47% Of Americans Support The Fairness Doctrine

• August 15, 2008

A sad commentary on the state of free speech in America.

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too.
At the same time, 71% say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) do not agree.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) say the government should not require websites and blog sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints. But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary (full demographic crosstabs available for Premium Members.)

I’m not sure that government-enforced notions of equality is what the founders meant when they wrote the 1st amendment.
It’s worth noting that there is no prohibition on radio and television stations balancing their political content by ideology. The simple fact of the matter, at least as far as talk radio goes, is that most people want conservative commentary.
The liberals tried to get a toehold in the talk radio industry. They launched Air America. It failed. Miserably. Mostly because nobody wanted to listen to it. The fairness doctrine would take liberal content of the sort that Air America broadcast and force it down the throats of radio listeners. Not because radio listeners want it, but rather to fulfill some absurd notion of fairness.
What happens if a radio station tried to balance a conservative regional talk show with a liberal regional talk show but could find no host able to fill that role? Would the conservative have to go off the air for lack of a counterpart? Is that really “fairness?”
Given how polarized our nation is politically, and how many people are spouting off about politics on the radio waves and internet tubes as it is, there’s no doubt that free speech is alive and well in this country and that there’s little need for the fairness doctrine.

Tags: Freedom Of Speech, Media, Politics

http://Array Bat One

Under the very appropriate title, “A Republic If You Can Keep It” Chicago attorney, political junkie, and blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh makes an interesting point:

I do hope that this poll is flawed in its measurements. If it is not, we have some serious work to do in convincing the population at large that you can’t have a vibrant First Amendment once it is tied up in the manifestation of red tape that is the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine, which is anything but, is clearly at odds with a “vibrant” First Amendment. The very Amendment so often used by liberals as cover for their other nefarious nonsense. One more reason NOT to have Barack Obama appointing SCOTUS justices.
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

VERY different points than what allowed radio regulation to remain constitutional. In radio broadcasting, government controlled the actual limited assignment of distribution; there is no such limitation as far as the internet goes (which makes the case more like Tornillo where the fairness doctrine was found unconstitutional in regard to newspapers). So yes, it’s nothing to worry about as far as the internet is concerned.

But with Am/FM/HD/XM/Siruis/Podcasts/Net radio, the argument that radio space is finite is also bogus. Furthermore, the idea that because something is limited anyways, that each piece of it must be equally used is assinine. If PBS radio is ultra left, there is no reason conservatives must be FORCED on it. After all they can go on FOX radio, or Limbaugh.

That’s a bit of a hyperbolic point considering that every single aspect of government requires a level of trust from the citizen that it will not be abused. That’s the whole reason for checks and balances.

Actually, “trusting” the government not to overstep its bounds is like trusting a hungry dog not to eat off your plate if you leave it alone. The reason for checks and balances was because the framers DIStrusted government.

Far from being hyperbolic, he has a good point. Trusting a government agency to treat fairly people who want to see them go away is idiotic.
jpe

What Hairy said. That’s basically also what the Supreme Court said when it held that the Fairness Doctrine is constitutional (the Red Lion case, IIRC)
http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

key points in the Internet are still regulated by the government

VERY different points than what allowed radio regulation to remain constitutional. In radio broadcasting, government controlled the actual limited assignment of distribution; there is no such limitation as far as the internet goes (which makes the case more like Tornillo where the fairness doctrine was found unconstitutional in regard to newspapers). So yes, it’s nothing to worry about as far as the internet is concerned.

You’re saying that there will be a department in government responsible for treating people fairly who want that department cut.

That’s a bit of a hyperbolic point considering that every single aspect of government requires a level of trust from the citizen that it will not be abused. That’s the whole reason for checks and balances.
http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

Actually, it may not be “getting their panties in a bunch for nothing,” as key points in the Internet are still regulated by the government. The basic argument still holds.

And it’s still an asinine argument as well. You’re saying that there will be a department in government responsible for treating people fairly who want that department cut. As if that can happen.
http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

But it could never be applied to internet or other “non-limited” resources (Tornillo). So people are getting their panties in a bunch over nothing.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/white_folks_greed_runs_a_world_in_ Joel

Constitutional? You’re joking, right? Please cite the section of the Constitution that even remotely addresses the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Oh, and don’t bother if you believe that the Constitution is a “living document.”
Texan Across the Pond

The “Fairness Doctrine”: Verbal hinjinx brought to you by the same people who gave us the equally well named “Ministry of Love” as well as the catchy phrases Un-persons and double-plus good!
Peter S

Wow, what a logistical nightmare it would be to enforce this type of censorship. If this is where we are really headed let’s just skip the interim steps and become a full fledged communist nation like China that has absolutely no freedom of speech.

