'The Fair and Balanced Doctrine'

[BradBlog]

'The Fair and Balanced Doctrine'
'Without freedom of the airwaves, there's no freedom of the press'...

Alternet has just published my most recent op-ed article written for the Commonweal Institute (where I am a Fellow). The subject is the desperate need for media reform, particularly reform of our publicly-owned airwaves. The piece calls on progressives to begin this most important conversation, while calling out Democrats for running away from it with their collective tails between their legs.

Here's how it starts...

Our Media Need a Fair and Balanced Doctrine
Without freedom of the airwaves, there is no freedom of the press.

Just minutes after noon, on January 20, 2009, "hope" arrived for Constitutionalists and supporters of its First Amendment. A slight, little-noticed, but exceedingly noteworthy paragraph appeared on the new Administration's White House website "Technology" page.

"Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media," the paragraph began, "promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."

After more than a decade of private corporatization of virtually every inch of bandwidth across the public airwaves, a new day seemed to be dawning with a new Administration's indication that they might reverse years of cynical, self-serving mismanagement of the people's airwaves by a few, very large, very far-right leaning corporations who had been granted priceless government largesse in the form of broadcast licenses without the responsibility of serving the public interest in exchange.

"Hope" would be short lived. By summer, the paragraph had been quietly excised from the White House website without a trace, apology or even an explanation.

The rightwing-dominated media's War Against Restoration of the Fairness Doctrine had been won before those who might have joined the battle were even aware there had been a first skirmish...

COMPLETE OP-ED ARTICLE AT ALTERNET:
http://www.alternet.org/media/143287/our_media_need_a_f...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

1. Have you seen this?

THE BALANCE OF POWER - EXCHANGES WITH BBC JOURNALISTS - PART 1

In our previous alert ('The Westminster Conspiracy,' October 8) we described how the media's insistence that journalists be 'balanced', that they keep their personal opinions to themselves, is used as a tool of thought control.

Journalists who criticise powerful interests can be attacked for their 'bias', for revealing their prejudices. On the other hand, as we will see in the examples below, almost no-one protests, or even notices, the lack of balance in patriotic articles reporting on the experience of British troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the credibility of British and American elections, or on claims that the West is spreading democracy across the Third World. Then, notions of patriotism, loyalty, the need to support 'our boys', make 'balance' seem disloyal, disrespectful; an indication, in fact, that a journalist is 'biased.'

The media provide copious coverage of state-sponsored memorials commemorating the 50th, 60th, 65th anniversaries of D-Day, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of Arnhem, the retreat from Dunkirk, the Battle of the Atlantic, the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, and so on. Even the 200th anniversary of The Battle of Trafalgar was a major news item. Remembrance Sunday, Trooping The Colour, Beating The Retreat, the Fleet Review are all media fixtures. The military is of course happy to supply large numbers of troops and machines for these dramatic flypasts, parades and reviews.

...

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/

[BradBlog]

3. Thanks, OG...

Hadn't seen it yet, but from your clipping they sound right on the money to me!

[Can of Whoop-ass]

10. Hey!

Chuck yoo Farley - I like watching Bizarro World live on FOX. They even back up their stories with the wrong videos all day long. On top of that, where else you going to get news readers blasting you with beaver shots, Extenz boner pill commercials and God Bless Them, "Girls Gone Wild" videos for sale?

I say, leave them FOX boys alone and let them blare away with those big fat paychecks and gay bar knob polishing.

[mmonk]

2. Thanks. I agree. I don't think a democratic society can really exist

the way our airways have gone since media consolidation. A people uneducated to the facts cannot remain free.

[Time for change]

4. So true

Corporate monopolization of our airways is a terrible blow to democracy.

[shanejfilomena]

5. If the Republicans Have Their Way

If the Republicans Have Their Way, such as Sarah Palin for one : the airwaves will carry only approved media.

Republicans fill their pockets with communist cash, they can not be expected to behave as anything but communists, they sport Red Banner and parade around with "red States" and call themselves a "red Army":

I don't know about you: but when I was growing up : Red was bad. I think it still is and I know the republicans are.

[BradBlog]

7. "If"?

If the Republicans Have Their Way, such as Sarah Palin for one : the airwaves will carry only approved media.

"If"? Um, too late for ifs.

[Overseas]

6. I noticed the original declaration of interest in broadcasting diversity

with a lot of hope. I'm sorry to hear it has been removed.

[ooglymoogly]

8. What can we do? Other than calling and writing all bought and paid congress critters.

Any suggestions? I for one am listening. Perhaps a sizable lot of us no longer listening or watching corporate media will eventually make a wave. We need a tsunami.

[Piewhacket]

9. I don't really understand the 'Fair and Balanced Doctrine'

The first amendment prohibits regulation of speech or the press.

"Congress shall make no law..."
"...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

but they are "our" airways, no doubt, and we can put conditions
on their use, and can regulate their operation so long a we do not
violate the first amendment.

So... what's the 'Fair and Balanced Doctrine' again?

[KharmaTrain]

11. So Whose Determines "Fairness"?

Is a government panel set up full of politicians who decide if a network or ownership group offers "balanced" programming? Or do you set up an inter-industry group to "self police"? And then there's the little question of freedom of speech as no matter how stupid or even incindiary or biased one may be, the Constitution still allows them the right to do so. Even with a "public license"...as has been tested time and again in court when stations attempted to change formats and were challenged by listener groups...the corporations always win.

I'll say it again, the problem isn't fairness as it is access. When you have a handful of companies that control the majority of the licenses it has frozen out competition and other voices. It gutted local radio and television operations as the bottom line replace community service, as licenses became pork bellies that were bought and sold like a commodity, not a public trust and now have taken the industry into the throes of massive bankruptcy. And that's not to mention the thousands who once worked in this industry that were shown the door as chaper satellite programming and chain operations "maximized" profit. Thus thousands of clone stations and repeaters now dot the landscape...pumping whatever programming the large corporates deem profitable or serving their agenda. Wanna try to revoke a license? Good luck...the "deregulation" horse of the 90s is long out of the barn; making such challenges and or even purchasing licenses next to impossible.

There are several answers...the first and foremost is reregulating broadcasting...limiting the number of stations a company can own (as it once had been) and requiring them to sell or dispose of all other licenses within a 3 year period. Then give precedence to local ownership groups in obtaining those licenses...give local people voices and with it come a wide assortment of ideas and communications. It's shortening license periods from 7 years back to 3 and making challenges easier and less time consuming and expensive. If a company has repeatedly broken FCC or federal laws, their license should be immediately reviewed and, if challenged, preference, once again, should go to local ownership. Return the public airwaves to the public.

Not only would this help bring diversity and "balance" to the broadcast bands but open the door for all types of creativity in programming and spark a rebirth in an industry that is destroying itself.