Michael Smerconish: In InfoWorld, 'fairness' is bunk
11.13.08
ON Election Day, Sen. Charles Schumer told Fox News that opponents of the Fairness Doctrine were advancing an inconsistent argument:
"The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that . . . But you can't say, 'Government, hands off!' in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent."
While Schumer was beefing on Fox, I was immersed in my daily routine. I begin my day by perusing about a dozen newspapers online, in addition to reading the Daily News and a few others the old-fashioned way. En route to work, I scan the AM and FM bands, and my choices from about 100 satellite channels. In my office, I monitor television - about 300 channels worth. I do the same at home. In fact, I recall that the day Schumer spoke, I wanted to watch a Bill Maher monologue on "Real Time" that aired three days before and was easily able to retrieve it from Comcast on Demand with a touch of the clicker.
At the end of the day, I was on info overload. So I downloaded the new John Legend CD from iTunes and plugged in my iPod.
Just another day spent traveling the technology highway, albeit one interrupted by a member of the Senate threatening to revive a doctrine premised on the notion that there's a scarcity of choice in the marketplace.
What a dated and ridiculous notion! And surely Schumer knows it. He's a smart guy with an acerbic wit. I think he was just pulling the Fox News chain, especially when he said, "I think we should all be fair and balanced, don't you?"
But others might be more serious about reviving the Fairness Doctrine, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, which essentially required broadcasters to balance controversial subject matter with opposing views.
The argument behind it? The airwaves were limited, so it was necessary to ensure that a variety of contrasting views were represented. In 1987, the FCC stopped enforcing many of the doctrine's stipulations. In the meantime, conservative talk radio has grown in force, causing those whose views aren't often reflected in that forum to periodically threaten a reprisal.
No doubt that is the motivation for individuals like Diane Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, who told Chris Wallace on Fox News: "I remember when there was a Fairness Doctrine, and I think there was more serious correct reporting to people." In June, at an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Nancy Pelosi told the audience she supported the doctrine's revival. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has said likewise.
Speaker Pelosi and others are irked by the power of the conservative-talk-radio signal. But what they are ignoring is the rest of the noise that now surrounds it. We live in a vastly different world from that in which the Fairness Doctrine was conceived.
Think about all the information hubs that weren't around 10 years ago, let alone in 1949: BlackBerries and cell phones equipped with Internet Explorer. Streaming video and satellite radio. Blogs, iPods and podcasts. Some gas stations even show news updates on monitors at the pumps.
People have more ways to gather news and information. The Fairness Doctrine ceased to make sense the day Al Gore put the finishing touches on the Internet. Today, it's an outdated, old-world plan unneeded in a world of blogs, viral marketing and user-generated content. Not to mention guys like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.
Whatever you want, however you like it, it's there for the asking.
WHILE a Rasmussen survey released earlier this year reported that 47 percent of Americans believe radio and TV stations should broadcast equal amounts of liberal and conservative political discussion, the same survey indicated that 71 percent say it's already possible to find any political perspective in today's media.
Too much of today's TV and radio programming is composed of the tired, shrill, left-right format. All the Fairness Doctrine would do is take that line in the sand and build it into a cold concrete wall. Or broadcasters may jump ship altogether, opting to air harmless content that won't run afoul of the regulators.
Not convinced? Just write the DN and demand equal billing to respond. *
Listen to Michael Smerconish weekdays 5-9 a.m. on the Big Talker, 1210/AM. Read him Sundays in the Inquirer. Contact him via the Web at www.mastalk.com.