It is a sad commentary on the populous when 47% think this is a good idea and cannot or do not think through the obvious ramifications.
http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

The thing that gets me is that no advocates of the “Fairness Doctrine” ever seem to consider that government workers just might not be the best judges of the “fairness” of speech dedicated to reducing the size of government.

Or maybe they do, but keep it quiet in hopes of getting their way.
jpe

Hairy, I don’t think there is any reasonable argument for the fairness doctrine as good policy. I think there is an argument for the fairness doctrine as constitutionally allowable.

I can’t speak for Hairy, but that’s pretty much how I come down on it. Constitutional, but bad policy.
Bat One

Joel,

As I read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other contemporary writings, the Founders’ intent was that no politician or political office holder, from the President on down, should ever have any sort of control over the political speech of anyone!
http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

This doesn’t sound like it would pass the constitutional mustard.

The internet wouldn’t, but the reasoning for radio is that the government assigns frequencies, so it is already subject to government regulation. Thus it would be up to the government to make sure that their “assignments” are fair to both sides of the aisle. As much as I hate regulation and think that everything is fair the way it is, I’d have to concede that it’s a reasonable argument (so would Milton Friedman actually as far as his views on technological monopolies are concerned).
dragon poker

I would argue that there is a finite number of IP addresses, (10^16 IIRC)much like there is a finite number of frequency range allocations.

Thats like saying there is a finite number of numbers. huh?
http://forums.kikizo.com/ Eddie_the_Hated

The real impact of the fairness doctrine, I think, would be to quicken the death of over-the-air broadcasting and help a great deal things like internet/cable/satellite broadcasting.

I can’t see any power we take away from the FCC going anywhere but the telecoms. It’s a trade off I suppose.
jpe

Joel, even though it’s pretty simple, I’m not sure how to translate from English into grunts so that you’ll understand.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/white_folks_greed_runs_a_world_in_ Joel

“NO” politician—-I agree with the emphasis !!
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

This doesn’t sound like it would pass the constitutional mustard.
pparets

Why all of you are dead wrong on the fairness doctrine.

First, the so-called ‘fairness doctrine’ already exists in law – it’s just not being enforced at the moment. No new ground need be broken.

Second – The democrats and those to the left of them only need three things to pump new life into into a re-enforced, reinvigorated ‘Fairness Doctrine.

1. They need a large majority – perhaps veto proof – in both houses of congress.

2. They need Mr. Obama in the White House.

3. As an insurance policy, they need 2 or three liberal justices named to the Supreme Court, courtesy of Mr. Obama.

Some conservatives are bitter at Senator McCain for co-authoring the McCain/Feingold bill, and rightly so. But, at least that legislation affects all, equally.

A new and vengeful ‘Fairness Doctrine’ will have one – and only one – target: you and me.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

Constitutional? You’re joking, right? Please cite the section of the Constitution that even remotely addresses the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Oh, and don’t bother if you believe that the Constitution is a “living document.”

First off no where in the constitution does it say that we are to allow equal time. I think in the end the left will lose on this one.

I can’t imange what Air America looks like if they have to allow right leaning talk they might actually become profitable.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/white_folks_greed_runs_a_world_in_ Joel

JPE

If it’s so simple, where’s your explanation, ass-wipe?
You’re an idiot…

Bat,
I agree;I sure as hell don’t want Nancy Pelosi and/or Harry Reid manipulating decisions about what’s “fair” on the airwaves!

Freedom of speech is in no way threatened by the free market at work in the talk radio environment.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/white_folks_greed_runs_a_world_in_ Joel

Those who support it suffer from a clear case of cranial rectal inversion.
http://www.sayanythingblog.com/ electnixon

I would argue that there is a finite number of IP addresses, (10^16 IIRC)much like there is a finite number of frequency range allocations.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Thus it would be up to the government to make sure that their “assignments” are fair to both sides of the aisle. As much as I hate regulation and think that everything is fair the way it is, I’d have to concede that it’s a reasonable argument (so would Milton Friedman actually as far as his views on technological monopolies are concerned).

Hairy, I don’t think there is any reasonable argument for the fairness doctrine as good policy. I think there is an argument for the fairness doctrine as constitutionally allowable.

The real impact of the fairness doctrine, I think, would be to quicken the death of over-the-air broadcasting and help a great deal things like internet/cable/satellite broadcasting.

Which, ultimately, would lessen the control of the FCC in general. Which wouldn’t be a bad outcome, though I still oppose the fairness doctrine on principle.

That more Americans apparently don’t agree with me means we freedom-loving Americans have a lot of educating to do.

SayAnythingBlog.com

47% Of Americans Support The Fairness Doctrine

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments