Modest Proposal for a Real 'Fairness Doctrine'
By Daniel Gallington, OpEd Contributor
- 11/6/08
Who's next? Are we really ready for blabber-wocky Chris Matthews - maybe even sports-hack turned petulant pol-wonk Keith Olbermann? Can any of the contenders for Russert's job be a new beacon for integrity and objectivity at NBC News?
In this same vein, recall the recent suggestions by Democratic senators Clinton, Boxer and Feinstein that - because market-driven talk radio has evolved (strangely, on it's own) to be so overwhelmingly conservative - we should return to an FCC-enforced fairness rule for "balance" in electronic media.
And Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has given her strong support for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, which was abandoned during the Reagan Administration.
Regardless of how these mini-media dramas turn out, I have come up with an idea that will virtually guarantee TV news impartiality. And, there will be no need for new "fairness" rules - or even for NBC news to try and convince us that they are impartial.
Here's what inspired me: When you see Senator Windbag on “Meet the Press” or some other talking head show from Washington, you know that the senator is a Republican or a Democrat because of that little "D" or "R", on the bottom of the screen.
So, you're not surprised to hear the Democrats criticizing the Republicans, and vice – versa - in fact, you expect it. However, you also understand Senator Windbag's subtler point of view on other issues – just by that one letter.
Now, hold on to your hats, because when the networks adopt my idea, we will no longer care about the bias or point of view in what their anchors, reporters, correspondents or commentators say. And liberals will rejoice because conservatives will have to stop complaining about the so-called "liberal bias in media".
My proposal:
Let's have the FCC require that the networks designate their news people with either a "D" or a little "R". Some examples: "Katie Couric (D-CBS)", Wolf Blitzer "D-CNN", "Keith Olbermann (D-MSNBC), "Chris Mathhews (D-MSNBC), Bill Moyers and Gwen Ifful (D-PBS) and yes, Joe Scarborough (R-MSNBC). Get the idea?
If FOX News is really "fair and balanced" - like they say they are - let's make them put a "D" or "R" under the person's picture as he/she talks. I want to know for sure if that feisty Irish guy on the "No Spin Zone" is a Democrat or a Republican – and not, as he alleges, an "independent."
A caveat: I'm afraid if we let FOX use an "I", then all the networks would want to use it and we would end up exactly where we are now. So, to keep the system brutally honest – absolutely no "I's" would be permitted. After all, that's what they all say they are now.
Also helpful would be short bits of bio information, like: "Stephanopoulos (D-ABC) was Bill Clinton's press secretary", "Buchanan (R-MSNBC) ran for president three times, was a speech Writer for Richard Nixon, and communications director for Reagan," "Matthews (D-MSNBC) was press secretary for former House Speaker Tip O'Neil (D-MA)" and "Mark Shields (D-PBS) worked on several Democratic presidential campaigns".
NBC must already be concerned about its liberal political image because they hired this guy Chuck Todd as their so-called "Political Director" [an odd title – as if they are somehow in need of "political direction"].
And, NBC lists him as having "practical political experience in national campaigns" – however, and a really big surprise here - this turns out to be the 1991 presidential campaign of super-lefty Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA).
But none of this would matter with my proposal: They would simply caption Political Director Todd as "D-NBC" - right along with the jabbering Matthews and sulking Olbermann.
Is this a neat idea, or what? Perhaps the only real question now is who will have the courage to do it voluntarily, as I have here:
Daniel Gallington was a liberal "D" in the 60's - now, he's more of a conservative "R" with some definite libertarian leanings.
