Tag: Fairness Doctrine

The Senator Intrudes

Sen. John Thune, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, fairness doctrine, censorship

We know that the media in general, and Silicon Valley, too, have strong anti-conservative biases — even if, in another sense, the Fourth Estate serves as almost the embodiment of one understanding of the conservative impulse: relentlessly upholding established institutions, against all attacks. The American media strongly defends the modern state; every program, it seems, is sacrosanct: the only thing wrong with Big, Intrusive Government is that it is not as Big and Intrusive as it should be.

This week, several ex-Facebook news curators alleged systemic “political bias” in how stories receive the top spot in Facebook’s Trending news section. So Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) intrudes. He wrote to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in his official capacity on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Communication. Thune says that if Facebook is, in effect, promoting stories by means of a hidden political agenda, this amounts to something like a public fraud, which lies within this committee’s purview.

I don’t see how. And I really would like such biases and pseudo-frauds to be dealt with by consumer pressure rather than government whip. And that should be without regard to the partisan stripe of the bias — or the whip.

Anthony L. Fisher, over at Reason, notes that the senator has a logic problem: he rests his case for government oversight of Facebook rules and consumer relations on the infamous “fairness doctrine,” which is not operative at this time, and which Thune has previously and repeatedly opposed.

And for good reason: the doctrine produced government-enforced muting of speech, not fairness.

But this all may mean almost nothing. I’d never even noticed Facebook’s Trending section.

Have you?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Photo of Sen. John Thune credit: Gage Skidmore on Flickr

Tags censorship, Facebook, Fairness Doctrine, Mark Zuckerberg, Sen. John Thune

ideological culture too much government

Dead Doctrine

Take off your hat, crank up a dirge, and get out the shovel, for it’s time to put the last bit of dirt over the Fairness Doctrine. It’s dead.

The FCC killed it on Monday. Buried it.

“Our extensive efforts to eliminate outdated regulations,” explained FCC Chairman Julias Genachowski, “are rooted in our commitment to ensure that FCC rules and policies promote a healthy climate for private investment and job creation.”

A total of 83 regulations were deleted in the efficiency-minded campaign.

And it’s nice to hear of it. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving . . . target.

Actually, it’s been a score of years since the old dinosaur of speech regulation “fell into desuetude,” as President Grover Cleveland might have put it. (Ol’ Grover was not exactly a punchy writer.) And hurray for its death and burial — let’s hope it shall not rise from its coffin, like Dracula in a cheap horror flick.

For the “Fairness Doctrine” was an attempt to regulate speech rather than let speech remain free. It helped further solidify the two-party system in America, and the very idea that there were only “two sides” to any political question . . . when it is obvious that a whole spectrum of possibilities exists for nearly any proposal or issue.

The Founding Fathers were right: Congress should “make no law” abridging the freedom of speech.

Interestingly, the regulation received its death blow not from Congress, but from the Federal Communications Commission.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags Fairness Doctrine, FCC

First Amendment rights

Unliberating Bondage

Two big lies have been making the rounds about the proposed return of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine. This is the rule that forced broadcasters to air “both sides” of controversial issues until the agency scuttled it in 1987.

One big lie is that critics of the doctrine shouldn’t worry because nobody is really thinking about reviving it. The other big lie, which sort of cancels out the first, is that the Fairness Doctrine should be re-imposed because it won’t restrict freedom of speech.

Writer Steve Almond argues the latter in a Boston Globe op-ed. He calls Fairness Doctrine foes “desperate and deluded” liars for saying it would assail their First Amendment rights.

But compulsion really is compulsion. Almond himself admits as much when he notes that conservative radio hosts worry that the Doctrine would “spell the end” of what he calls “their ongoing cultural flim-flam.” They would be forced half the time to turn their microphones over to the likes of Steve Almond. In this way, he says, Americans would be compelled to confront their biases.

Not that Almond is exactly an exemplar himself when it comes to pondering or tolerating alternative views. The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto recalls that in 2006, Almond noisily resigned a teaching position at Boston College . . . because he disliked one of the speakers the college had invited to campus.

So much for hearing all sides.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags Fairness Doctrine, James Taranto, Steve Almond

First Amendment rights

An Unfair Doctrine

What is the “Fairness Doctrine”? And would it be fair to bring it back?

The Fairness Doctrine is a kind of assault on broadcast speech that has not been enforced since the 1980s. It compelled broadcasters to give so-called “equal time” to the so-called “opposing viewpoint” . . . as if there were only one. We may have a two-party system in this country, but we don’t have a two-opinion system.

Of course, the doctrine is nothing but a club for clobbering freedom of speech, not expanding it.

At National Review Online, Barbara Comstock and Lanny Davis note that all manner of absurdity erupts when equal time to somebody else’s podium is guaranteed by law. In 1978, NBC aired a program about the Holocaust, then spent three years in court dealing with a lawsuit brought by a group which believed the Holocaust is a myth and wanted NBC to give it “equal time.” Only “fair,” right?

Today, many believe that the Fairness Doctrine would be used against conservative talk radio, which happens to be a lot more popular than liberal talk radio, and that this is why some on the political left are talking about restoring the rule. But nobody who talks in public for a living, or even as just a hobby, would be safe from harassment if this monstrosity comes back to life. Comstock and Davis say Congress should bury the Fairness Doctrine for good.

Yes, with a stake through its evil heart.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.