A Reinstituted Fairness Doctrine?

In 1934 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created as a government agency in charge of regulating the airwaves, and administering the “public interest” standard. In other words, interests of the public should have priority over interests of the broadcasters. This was important to its advocates to further democracy, minimize advertising abuses, and encourage diverse programming and airing of controversial views - making broadcasters accountable to the “public”. The policy of the FCC that became known as the Fairness Doctrine was an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair, allowing opposing viewpoints to be aired along with editorial opinions. The personal attack rule, an application of the Fairness Doctrine, required stations to notify persons when personal attacks were made on them in discussions of controversial public issues. In the 1980’s the industry was de-regulated, the Fairness Doctrine was dissolved, giving way to what was called “the marketplace model.”

The Fairness Doctrine has been both defended and opposed on First Amendment grounds. Backers of the doctrine claim that listeners have the right to hear all sides of controversial issues. They believe that broadcasters will resort to partisan coverage if allowed to broadcast without government intervention. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine say that the doctrine lessens, rather than increases, diversity of views, due to the fact that only safe issues would be broadcast. Also, the additional expense incurred by the broadcasters in allowing for “balanced viewpoints” that are not subsidized by advertising dollars have in the past, and might again, completely rid the airwaves of controversial issues, to the detriment of the public.

Looming in the background is the question of who would determine what was fair. In his research paper, The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem, Adrian Cronauer wrote, “Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.” Depending on ones political viewpoints some might consider National Public Radio a moderate broadcaster, while others would find them to be more “left of center” in their choice of material. The opposite might be considered true in the case of FOX news.

The specter of the Fairness Doctrine keeps coming back to haunt those who support First Amendment rights. First, as soon as a broadcaster arouses public passion by covering a controversial issue he will receive an avalanche of complaints, all wanting equal time to refute what they believed were unfair one-sided ideas being broadcast over the public airwaves. The costs in time, energy and legal fees have in the past caused the broadcasters to stay away from controversial issues, and property rights and a free market economy were being sacrificed because of government intervention in the form of the Fairness Doctrine.

Second, the Doctrine’s supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since the early days of radio and television. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted Fairness Doctrine would not be “fair” at all.

Fairness, Justice and the Public Interest

As the poll numbers for President Obama continue to sink I predict that the Democrats are going to try to deflect public opinion from Obama, the stalled health care plan, the economy and other topics and on to one of two of their favorite subjects to denigrate: Sarah Palin and talk radio. I will talk about Governor Palin at a later date and spend the next few weeks writing about the House and Senate’s plans to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to quiet talk radio. I should mention, in all ‘fairness’, where I get my news from: National Public Radio, Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal and the Sci Fi Channel. All together they put news as we know it in a proper perspective for me. So here goes!

Overview

For the nearly 24 years she has been in Congress, Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has fought for “fairness” on the airwaves. Her latest legislation on the topic is HR 4710, “The Media Act,” which would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Here is a brief excerpt from an interview that she gave to the program NOW with Bill Moyers in 2004:

BILL MOYERS: So when the fairness doctrine went down in 1986, that was the first year you came to Congress, what was the consequence of it? What happened as a result?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: AM radio rose. It wasn't even gradual, Bill. I mean, almost immediately. And I should point out to you that when we tried to reinstate [the fairness doctrine] again in '93, one of the reasons we couldn't was that Rush Limbaugh had organized this massive uprising against it, calling it "The Hush Rush Law." Which again said that while Rush can speak and anybody that he wants to can speak on those stations, the rest of us can't. But he aroused his listeners so that they contacted their members of Congress and killed the bill, and that's not the first time we've seen that.
BILL MOYERS: And you're saying that kind of discourse is dominating America right now.
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Dominating America and a waste of good broadcast time and a waste of our airwaves.
BILL MOYERS: Not to the people who agree with him.
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well, they don't hear anything else. Why would they disagree with him?
BILL MOYERS: But today, you don't have to just listen to one radio. You've got a choice of radio stations. You've got the internet. You've got the magazines. You've got how many? Five hundred channels, they say?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Yes. But we don't have all those people lining up to discuss what's going on, what's happening in our country. Frankly, I want every American, every single one, to understand what's happened here.
BILL MOYERS: You're saying that your fairness doctrine would simply mean that if a radio station or television station offers one position, like Rush Limbaugh, on a bill or a campaign of President or an election, they should also have people who disagree with Rush Limbaugh?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Absolutely. They should not be putting their own bias and their own feelings out on their radio station because they think they own it. It has to be done as a public trust and in the public interest.
BILL MOYERS: Who decides what fairness is? What is fair? What's the truth?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well, in political circles, it's the equal time piece where if one candidate gets to say something on the air, equal time, no matter what it is, is given to the opponent, again if asked. But fairness can't be that difficult. Surely, we have evolved to the stage here in this century that we can understand some sort of balance, some sort of sense. To me it is a feeling that my country is spilling out hatred and lies on many, many of these stations to people who hear nothing but that, who never believe or hear any countervailing opinion. I think this is one of the most dangerous things in the world, and it actually cuts out a point of view of half of America. And anything that we own as Americans, as a government, like the radio and television waves, should not be used in that way.