49 Comments
Reader Comments:
POSTED Nov 6, 2008
hippie_chucker: "I've often thought of that myself. Instead of having to know who the players are in the news, which takes years to learn who's who, it's simply right in your face, just like AM radio. Brilliant idea..."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
nerdbert: "You want a real fairness doctrine? Count media stories as donations-in-kind to candidates based on the bias of the story."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
VisitorOne: "This is a splendid idea. Thank you."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
TallDave: "Great idea! They need to do this in newspapers as well. FWIW, I've been saying this for years. Dave (L-Blogosphere)"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Smiling Jack: "NOW that is what I call a good start."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Smiling Jack: "NOW that is what I call a good start."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Former Newscaster: "If the "Fairness" Doctrine were re-imposed on broadcast, why would PBS and NPR be exempt? Shouldn't conservatives be preparing to go after Bill Moyers and Daniel Schorr?"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
peterl: "Just require media and information-control agencies (like universities) to allocate evenly between the left and right-their research and information/entertainment distribution personnel: writers, actors, talking-heads, deans, administrators, professors, editors, producers, etc. So Hollywood would have to hire and promote "culture of life" advocates to balance "culture of death" proponents, universities would change the faculty mix from 90% left to a 50/50 mix-to give everyone an equal chance for an alternative viewpoint, and tv networks and newspapers would hire writers, editors, and producers for a similar allignment shift in news and entertainment. Such changes fit the idea of a "Fairness Doctrine" because they replace the left's hegemony in every public "media" but talk radio with an even split of influence in all these arenas-including talk radio."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Andrew Koenig: "How do you determine which letter to use for people? In particular, how do you stop D's from claiming to be R's and vice versa?"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Nathan Hall: "This would be far better than the actual fairness doctrine. Also, I recognize that your tongue is firmly planted in cheeky flesh. However, it bears noting that the idea wouldn't be easy to implement. How do you tell whether somebody is an R or a D? What is John Stossel? Neal Boortz? Jim Lehrer? Lou Dobbs? You may listen to Boortz and think he's conservative, or Dobbs and think he's liberal, but these are entirely subjective judgments. If there's a disagreement about what label should go on which journalist--or radio personality--who settles it? There's no objective standard to appeal to. Like the fairness doctrine, this approach also completely leaves out points of view not embraced by either major party."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
malclave: "Well, I don't know if that's really necessary. Print media currently uses the standard that, for any story involving scandalous or criminal activity, the person involved is assumed to be a Democrat unless otherwise indicated. Perhaps broadcast media should use the same standard, while educating the public as to its use."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Thomas: "strangely, on it is own?"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Scott Somerville: "Having the government do this might be a problem, but why wait around for the fox to guard the henhouse? How hard would it be to put little captions on youtube clips?"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
peter jackson: "More than anything i would love to see the Democrats defend their opposition to this. Your idea goes straight to the heart of the problem which is leftists pretending that they are independents or moderates when they clearly aren't."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
ray martin: "even better - and something i have been arguing for these many years. how about e.g. "lanny davis - liar" for those of his ilk who can be certifiably proven to have lied on tv?"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
ray martin: "even better - and something i have been arguing for these many years. how about e.g. "lanny davis - liar" for those of his ilk who can be certifiably proven to have lied on tv?"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Assistant Village Idiot: "An excellent idea. It would be possible to expand the list of designations slightly, so long as nothing smacking of neutrality were allowed. In this model, (Green - Huffington Post) or (Conservative - NRO) would be allowed, but Independent, Skeptic, Undecided would not be. As to people misrepresenting their positions, I think that would sort itself out over time. People should choose whatever they want, and no enforcement would be needed. A talking head who claimed to be an "R" but never sounded like one would lose credibility far quicker than a person claiming to be neutral. I think I may add (Conservative - Blogosphere) to my site. I will shorten it to (Cons - Blgs) pretty quickly."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Assistant Village Idiot: "An excellent idea. It would be possible to expand the list of designations slightly, so long as nothing smacking of neutrality were allowed. In this model, (Green - Huffington Post) or (Conservative - NRO) would be allowed, but Independent, Skeptic, Undecided would not be. As to people misrepresenting their positions, I think that would sort itself out over time. People should choose whatever they want, and no enforcement would be needed. A talking head who claimed to be an "R" but never sounded like one would lose credibility far quicker than a person claiming to be neutral. I think I may add (Conservative - Blogosphere) to my site. I will shorten it to (Cons - Blgs) pretty quickly."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
