I hold no particular brief for the Fairness Doctrine, either in its past form or in any future form (that I can envisage) it might take.

But I am a little curious about this blanket statement:

I do not want the government to have the power to decide what broadcasters must air.

My question to you - and I think it's a serious one, not just a debating point - is whether, having decided to allocate some broadcaster a valuable chunk of what I take to be our national patrimony, the airwaves ("Owning a television station is like having a license to print money" someone once said), is there any constraint on what they do with it? Is there nothing they might do to which we, through our elected representatives, might demur at? Have we no recourse whatsoever if they abuse it, or is "abuse" simply a non-issue once the license has been granted?

As I said, I am by no means arguing for the Fairness Doctrine as an appropriate means of intervention, but I do find some comfort in the fact that we have an FCC, and that from time to time FCC action (or the threat thereof) has made the big boys play a little nicer than they otherwise were doing, or planning to.

It may well be that you feel this, too, and that the statement quoted above is simply slight (and understandable) overkill. In that case, we are not in dispute; no harm, no foul.

But if you meant that statement literally, then I would be very interested in knowing where - if at all - you would "draw the line" on what broadcasters may or may not do.

PS: On "preview" I found that all of the comments above, which I had written as separate paragraphs separated by at least two line breaks, had been rolled into one juggernaut paragraph! Am I doing something wrong, or does the program need to be tweaked a little? It doesn't really affect my argument, but it makes it harder to read.

Continued from Obsidian, since I wasn't able to respond until today - 140 comments later, or something like that...

A 'smart' fairness doctrine would still be implemented by politicians. I am not at all comfortable with bureaucrats deciding what fairness is and how it is to be implemented.

I do sympathize, as politicians do get things wrong, mostly. The nub of the issue, is whether there is a significant issue that would be helped by some regulation, in this case. And would the proposed regulation make the problem worse, as you suggest?

So are the problems pre-Fairness Doctrine bigger or less than the problems since?

I would say worse. The public dialogue has withered, and local participation has been forsaken for big communications companies.

I think that a Fairness Doctrine can be implemented for the "scarce" airwaves, without impacting the "abundant" modes of public discourse, such as the internet, and the comming many-spectrum radio.

By the way, that "many spectrum radio" - there is an example where there is an ARTIFICIAL scarcity - radio channels - because of regulation and legislation by Congress and the FCC pushed by the big communication companies. There really is no reason why there isn't unlimited radio channels, from the new radio secure technologies. But the FCC has put a damper on this, at the behest of the big companies.

I think we can agree that THAT particular limiting regulation can be lifted, yes?

Do you agree with that Andrew?

And if so, then this obviates the need for any Fairness Doctrine for radio waves.

Also, the solution would be the same for TV. If high end broadband is pushed into every home, fairly soon, we would have thousands of TV stations to choose from. That would also obviate the scarcity issues. (As well as provide a leg up in competition for americans.)

But again, the policy issues are strangled by the BIG ISP companies, who don't want this.

So I would shift the discussion - the danger you cite from "politicians" who prevent freedom of expression are the same dangers posed by big companies throwing their weight around to maintain market share. What are your thoughts on that?

Dr. Ngo,

The paragraph breaks appear to have come through ok, so it may be a glitch with the preview function.

As regards use of the airwaves, I'm not sure what restrictions I would countenance. The statement is a bit too broad, as I would have no objection to the government insisting on the use of the airwaves to broadcast emergency information, for example. But I do know that I would prefer to minimize the government's ability to interfere with use of the airwaves, as I fail to see an improvement in moving from corporate control to government control, particularly since, as JC notes, much of what the government does, it does at the behest of corporations.

JC,

I'm in favor of whatever policy will make the most options available to the most people, as a general rule. One of the biggest reasons I favor reducing government power is precisely because of your point: when the government amasses a lot of power as ours has, there is far too much incentive for people to try and co-opt that power, which is precisely what many large American businesses have done.

Andrew, I don't think we are far apart, really. At least for me, "whatever policy will make the most options available to the most people", sounds good to me. The thing is, sometimes that will mean less regulation, sometimes more. Corporations can take "options" away from people, as governements can. As well, corporations are notorious for "coopting" government to force limited option on people for the corporations benefit. That's why "less government interferece" sometimes simply not the way the world works IF your goal is "Most options available to the most people". Now, for public goods, however those are defined - roads, public safety, power, (health, internet?) etc, these are always mandated decisions.

JC,

That's a guideline. There are some exceptions there, and we may well disagree on some of the particulars. I do concur that there are cases where there need to be regulations; the environment is a particularly strong case, but anywhere negative externalities are created that aren't accounted for in normal transaction costs I see some justification for regulation. I disagree regarding public goods always being mandated decisions, however. For most of this nation's history, many of those developed without mandates. I'm not convinced that there is nearly as great a need for government action as most.

"My question to you - and I think it's a serious one, not just a debating point - is whether, having decided to allocate some broadcaster a valuable chunk of what I take to be our national patrimony, the airwaves ("Owning a television station is like having a license to print money" someone once said), is there any constraint on what they do with it? Is there nothing they might do to which we, through our elected representatives, might demur at? Have we no recourse whatsoever if they abuse it, or is "abuse" simply a non-issue once the license has been granted?"

dr ngo, you bring up a very interesting point. But your objection "gov't gives free airtime to broadcasters so gov't should have some say in the content" leads me not to believe that gov't should, in fact, manage content. It leads me to the conclusion that gov't should not give free airtime to broadcasters.

Free speech is paramount. Gov't shouldn't restrict speech, so gov't should not through the bait to broadcasters that allow them to.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: