another thing, test "News" programs for content. Enough of the OJs and Runaway bride crapola. If it isn't meaningful to the majority don't air it.
The airwaves belong to the public. Perhaps slaraies and profits should be limited to that end as well. After all, I think we would all rather have 100 reporters actually reporting news than one Dan Rather.
Take the (obscene) profit out of it and those who's only interest is in dollars will soon drop out.
December 5, 2005 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt anyone holds you responsible for the shortcomings of the Reagan administration. But I think the broader question is about the role of the Fairness Doctrine in the future. Is there a policy that can be clearly and fairly articulated that will result in a healthier politics?
--Dan
PS Congratulations on the big win over the Rams yesterday.
December 5, 2005 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
<Oh, and another thing, test "News" programs for content. Enough of the OJs and Runaway bride crapola. If it isn't meaningful to the majority don't air it.>
Does this also apply to "reality shows" like Survivor and Fear Factor? I would like to see something applied that says: "no program shall actively contribute to the dumbing down of society"
or something like that
December 5, 2005 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, Mr. Hundt, I can't see why you folks should have waited around for a 'call' to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
1) It wasn't like the court case said you had to repeal it; it just said you had the authority to do so. So you had the authority to bring it back again.
2) Even by Clinton's first term, the sudden prevalence of Limbaugh and his legions on talk radio should have been some sort of clue that an obvious imbalance had occured. Seems like that should've been regarded as a 'call.'
3) Even by Clinton's first term, it should have been becoming clear that a limited number of corporations were behind the vast majority of the broadcast and cable channels, and that that limited number was diminishing. The chimera of a vast number of sufficiently independent media outlets was just that - a chimera.
4) Most of all, it takes money to be a player in Big Media, in either broadcast or cable. And Big Money, while not unanimous, tends to be overwhelmingly on one side of a whole array of issues affecting Americans' well-being.
In short, I think you blew it. I'm sorry to have to say this to you, because you are one of the Good Guys, in my opinion, and I'd much rather have you back as chair of the FCC than whatever GOP hack is currently there now. But it's hard to see that the Fairness Doctrine, no matter how vague, would have failed to be useful in battling, say, a radio broadcaster who had three hours of Rush Limbaugh a day, followed by Gordon Liddy and Ollie North, but refused to let opposing voices even buy advertising time on those programs.
And that's the sort of lack of fairness that's become increasingly common.
OK, an FCC-based Fairness Doctrine would have been dead meat once the GOP retook the White House. But if the Fairness Doctrine had been in place for the last seven years of the Clinton Administration, don't you wonder if things might have turned out a bit differently?
December 5, 2005 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are assuming that was a bug, not a feature, of the Clinton Administration. Personally I think Bill et al deliberately sold out civil liberties (privacy in particular, but this one as well) to get enough corporate campaign donations so that they could fight on other fronts they felt were more important.
sPh
December 5, 2005 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be contriversial (though I don't know why) why not just let the market place take care of it? I mean, if the programing sucks, people don't watch or listen. If you have to falsely prop up a channel whose line up is not watched, and therefore not advertised on the product you are trying to brodcast is just that; broadcast, noone watches it or gains anything from it. If you want to get a particular point of view across (i.e. Limbaugh) you only need make it entertaining and people will watch or listen. Also who's in charge of deciding which column a particular broadcast goes into. Limbaugh = Conservetive, Wolf Blitzer = Liberal, what column does Hannity & Combs go in? Do you time each of them and which ever one talks the most get stuck with the tab for the broadcast time? What I think is a liberal broadcast, many here would consider a conservitive one. I was just wondering.
December 5, 2005 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed-
Thank you for the response.
Let me say at the outset that on balance, I believe you tried to make positive and helpful rules on children's topics while on the commission.
My criticism is directed at the somewhat laissez-faire attitude you provide in dealing with media here at TPM, while in other venues seem to unload both barrels (I'm thinking now of the Salon column about the "right ring assault on the media").
As I said before, you have more insight than any TPM reader on the connections between the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine, the "relaxation" of the media ownership rules, and the resulting hegemony of single-minded corporate media interests.
We would appreciate your first hand views.
Notrol
December 5, 2005 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That said, I do wonder if we can get a Congress in the next few years that will be able muster the political will to at least reduce the tilt on the Media playing field. It would be a good thing, IMO, if a new version of the Fairness Doctrine was part of the 2006 Democratic Platform. Even if when it eventually gets vetoed, let it become part of the political debate, and maybe the public can finally vote on it in 2008.
December 5, 2005 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are not comparing programming here:
The original intent of public interest programming was OTHER than entertainment, good or bad. Public Interest Programming should be a) educational programming, or, b) community affairs programming.
There is plenty of time left for entertainment. These ARE the PUBLIC's AIRWAVES.
Or at least they used to be.
December 6, 2005 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to remember that section 315 of the Comm act of 1934, AKA the fairness doctrine was ALWAYS and ROUTINELY suspended every 4 years during presidential campaigns. So getting rid of it wasn't the real problem.
The "REAL PROBLEM" is the gradual transition of station licenses from "leaseholds from the public" whose interest was to be best served by the licensee, to "PRIVATE PROPERTY" to be bought and sold for corporate profit.
Once that Rubicon was crossed, broadcasting "in the public interest" was doomed, and concentration of ownership was inevitable.
December 9, 2005 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink