What is so fair about the Fairness Doctrine?
In his book Don't Believe Everything You Think, author Thomas Kida identifies the six basic mistakes we make in thinking. Perhaps the most common mistake is seeking to confirm, not question, our own ideas. And the current debate over the Fairness Doctrine provides a textbook case of parties on both sides having tunnel vision.
On July 15th, 2009, the House Rules Committee voted against the Broadcaster Freedom Amendment, which would have blocked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the highly controversial and very unfair (according to some) Fairness Doctrine. In 1949, the FCC introduced the Fairness Doctrine in an effort to require holders of broadcast licenses to allot airtime to controversial issues of interest to the public, and to apply that rule evenly across the board when it came to presenting contrasting views. The Supreme Court upheld its use in limited circumstance in 1969. In 1987, during the Reagan Administration, the FCC repealed the policy. Mark Fowler, who was head of the FCC during much of the Reagan Administration and who worked to eliminate the policy, explained his views to radio host Mark Levin: "I believe, as President Reagan did, that radio should be as free from governmental control as the press that uses paper and ink," Fowler said.
A number of politicians, however, want to bring it back. Most of those who support resuscitating the Fairness Doctrine are Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Bill Clinton have all expressed support for reinstating the policy. Those that are for its revival believe broadcast license owners have a public trust that overrides their property rights. The Fairness Doctrine is needed once again, they say, because there are fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them.
As Steve Rendall said a few years ago, "Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves." Rendall is Senior Analyst with FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) and a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine.
But Mike Pence, Republican Representative from Indiana, disagrees with those who want to bring the policy back. He expressed bitter disappointment with the failure of the Rules Committee to pass the Broadcaster Freedom Amendment. For him, this is a first amendment issue.
This is a clear case of both sides looking only for ideas that support their own positions. Many conservatives feel that reviving the Fairness Doctrine would kill conservative talk radio because radio stations think they would have difficulty selling advertising for "progressive" (liberal?) programming. For many on the left, taking Rush Limbaugh and the like off the air would not bother them one bit. The sad thing is both sides are so busy looking for ideas that support their own preconceived thoughts, they don't look for common ground. How can we encourage broadcasters to provide education about controversial topics in a balanced way - without skewering the first amendment?
Decision-Making Best Practice #6: Play devil's advocate with your ideas. Try to find what's wrong with them. In doing so, you will expand your thinking and find innovative new solutions to problems.
On July 15th, 2009, the House Rules Committee voted against the Broadcaster Freedom Amendment, which would have blocked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the highly controversial and very unfair (according to some) Fairness Doctrine. In 1949, the FCC introduced the Fairness Doctrine in an effort to require holders of broadcast licenses to allot airtime to controversial issues of interest to the public, and to apply that rule evenly across the board when it came to presenting contrasting views. The Supreme Court upheld its use in limited circumstance in 1969. In 1987, during the Reagan Administration, the FCC repealed the policy. Mark Fowler, who was head of the FCC during much of the Reagan Administration and who worked to eliminate the policy, explained his views to radio host Mark Levin: "I believe, as President Reagan did, that radio should be as free from governmental control as the press that uses paper and ink," Fowler said.
A number of politicians, however, want to bring it back. Most of those who support resuscitating the Fairness Doctrine are Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Bill Clinton have all expressed support for reinstating the policy. Those that are for its revival believe broadcast license owners have a public trust that overrides their property rights. The Fairness Doctrine is needed once again, they say, because there are fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them.
As Steve Rendall said a few years ago, "Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves." Rendall is Senior Analyst with FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) and a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine.
But Mike Pence, Republican Representative from Indiana, disagrees with those who want to bring the policy back. He expressed bitter disappointment with the failure of the Rules Committee to pass the Broadcaster Freedom Amendment. For him, this is a first amendment issue.
This is a clear case of both sides looking only for ideas that support their own positions. Many conservatives feel that reviving the Fairness Doctrine would kill conservative talk radio because radio stations think they would have difficulty selling advertising for "progressive" (liberal?) programming. For many on the left, taking Rush Limbaugh and the like off the air would not bother them one bit. The sad thing is both sides are so busy looking for ideas that support their own preconceived thoughts, they don't look for common ground. How can we encourage broadcasters to provide education about controversial topics in a balanced way - without skewering the first amendment?
Decision-Making Best Practice #6: Play devil's advocate with your ideas. Try to find what's wrong with them. In doing so, you will expand your thinking and find innovative new solutions to problems.
Labels: Fairness Doctrine, FCC, thinking mistakes, Thomas Kida
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home