The "Fairness Doctrine" should be rejected

Resolved: The "Fairness Doctrine" should be rejected. Definitions The "Fairness Doctrine" is a government rule that would require broadcast radio to offer time for opposing viewpoints in response to editorial comments. There was a Fairness Doctrine imposed in the early days of radio and television, but it was revoked in by the FCC in 1987. From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org...: "According to Steve Rendall of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[3] The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949.[4] The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[5]" Note that the doctrine required each and every station to have public affairs programming. Top Forty music stations had to provide something, so they would run an hourly news feed and come out in opposition to littering or something, and then provide time for opposing viewpoints, for fear of losing their license. History In various Court cases, some aspects of the Fairness Doctrine were upheld by the Supreme Court, while other aspects have not been tested. The resolution for this debate asserts that no form of the Fairness Doctrine should be instituted by any branch or agency of the government, whether or not it is Constitutional. In the early days of broadcasting, the Fairness Doctrine made some sense. The logic was that many people could only receive a few radio or TV stations, and airwaves were a limited resource controlled by the government. If a person could only receive a couple stations, there was a chance that the listener would not get any news program unless it was required. It was comparable to having the government be the sole owner of the only printing press and deciding how it would apportion time for use of the press. Arguments However, even back at the time the grounds were dubious. Newspapers and magazines were the main news sources, so it was not as if a person had no access to news or opposing viewpoints. Not having the Internet or much television, people not only had access to print media, they actually read the media a whole lot. What brought about the present interest in the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine was the failure of liberal talk radio. Conservative talk radio dominates opinion on AM radio. In an attempt to counter that, Liberals launched and heavily funded Air America http://en.wikipedia.org..., and liberal print media promoted it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Air America could not attract listeners or advertisers and went bankrupt. The remnants were sold off, and the network continues with a reduced schedule and small audience. The top two Air America shows combined draw less than 6% of Rush Limbaugh's audience, never mind the rest of Conservative talk radio. In liberal New York City, the Air America station had lower ratings than the all-Caribbean music station it replaced. Station owners would have to convince government bureaucrats they are being fair according to the standards of liberal bureaucrats, which poses yet another burden to discourage the talk radio format. Re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine is perceived by Liberals as a win-win situation. One possibility is that stations will continue to broadcast Conservative talk radio, in which case the Libs will get free air time to promote the virtues of big government. The other possibility is that having to give out free air time that has a very small audience will destroy the economics of the radio stations so they will switch to a different format. The Fairness Doctrine should be rejected because: 1. It is a hypocritical attempt to suppress free speech. If there were an interest in "fairness" for the sake of fairness then advocates would use that logic to demand that the Internet and every newspaper and magazine also be "fair." There is, however, no interest in spreading this brand of fairness to anything except media that has become Conservative. 2. It depends upon the government to determine what is fair. That is exactly the mode adopted by China and the old Soviet Union. Government bureaucrats cannot be trusted to make the determine what is fair. If one examines PBS and the BBC, they believe they are fair, but in fact they are overwhelmingly leftist. That's because people who choose to work for government as a career strongly tend to favor government solutions to problems. That's true no matter who happens to be the chief executive. Bureaucrats always have predominantly a leftist agenda. 3. With current technology, there are is no shortage of alternative media sources. Cable television is now in 85% of homes, and anything one wants can be found on the Internet. Whatever case there once was for supposing limited bandwidth is now gone. 4. It is contrary to free speech to attempt to force-feed opinion to people. People should be free to choose, by virtue of what they listen to and support, what programming they get. If people want all-Caribbean music, they should not be required to get news broadcasts of any kind, let alone a government-approved concept of balance. 5. The Fairness Doctrine avoids the central issue of real fairness, which is bias in the selection and reporting of news stories. For example, the New York Times ran fifty front page stories alleging, without evidence, that Abu Ghraib was official government policy. No evidence was every discovered; it was simply a biased hope, not news. Commentary labeled as commentary is well-understood as being someone's opinion, and that is not a problem. Attempts to pass off opinion as news is the problem, and that is not touched by the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, while suppressing opinion, the Fairness Doctrine would permit and encourage news bias. While opinion suffers a burden, biased reporting suffers none. For all these reasons, the resolution should be affirmed. [This debate challenge should not be accepted by anyone who suspects they might forfeit even one round. The unexpected can happen, of course, but the probability should be low.]