The Blinding Truth
columnist: Lonnie Dalton

Topic: Government Regulation
"Fairness"? Oh, You Mean Like How Troops Who Shoot People are "Peace Keepers"

---

An Analysis and Commentary on the Fairness Doctrine, properly buried, but being considered for revival.

---

by Lonnie Dalton
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Perhaps some of you have heard about the potential renewal of a Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters.  I'll leave it to other resources to give a full background of the Fairness Doctrine, but suffice it to say that its cancellation in the 80's has been credited by most for the incredible growth and influence of talk radio.  Bash it if you will, but the spirit of talk radio in its infancy was much like the internet is today - a medium that became a voice of the people for alternative information, in direct response to the seeming lack of coverage of important and alternative information in the mainstream media.  And even now, as much of it is wielded by media giants, it provides an alternative outlook and source of information.

Much like how the official and "exhaustive" 9/11 Report didn't even address how the FORTY-SEVEN story Building 7 collapsed without being hit, and much like how the official story is that Kennedy's only shooter was nearly directly to his rear yet Kennedy was jolted violently backwards and to the left, it turns out there is no relation between the labeling of the doctrine and reality. The truth is that the LACK of a "Fairness Doctrine" allows programs that have people giving a wide array of opinions without worrying about the FCC coming down on them under some ambiguous standard of "equality" of opinions.  For those of you who haven't checked into the full realm of talk radio, I'll tell you that I have, and there's as much variance even in talk radio as there is in mainstream media.  I've listened to talk show hosts whose entire programs cover things that make it seem in relevant terms as though Rush Limbaugh or O'Reilly or NPR are just covering Paris Hilton's latest life crisis (never mind that some of them actually do waste time doing so).  See Alex Jones or Coast to Coast AM, not to mention various shortwave programs.  In fact, many talk show hosts confess to a Libertarian bent, which despite complaints by some, disagree philosophically and practically on a regular basis with even "mainstream conservative media."

With a Fairness Doctrine, many of the hard issues not only may not be covered well - you may have noticed the mainstreams have a short attention span, and to explain it when they it is admitted, they psychologically project their short attention span on the audience and blame it on you, all the while being able to cover in a very focused and detailed way (I hate to pick on her again, but) ... Paris Frickin' Hilton's jail stay.  Yes, that is her given middle name, orrr... it ought to be.

In fact, many of the hardest issues may not be covered at all.  There is already the factor of conglomeration of media ownership and its potential effect on objectivity and coverage as I discussed in a previous column, and complying with a subjective equality standard would just make it worse.  After all, for every objective reality in 2008, there are now 200 political opponents who will deny it because it doesn't help their cause. These are not just people who oppose the implications of the facts, but specifically deny the fact.  For instance, a hypothetical:

"'Global warming could be caused by the sun', say scientists"

You mean it could be from a fluctuation in the souce of all of our solar energy, the surface of which is millions of degrees?  Duh.

"OH no, there is no possible way it could be the sun!" say opponents who find such a common-sense assertion politically damaging, and its implications to their cause devastating. Therefore it is not fair that someone asserted that common sense without them having a RIGHT to minimize or denounce it in some nonsensical way by asserting the "fairness" doctrine.

Hey... if you get your nonsense in, good for you, but don't think you're entitled to it.

Sometimes the best information about a particular issue or philosophy comes from advocates. How many times have you found out that supposedly objective news stories leave out the MOST IMPORTANT and most persuasive facts on a subject?  I've seen it countless times.

It's just another law that would be applied selectively and arbitrarily - turns out they do that in Washington, folks.  It quite probably would be used as a political tool by whomever is in the White House or other advantageous positions at the time.  Considering both major party Presidential candidates' endless supply of indignancy, it can be figured their incessant whining over imagined slights would be given power through the use of a "Fairness" doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine is a remnant of the days of limited media sources, to the extent it was ever valid.  There is no longer a lack of information out there if someone wants to fully inform themselves of a particular issue, regardless of how a particular media outlet has initially framed it.  Another aspect to consider is how this does not affect print media.  With its selective enforcement nature, one can easily imagine that it wouldn't be enforced against traditional broadcast media and newscasts either, which are at this point recognized by most people as having at least a corporatism and big government slant. Instead, it would be more likely used against people who are uncovering the truth on a regular basis about true scandals regarding the very powerful and well connected, the very powerful and well connected that the regular media doesn't routinely investigate with vigor, for whatever reason you'd like to assign.

If the Fairness Doctrine does get passed, one could argue that it sets the logical basis for internet censorship along the same lines.  After all, under the logic that people can't SEEK out "opposing" information, then podcasts and internet radio are susceptible too, because it "wouldn't be fair" that they can "get away" with what FCC-regulated broadcasters cannot.

The response has been great to this point, but it's never too late to make sure legislators realize the strength of citizens' resolve.

You can read, get more information on, and sign an online petition here.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
0 thumbs so far

2008 Lonnie Dalton, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, August 6, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Lonnie Dalton only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lonnie Dalton is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Lonnie Dalton of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.