The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC's view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission's general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2]Now, let's further assume that Conservative suspicions are right and that Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein et al want to impose the Fairness Doctrine in order to silence talk radio. They want to do this because talk radio is dominated by Conservatives. So, for the most part, the Fairness Doctrine would only apply to talk radio. So, what would happen?
The most immediate effect is that AM radio would get crippled. The Fairness Doctrine forces media outlets to provide equal time for both sides of a "controversial issue". The problem is that liberals like Air America have been an abject failure on talk radio. As such, station managers would struggle to find appropriate voices in order to comply with the Doctrine. Most talk radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham would be force off the air. Without them on their airwaves, the format would get crushed in the ratings and ultimately get marginalized.
The more interesting question is what would happen to the personalities themselves. On this issue, I believe the Fairness Doctrine would only speed up a process that I believe will occur soon enough on its own. The personalities would likely eventually move over to the internet en masse. Currently, the internet is the place where the amateurs of talk radio go to. Yet, it is the place that is absolutely perfectly suited for a mass exodus from talk radio.
The internet substitutes for syndication. Once you are on the internet, you are immediately in syndication. Furthermore, the internet allows for the personalities to combine the format of call ins with such technology as message boards, comments, and chat rooms. Most importantly, with the internet, listeners will no longer be forced to arrange their schedule to listen to their favorite personality. Internet broadcasts will also allow for income opportunities in new technologies like MP3 downloads as well.
The best part for the personalities is that almost all already have a website and most already broadcast their shows via streaming sound on the internet. The only reason that the internet hasn't taken off as mass vehicle for talk radio is perception. The internet, as a means of audio broadcast, has only been available for a few years. AM radio has been around for generations. All it would take is one personality who would see this as an opportunity to dominate a new media and the rest would immediately follow.
The ultimate irony of all of this is this. The Fairness Doctrine is the most extreme example of the government attempting to replace the free market. Yet, it would be the free market itself that would guide the players after it is imposed. The ultimate irony is that all the Fairness Doctrine would do is more quickly kill off the technology of the AM frequency. The personalities currently on it would merely adapt and follow where the free market would lead them, the internet. The Fairness Doctrine is one of those laws that the public would only really despise after its effects are felt. As such, if the Democrats then attempted to control the internet, they would roundly be rejected by the public after they had seen what it did to AM. As such, don't fear for the Rush Limbaugh's of the world. They will adapt to anything the politicians throw at them.
the idea that obama would support the fairness doctrine is based on the assumption that he's flat-out lying when he repeatedly says that he doesn't support it. if that's your thesis, then ok, but why not argue against his actual positions instead? there's plenty to disagree with there without pretending he supports something that hes actually spoken out *against*.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Obama's been on both sides of all sorts of issues. His opposition to the fairness doctrine is weak at best. He isn't out there proclaiming that under no circumstances would he allow his Democratic legislature to re constitute the fairness doctrine.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, arguing Obama's stance on it is totally irrelevant. This piece wasn't about what Obama might do. It's about what the industry would do in response. You are arguing something that is beside the point for this piece.