Read on Twitter
If we did resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, it would have vast, negative, unintended effects. You couldn& #39;t just target Tucker Carlson or whatever pundit/outlet you dislike.
How do I know that? Because I wrote a book about those effects last time we tried the Fairness Doctrine. https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1387026502194278400">https://twitter.com/mmpadella...
How do I know that? Because I wrote a book about those effects last time we tried the Fairness Doctrine. https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1387026502194278400">https://twitter.com/mmpadella...
First, let me note that the Fairness Doctrine didn& #39;t prevent "deadly lies." That was never in its remit. It was meant to balance points of view. So if your goal in resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine is to stop folks from lying, you& #39;ll be sorely disappointed.
Second, for half of its functional history (1949-1963), the Fairness Doctrine was essentially unenforceable. I could go into more detail, but for sake of time, think about how many people you& #39;d need to employ to monitor every broadcast outlet to make sure they were being "fair."
You would need to create a vast federal government agency employing thousands of people providing an unprecedented level of direct government surveillance. There& #39;s still too many civil libertarians left for that to happen.
Instead, you can do what the FCC did, which was to rely on citizens filing Fairness Doctrine complaints. But this was a *remarkably* simple process to game. The White House and DNC created back to back front organizations to create faux complaints and got away with it!
To put that into modern context, perhaps you remember the shenanigans that both sides pulled with the FCC& #39;s notice system around the net neutrality debate. It was a mess. Now scale that up into a much larger, more intrusive system. Yeah...
Third, the Fairness Doctrine had massive regulatory capture issues. As I tell the story in my book, the Kennedy administration& #39;s weaponization of the FD was ultimately responsible for the worst episode of government censorship of the last half century. https://www.amazon.com/Radio-Right-Broadcasters-Government-Conservative/dp/0190073225">https://www.amazon.com/Radio-Rig...
And both parties did it; both JFK and Nixon found ways to wield the Fairness Doctrine as a tool for suppressing criticism of their administrations and rewarding the speech of their allies.
You do remember who the last president was, right? Do you not recall him routinely wishing that he could challenge the broadcasting licenses of outlets that criticized him? And you want to give presidents that kind of power? Are you crazy! https://thehill.com/policy/technology/404923-trump-renews-attacks-on-nbc-license">https://thehill.com/policy/te...
Fourth, faced by the threat of Fairness Doctrine enforcement, station owners started dropping controversial or politically-charged content altogether. And that will effect both right-wing and left-wing speech.
Think of your favorite news show. If you were able to deal a blow to Tucker Carlson, you& #39;d also be dealing a blow to shows you like. Why?
Because when the rules *are* equally applied, they run both ways.
Because when the rules *are* equally applied, they run both ways.
So rather than just thinking, "Oh, I wish Fox News had to air more liberal programming to balance out Tucker Carlson," realize that every liberal outlet that currently criticizes Carlson *would have to do the same*!
In the key court case validating the Fairness Doctrine (Red Lion Broadcasting), a radio host named Billy James Hargis criticized a journalist named Fred Cook. Cook--with the secret help of the Democratic National Committee--used the FD to demand response time.
A station in Pennsylvania defied Cook& #39;s demand and the case went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the FD and forced the recalcitrant station to give Cook free airtime for his response.
Now imagine if every time a news show--say the Daily Show or Jon Stewart--aired someone criticizing Tucker Carlson, Carlson could *demand* free response time to give his own point of view. What would that do to the discourse?
So the Fairness Doctrine could *help* people like Carlson as much as it could *hurt* them.
And which way it went would depend on which interest groups had the raw political power to swing the regulatory process in their favor.
And which way it went would depend on which interest groups had the raw political power to swing the regulatory process in their favor.
The idea of resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine is a perfect example of how some solutions are even worse than the admittedly bad problems they are meant to resolve.
Be careful what you wish for.
Be careful what you wish for.
If you want to read a longer thread about the history of the Fairness Doctrine: https://twitter.com/PMatzko/status/1353690092381097985?s=20">https://twitter.com/PMatzko/s...
And while my book is a primer on the misadventures of the Fairness Doctrine, you& #39;ll also learn about the origins of modern conservatism, radio segregationists & the partisan transformation of the South, Polish ham housewife boycotts, and much more. https://www.amazon.com/Radio-Right-Broadcasters-Government-Conservative-ebook/dp/B085YF29L1">https://www.amazon.com/Radio-Rig...