The Congresswoman believes talk radio is, “Dominating America and a waste of good broadcast time and a waste of our airwaves…it is a feeling that my country is spilling out hatred and lies on many, many of these stations to people who hear nothing but that…this is one of the most dangerous things in the world…”

In his research paper, The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem, Adrian Cronauer wrote, “Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.”

And now, Fairness, Justice and the Public Interest!

Is There Such a Thing as a Free Lunch?

Trickle Down Economics

Question: Who is going to pay for a government run health care system? Or it might be better to ask who is going to have a larger percentage of their income taken away to help defer costs for government run health care? Answer: It is not just the people earning over $250,000 per year.

In a small town in the mountains a group of contractors who largely earn much less than the magic $250,000 number were sitting in a bar discussing how great it will be to have free health care. Across town the man who owns the small local grocery store on the corner who has been in the neighborhood for decades is talking to his wife about how wonderful free health care will be, as is the farmer in the Midwest.

Most people in this country believe that the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world. People around the world agree that the U.S. has the finest healthcare system, and will come here for treatment if they can afford to. Mother Theresa came to the Scripps Hospital in La Jolla, as did the Emperor of Japan. The wife of the Canadian Prime Minister came to the U.S. for medical treatment, preferring our hospitals and doctors to the Canadian system. People in this country that are in favor of a new government-run healthcare system basically want the system we have financed by someone else – some rich guy somewhere that should spread their wealth. People that are not in favor of a government run system know exactly who will be paying for the new program, and it is not just those earning over $250,000.

For example:

Company A is doing well and with the profits it decides to purchase new equipment, hire more employees, pay the employees that they have higher salaries, expand the company’s physical offices, and any number of other things to increase their profitability. They contact manufacturers and sub-contractors, Company’s B, C, and D for example, for the additional computers, office supplies, automobiles and farming equipment. Company B, C and D benefit directly from how profitable Company A is, and they also have employees that they are paying and equipment and supplies that they need to purchase.

And what about those contractors that are sitting at the bar in the small town? They are hired by Company A to build additional office space for the new employees and equipment, the small grocer in the neighborhood will have additional customers with new people moving into the area being employed by Company A, and the farmer in the Midwest will be supplying more products to the grocer. The employees of Company A will send their children to school, pay their taxes, go to shopping malls and to the movies, and spend a portion of their earnings for a home, a car, a new television set, and on occasion pack up the car and go to a baseball game or on vacation.

What happens when the profits of Company A are hit with higher taxes to pay for a government-run healthcare system? Will they expand their offices? Will they hire additional employees? Will they increase the salaries of the employees they have? What about Companies B, C and D? And what about those contractors sitting in the bar in the small town in the mountains and the grocery store down the street and the farmer in the Midwest?

An economic theory proposed by Wolpert and Macready in the 1930’s stated that, “There is no free lunch.” It means that whatever goods and services are provided, they must be paid for by someone - i.e. you don't get something for nothing. There is also no such thing as free healthcare.

Senators Want New Health Care Plan for Everyone but Themselves

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats -- with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy -- voted nay. Judd Gregg was the only GOP Senator to oppose it, on humanitarian grounds. He is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying about the public option "it will be so bad that I don't think anyone should be forced to join."

The Congressional Elite

JFK had the “New Frontier”, LBJ had the “Great Society”, and Barack Obama has his "New Foundation." Big plans and unlimited ego in an administration convinced it can apply beaurocratic solutions to huge and unpredictable systems -- the banking, auto and health-care industries, for instance, or the supposed man-made alterations in the climate. These are people deeply impressed by their own smarts, the ones for whom the word "elite" has been given. A group of people claiming to possess higher abilities or simply an in-group who granted themselves extra privileges, discriminating against others they deem less worthy.

Today I want to talk about the ‘elite’ of Congress. Congress is elitist in the extreme, and evidence of this can be seen every day on Capitol Hill. Congress doesn’t see itself as working for the people as public servants, but governing them. They do what they want, not what their constituants want.

These elite, these men and women on the Hill that are carefully coiffed, clothed, made up for television cameras, move apart from the tourists guarded by their own police force. They have burdened the people with massive regulations and have tried to exempt themselves from all of them. Everything that they do is geared towards raising money for re-relection, accepting favors from lobbyists, and doing their best to keep the public out of the loop – after all they are the elite, the annointed ones, the ones who will take care of us as long as we let them dominate all aspects of our lives.

