Friday, October 27, 2006

A Call for the Return of the Fairness Doctrine (Ben Franklin Would've Written this Under a Clever Pseudonym)

In 1987 The FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, a measure in existence since the inception of the Federal Radio Commission (an FCC precursor) and throughout the entire history of the FCC until that point. The Fairness Doctrine required, well, fairness, by mandating the expression of different viewpoints on any frequency licensed by the FCC, which is all of them. Not coincidentally, Rush Limbaugh came on the air in 1988, and the talk radio industry that has sprung up without the burden of fairness is at least 90% right-wing. So since over 80% of Americans get their news from talk radio and similarly uninhibited and biased cable news stations, we currently have a very uninformed electorate in the US (Statistics in this paragraph come via the speech Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave at Brown on Oct. 20th).

In 1731 Benjamin Franklin wrote in his "Apology for Printers" that printers should "chearfully serve all contending Writers". "Printers" he wrote "naturally acquire a vast Unconcernedness as to the right or wrong Opinions contain'd in what they print; regarding it only ast the Matter of their daily labour." I interpret this to mean whoever wants to get their material printed should be able to, regardless of the printer's personal opinion. That certainly isn't happening these days (in the news networks that are analogously responsible for disseminating information), especially since the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine. Like Thomas Jefferson said: "I would rather have a strong free press and no government than a strong government and no free press."

3 Comments:

At 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which reminds us of Marshall McLuhan: "The medium is the message". Thank God for PBS. ~KmcK

 
At 7:06 PM, Blogger ktb said...

do you think television news media really are analogous? I'm more along the line of thinking that everything corporately owned by interests other than/conflicting with information dissemination, especially those that advertise heavily, should be regulated differently than those programs and companies which exist for that purpose alone. Advertising and corporate conflict of interest just seem so dangerous to me that I've come to the (okay, idle) conclusion that anything that professes to be 'news' while engaging in either should come with a disclaimer...

but that's a very minor thought and the actual reaction was... fairness: all hail!

PS, i've got some AK friends heading to Providence to visit Brown tomorrow between 11 and 3. Any chance you'll be semi-stationary and they could have your number in case they have time to seek you out? Sorry 'bout the late notice, but I just found out and I do like to introduce people to my cousins...

~KmcK II

 
At 6:06 PM, Blogger ktb said...

hey buck,
thanks for wanting to see them, i know you all would have liked each other. but it sounds like they were short on time too... and don't go getting a cell phone! we non-cellphone folks have to stick together and remain firm in our ways... and then will come the proselytization... and the eventual conquest...

BWA HAHA HAAAAA

 

Post a Comment

<< Home