Moron.

Loser.

There’s been some talk going around about re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine (whatever that is!).  The phrase “the Fairness Doctrine” has, I guess, been floating around for years, but I’ve never known exactly what it was.  I proceeded to “conduct Internet research,” i.e. look it up on Wikipedia.  Noble Wikipedia describes it thusly:

“The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.”

Ha ha ha.  Do they mean like “fair and balanced”?

The Wikipedia article includes this quote, which provides a more specific description of the doctrine:

“The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements:  It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.  Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views:  It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials.  The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.”

FAUX News and other outlets would, naturally, claim that they’re already doing this.  But perhaps worth pondering is:  HOW are they doing it?

The format of brief, rapid, superficial debates among panelists claiming to represent the different sides of an issue, seems to have become furiously prevalent on the TV news channels.  But I’ve seen countless of those little debates where one or more important perspectives on the issue simply weren’t articulated by anyone on the panel.  It gives the illusion of a nice, pluralistic discussion; but in actuality, the range of possible opinions that are allowed to be expressed is severely constrained.  (And the public cannot get up in arms about not being exposed to certain areas of opinion which are being kept so tightly hidden from them, they are, by consequence, not really aware those opinions even exist.  Stated differently:  How can you agitate for airtime for suppressed views you’re not even cognizant of?)

Alternatively, a channel like FAUX will often present the controversial or non-doctrinal viewpoint … but not in a persuasive or serious way.  Rather, the guest with that viewpoint is made to look like an idiot or a nut; and essentially functions as a foil or punching-bag to which the more “level-headed” guests can construct their arguments in counter-point.

And all of this, naturally, begs the question of:  Is it really even possible for a government bureau to monitor the level of “fairness” contained in media outlets’ presentations?  In some absolute way:  NO.

But on the other hand, if we imagine that there is something like collective, communal consensus in our society … and that this consensus reflects a conglomeration and mushing together of everyone’s attitudes, beliefs, shared concepts, values, etc. … and that this big body of mush can be reduced down into some approximate, comprehensible “average,” i.e. a rough consensus that’s more-or-less apparent to us as inhabitants of / participants in society … is it TRULY unreasonable to ask that broadcasting outlets – reaching millions upon millions of listeners / readers / viewers – take some responsibility for remaining (kinda .. sorta .. to some extent) plausibly inside the *gravitational field* of that shared consensus .. as opposed to consistently and intentionally violated it and going against its grain, in order to candycoat and propagate an agenda coinciding only with the interests of the socio-economic ultra-elite (by cloaking it in a fallacious veil of trite buzzphrases about populism)?

My local AM station’s current weekday schedule includes:

Rush Limbaugh:  noon-3:00pm

Dennis Miller:  3:00-4:00pm

Sean Hannity:  7:00-10:00pm

Dennis Miller (again!):  10:00pm-1:00am

That’s TEN HOURS of ultra-rightwing commentary in every 24-hour period … on the only station receivable during daytime on the AM band, in arguably most liberal/progressive community in the state.

The situation is obviously at crisis-level in a society that claims to possess some kind of “democratic” system.  The problem is that the Fairness Doctrine, while a superb idea in abstract, winds up being just too sketchy on how it could be effectively implemented … to result in a more pluralistic, representative discourse … instead of just transferring tyrannical thought-control over from corporate entities into government hands.  Government and the media outlets are already in such deep collusion, state control of the media would hardly constitute a different situation from what we’re already living under.  It might even be a productive step, in that it would make the control more obvious, more overt; and help to dispel the ridiculous but widely-held apprehension that media discourse is by-and-large “free.”