They have created procedural screens behind which they can conduct business without interference from the public. When the public is allowed to view what is going on what they see is orchestrated ‘hearings’ with select witnesses, not to mention the speeches given to no one in particular as each member of Congress takes their turn at the podium to deliver their version of why a bill should be voted for or against. Congress has created a legislative system which goes its own way, forming legislation on its own terms and with input only from those other elites, the lobbyists and pressure groups, which it chooses to hear. Nancy Pelosi is a prime example of elitism off the deep end. Let us not forget that she is the one who oversees energy legislation in the House of Representatives, and I quote from an interview she gave with Tom Brokow: “You need a transition as you are going to go from fossil fuels, you can’t do it overnight, but you must transition. These investments in wind, solar, biofuels and natural gas, these are the real alternatives.” I guess some elites are not real clear that natural gas is a fossil fuel, but then do they really care about the details?

Ralph Kinney Bennett, of the Heritage Foundation, wrote an article entitled “A Congressional Priesthood,” where he talks about a conversation he had with Bob Potts that illustrated the way Congress has become a world apart:

Mr. Potts said, "Senator Armstrong was on the Treasury and Postal Subcommittee of Appropriations, so I would go to all those hearings with him. One morning we had a meeting in which the Secretary of the Treasury was testifying. It was just a small room and there weren't many people there. While he was testifying, a man and his family, tourists, came into the room. It was just a man and his wife and their kids, kind of thrilled, I guess, to be seeing democracy at work close up."

And he continued, "At one point the Secretary had to leave the room to make a phone call or something and there was a break. This man got up and raised his hand and said, "Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman," very quietly and politely. He said he knew something about the point they were discussing and he had something helpful he would like to say. We all ignored him. I remember the staff people who were there, just regular guys, good down-to-earth people, but suddenly they were part of the different world, the different culture, and we ignored this guy.

Finally some staff guy felt, "Well, I'd better do something," and he went down and spoke to the man for a minute. He came back and we asked, "What did you tell him?" He said, "I told the man that if he had anything to say he could sign up to testify and come back in a couple of months."

Why didn't we just let this guy say what he had to say? It wouldn't have hurt anything. But no, we were the Senate and he was just a citizen."

We can now see that Congress has stepped even further into the role of elitist as they try to push through legislation that they haven’t even read, or in some cases they are voting on legislation that hasn’t been written yet, legislation that is going to raise taxes and hinder business development in this country. At some point the people of this country, the ones that Machiavelli said would not put up with being dominated by elitists are going to say “STOP.” It is already happening. Beware, Congress and Mr. President, for We the People are the heart and soul of this country, not you. You work for us and we can fire you without reason every election year.

Who are Elite?

A work in progress......

The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli and how History Continues to Repeat Itself!

“Either you are already a Prince or you seek to become one, and in the former case liberality is hurtful, and in the latter it is very necessary that you be thought liberal.”

“I come to the case of the leading citizen who not by crimes or violence but by favor of his fellow citizens is made Prince of his country. This may be called a Civil Princedom and its attainment depends not wholly on merit, not wholly on good fortune, but rather on what may be termed a ‘fortunate astuteness.’ The road to every Princedom lies either through the favor of the people or of the ‘elites*’, for in every city are to be found these two opposed temperaments having their origin in this that the people desire not to be domineered over or oppressed by the ‘elite’, while the ‘elite’ desire to oppress and domineer over the people.”

* Elite: Having a privileged status percieved as being envied by others of a lower line of order. The key word is percieved, mostly by the elites, of their station in life. This includes philosophers, educators, purveyors of news, celebrities and politicians …..

In new Princedoms difficulties abound:

“If he wants to maintain his reputation for liberality the Prince will burden his subjects with extraordinary taxes and resort to confiscations and all the other means whereby money is raised. But in this way he becomes hateful to his subjects and growing impoverished is held in little esteem by any. So that in the end having by his liberality offended many and obliged few, he is worse off than when he began.”

“In favor of the Prince is that men want to better their condition, and are always ready to change masters, and in this expectation will deceive themselves and find afterwards by experience that they are worse off than before.”

“The Prince cannot keep the friendship of those who helped him to gain the Princedom since he cannot reward them as they expect. The very people who opened the gates, when they find themselves deceived in their expectations and hopes of future benefits, will not put up with the insolence of their new ruler.”

“They who from a private station become Princes by mere good fortune do so with little trouble but have much trouble to maintain themselves. They meet with no hindrance on their way, but all their difficulties overtake them when they alight. Such Princes are wholly dependent on the favor and fortunes of those who have made them great or secure. They lack the knowledge and the power that would enable them to maintain their position, because unless they have great parts and force of character it is not to be expected that having always lived in a private station they should have learned how to command.”

All of these ideas are mute in a Republic: “In a Republic there is a stronger vitality, a fiercer hatred, a keener thirst for revenge. The memory of their former freedom will not let the people rest, so that the safest course is either to destroy them or go to live with them.”

Translation:

When you become Prince you already have angered the population of the Princedom who favored another, and the others in the population that stood beside you in acquiring the Princedom will eventually be disappointed as you will not be able to give them what you promised.

Question:

Why would anyone want the job?