The "Fairness Doctrine" should be rejected

Con states, "Pro might want to study some more history." I challenge Con to present the specific history that he thinks is relevant to the debate and to defend its relevance. What is he talking about? 1. Pro asserted that the Government has the right to regulate what it owns in any way they see fit. He clarifies that "When a company like Air America buys air space from the government they agree to the rights and conditions, but they control that space. No company from the private sector is allowed to buy a portion of the highway." So what then is the problem to be solved by the Fairness Doctrine? Was the problem that station owners would not allow Air America to present its viewpoint? Not at all. Clear Channel, an owner widely associated with Conservative talk radio, bought a station in San Francisco to run Air America programming, believing that surely liberal talk radio would be profitable in San Francisco. Media access nationwide was not the slightest problem. Air America failed because no one listened, not because there was any problem getting air time. Pro further argues "first of all, allowing an opposing viewpoint is not a suppression of free speech." There is no problem whatsoever in *allowing* free speech without the Fairness Doctrine. Air America got all the time it wanted. The issue is *mandating* speech in accordance with a government concept of fairness. That in turn depends upon one's faith in government's ability to determine what is fair. Suppose the Government decides that the Theory of Evolution is controversial. Then "fairness" would dictate that every assertion of Evolution be followed by free time to present the opposing viewpoint. There is no problem making a long list of issues that some people deem controversial and others do not. So should the Government get to decide what requires "fairness" and what does not? The Fairness Doctrine suppresses free speech by placing financial and regulatory burdens upon the speech. I posed this situation at the outset, and Con never addressed it. Giving out free air time to programming with no audience is not a business model that can be sustained. Moreover, attempting to determine what requires a "fairness" response and what does not is a substantial burden, with a fine or license suspension the penalty for guessing wrong. The way out is to drop opinion programming in favor of music, or whatever. Suppose the Fairness Doctrine paradigm were applied to books, magazines, and the Internet. What would the practical consequence be? It would be radical suppression of free speech due to regulatory burden. 2. Pro argued that media watch dog organization would apply the Fairness Doctrine. Now he seems to be saying that media watchdog organizations will ensure the government will fairly apply the Fairness Doctrine. Media watchdog operations now exist, but they have not ensured that media are fair. Supposing that they would suddenly become powerful enough to effectively regulate government is unsupported and illogical. It practice many of the self-proclaimed watchdogs are spin doctors dedicated to partisan opinion. They are not a significant factor. 3. The question with respect to cable statistics is whether or not there is a compelling need for the Government to regulate the public airwaves because the populace would otherwise be deprived of alternative viewpoints. Alternative viewpoints are provided, redundantly, by cable and satellite television systems. The total coverage is above 85% of households. Con says that in the past year, that cable's penetration has dropped from about 61% to 57%. Sure, that follows from satellite TV continually increasing its market share. It is not relevant to the debate, which is about whether the public is dependent upon the airways as a news and opinion source. Con failed to address the total of cable and satellite subscriptions. Con also ignores the Internet as a source of news and opinion. The total availability of information continues to increase dramatically, so the argument that the airways are critical is false. 4. Con argues, "The P.T.C. declared what happened during the halftime show was a violation, not the FCC." For P.T.C. to have determined the violation, they must be given regulatory authority to assess fines under statute. They have no such authority. It is the F.C.C. that has the authority. Filing the complaint does no more than allege a problem, which the government then may approve, deny, or ignore. If the Flat Earth Society files a complaint that claimed-controversial round-earth theory is being presented unopposed, then the FCC can approve, deny, or ignore the complaint. No enforcement authority is passed to the Flat Earth Society. Interestingly, Rush Limbaugh argued that NBC should not be fined for indecency. He argued that since there was a competitive media market, the public could be left to decide what station they want to watch without need for government censorship. He also defended shock jock Howard Stern's right to broadcast. Con says, "Pro then says that I believe that Air America was not allowed to give their viewpoint. I never said this and yet again Pro is making up things." Great, we agree that there is no problem with alternative opinion being presented. So why do we need a Fairness Doctrine? Con goes on, "The very stations that ban others from giving their view points. Which means that the stations that you seem to be supporting are banning free speech. It is the government job to allow free speech on their air waves and that is why the Fairness Doctrine needs to be approved." So there is simultaneously no problem in presenting alternative viewpoints, but a serious problem with presenting alternative viewpoints. This is a logical contradiction. Con was right the first time. How many radio stations would refuse to present a liberal talk show for which there are sponsors? Approximately zero. The dominant factor is listener support. Clear Channel jumped at the chance, until it found there was no audience. Con argues that fairness would improve under the Fairness Doctrine, because the liberal media dominates and conservative would subsequently get a piece of it, more than a fair return for giving liberals a piece of conservative media. Con makes two errors in that assessment. It assumes that mainstream media bias is mainly in the form of editorial opinion. It is not, the main bias is in the form of slanted news coverage, a problem not addressed by the Fairness Doctrine. Secondly, the conservative talk shows will largely cease to exist, because their economic model cannot support putting on shows with no audience. The mainstream media does not face that problem nearly so severely, because their bias is in slanting the news, which would not have any penalty. Government regulation should be based on compelling need. If the public were unable to access opposing viewpoints, a Fairness Doctrine might be justified. We know there is no such problem and no such compelling need; over 85% have cable or satellite television. More have the Internet. Most areas have multiple radio and TV stations over the airwaves. In the absence of compelling need, wouldn't it still be better to be more fair rather than less? The Fairness Doctrine would make it less fair by establishing official Government censorship, de facto shutting down conservative talk radio, and favoring biased news coverage over identified opinion. If any abstract belief in fairness provided by Government were at the heart of the debate, then liberals would demand similar "fairness" in books and newspapers. They do not. They know perfectly well that the government is not qualified to impose fairness. The resolution should be approved.