: "Ah, except then it is legally enforced association that is questionable under the constitution. on the other hand, the FCC routinely does things that should be an anathema to a free society, so maybe it would be upheld. but also, more fundamentally there are real independants out there. Maybe not so many on TV, but in the real world? yes."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
: "Ah, except then it is legally enforced association that is questionable under the constitution. on the other hand, the FCC routinely does things that should be an anathema to a free society, so maybe it would be upheld. but also, more fundamentally there are real independants out there. Maybe not so many on TV, but in the real world? yes."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
flataffect: "I don't think it will matter. Listen to C-Span's Washington Journal sometime. The Democrat callers think C-Span is slanted to the right. The only reason Talk Radio and Fox News are so successful is that they serve a market totally ignored by the rest of the media, conservatives and libertarians."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
DonAZ: "Nice idea ... but it'll never fly. The counter-argument would be that doing so is an infringement on their right of privacy, and their First Amendment rights. Arguments about infringement on the rights of Rush Limbaugh, et al are futile. There's a double-standard. Everyone knows it. The liberals don't care."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Sheik Yur Bouty: "This is similar in concept to my idea of "campaign finance reform". Full disclosure and transparency at all times. That would solve a lot of problems."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Don: "...except. You really want to have your uniformed military identified by anything else than their branch and rank? Think really hard if you drag them in that pool [after they retire or leave is another matter]. Some people will become 'uncomfortable' with what they see will demand quotas and a full politicization of something that doesn't need to be."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
: "The article cites several Ds and Rs. Are these individuals REGISTERED with parties, or did they just vote for a particular presidential candidate in the last election? The New York Times doesn't even allow its reporters to register or contribute to a political party, so the transparency rings hollow, if the intent is to expose a liberal media bias."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Magic: "Or these: no letters on anyones name; or, better, a letter for every correspondent with a number attached, 10 being the strongest and zero being barely a member of the party; or shading of the letter, or leaning the letter left or right. The possiblities are many!"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
: "I really like this idea. I'd add another one though. That everything be classified as News or Entertainment and that anything classified as News goes into the Public Domain within a set time limit. Perhaps a day or a week. This would allow arm chair pundits to create pop-up video versions of broadcasts to be created announcing actual facts. So that same Loni Davis Liar could actually list the lies he was accused of on screen."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
JoeMama (R): "I like the "Lanny Davis - Liar" idea. Let's expand on that an "L2" (Liar-Liar) or a "BS" as well. I wonder also if the Fairness Doctrine proponents are aware of the impact to Public BS on TV and National Pravda Radio?"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
noway@aol.com: """Stephanopoulos (D-ABC) was Bill Clinton's press secretary"," Might want to check that."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Tailgunner: "Wouldn't work. If the FCC gets to assign the 'D's and 'R's we'd see 'Olbermann (R-MSNBC)' and 'Bill Moyers (R-PBS)'. There will NEVER be any fairness in the 'Fairness Doctrine'. Why don't we cut through the BS right now? Talk radio KNOWS they'll never be able to carry all possible sides of an issue with equal time without a bunch of liberals filing expensive, frivolous FCC complaints. Radio stations can read the writing on the wall. They know perfectly well that an Obama administration will hound them mercilessly until they stop carrying all conservative talk radio. This is a monstrous plan to silence the voices of half the American people. I never thought I would see it happen in this country. If it passes there should be rebellion."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Tailgunner: "Obama's going to take office and start looking around for all that money he's gonna steal. And it's not going to be there. You think the 'rich' are THAT STUPID? But Obama still has those promises that he made to the mobs. He has to get the money for their handouts from somewhere. Remember Obama dropped the income threshold for the 'rich' seven times even before the election...from $300K to $97K. What makes you think he won't continue dropping it until many of those 40% who now don't pay taxes find themselves added to the tax rolls? You who thought you were going to share in the loot when Obama got elected are going to find yourself being looted. And I'm going to sit back, watch it all unfold, and laugh my *** off."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
JP: "Instead of "D" or "R" -- I propose 10 simple questions on basic political issues, with the answers ranging from "1 - strongly disagree/oppose" to "4 - strongly agree/support." Then when the individual is interviewing someone, or reporting a story, at the bottom it can say, "So-and-so is strongly supportive of such-and-such.""POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Bob in Houston: "Perfect but how do we make it so?"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Boglee: "I think the fairness doctrine is a great idea....as long as I get to decide what is fair, do you think I could get that job?"POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Hawk Williams: "Andrew Koenig: "How do you determine which letter to use for people? In particular, how do you stop D's from claiming to be R's and vice versa?" Voter registration card? When I found this op-ed in the paper this morning I found it to be such an interesting idea I posted it into my Comms Theory school conference. Let's see how well it fares in there! I only really came here to thank Gallington for the perspective."POSTED Nov 6, 2008
Hawk Williams: "Andrew Koenig: "How do you determine which letter to use for people? In particular, how do you stop D's from claiming to be R's and vice versa?" Voter registration card? When I found this op-ed in the paper this morning I found it to be such an interesting idea I posted it into my Comms Theory school conference. Let's see how well it fares in there! I only really came here to thank Gallington for the perspective."POSTED Nov 7, 2008
Walkure: "Would Mr. Gallington like some cheese with that whine?"POSTED Nov 7, 2008
vistitor1776: "What part of - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abriding the freedom speech, or of the press..." do you not understand? CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW"POSTED Nov 7, 2008
Joanna: "I like it. It could work for print media, too; just put the letter in the byline."POSTED Nov 7, 2008
Jon in DC area: "One thing I've heard no one address is if this happens why don't the conservatives turn the tables and force themselves into getting equal time in the MSM which is dominated by liberals. It would vastly increase the exposure of our ideals to the general populace who don't get their news from the internet or talk radio. It could be a blessing in disguise if it is played right."POSTED Nov 7, 2008
Glenn: "So in your fantasy world there are no "I's" and no reporters can play it straight? If you cant figure out who's a D, R or I after watching them a few times, you should probably get your news from Opra or Rush!"POSTED Nov 7, 2008
arminius: "I request one (and only one, forever) Official Exemption: Brian Lamb. Whatever he is, I don't want to know. Anyone who can be on tv for decades and not betray a bias to the degree that he has deserves to be rewarded. Seriously, the guy is super-human. Why he isn't the moderator for all presidential debates is beyond me."POSTED Nov 8, 2008
SkydiverRick: "Conservatives should stop playing defense. If the libs want it we should push for it too. We should push for it on tv and in print also. Everytime they bring it up agree with them and insist that it applies to all media. They'll shut up when they realize that they have more to lose than gain."POSTED Nov 8, 2008
Pat: "The Fairness Doctrine didn't work. No one listened to the liberal stuff and everyone listened to the conservative stuff (maybe the conservatives are more into that sort of thing). Just cause there are listenersof talk shows out there does not mean they can be fed something they either don't believe or are not interested in listening to. And further, since everyone gave it a shot and was losing money with the liberal folks, I don't think it is fair to try it again. I know you liberals think the money grows on trees as long as you are spending someone else's money, but you people don't even read the articles posted half the time, so even though listening is easier on you, I doubt you would listen to the liberal talk radio shows (and for one would not listen to talk radio at all if the only thing available was the liberal fellows)."POSTED Nov 8, 2008
Pat: "Your idea really is a good one. Much fairer to listeners. It sort of would let you know which way the person might have a tendency to lean and allow you to decide if the comments they made might be biased to favor their viewpoint."POSTED Nov 8, 2008
Christine M.: "Brian Lamb is a liberal. Ultimately, what betrays him is that he does make money in a free-market economy."POSTED Nov 8, 2008
John Clark: "Great post but I think it should be, instead, an L=liberal a C=Conservative with a 1 thru 10 rating, 5 being moderate. The exception would be Chris Mathhews with a rating of L-raving lunetic."POSTED Nov 9, 2008
ExpatriatExtroidinaire: "What has passed for media has formed a generation of talking point clones with no capacity for contemplation. You owe it to your children to increase media awareness."POSTED Nov 9, 2008
Vera: "Good idea but how about including Vogue, Marie Claire, Vanity Fair, Glamour, and all the other liberal fashion magazines that push a liberal agenda. And while we're at it we could use some more conservative leaning kid's programs."