To revive or not to revive the Fairness Doctrine

You may have missed it, but in the busy days before the election, a national controversy kicked up right here on the Albuquerque airwaves.

It happened on Oct. 21, when the normally media-averse U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, appeared on KKOB 770AM conservative talk radio host Jim Villanucci’s afternoon show. In response to a question from Villanucci, Bingaman said he’d like to see the Fairness Doctrine revived.

The Fairness Doctrine, as you may know, is a now-defunct Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that required broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints. The rule was scrapped in 1987, leading to a proliferation of right-wing talkers who currently rule the radio airwaves largely unchallenged.

Bingaman said he thought the public airwaves were put to greater use back when a full airing of the issues was required.

“I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days that it has become since,” he told Villanucci.

Since then, Bingaman’s support of the Fairness Doctrine has become the new rallying point for far-right Republicans and a cause celebre for radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who warn listeners daily that their favorite shows could soon be shut down.

I mean, the mild-mannered Bingaman is getting slammed.

I was curious about Bingaman’s reaction to the right-wing media storm, so I called his office this week to see what he might say. I got his spokeswoman, Jude McCartin, who downplayed Bingaman’s remarks.

“The issue was raised by Jim Villanucci. It was a question he asked, not something the senator brought up,” she said. “To my knowledge, there is no effort underway and Sen. Bingaman is not in any position to change it. His opinion is that these are the public airwaves and that they should be used for the greater good. That remains his position. People may disagree with him, and that’s fine.”

Still intrigued, I decided to seek out opinions about the Fairness Doctrine from some local people who know and care very much about the flow of information in today’s society.

Maria Elena Alvarez, publisher of the local print magazine Prime Time Monthly and a former newspaper journalist, says she favors the return of the Fairness Doctrine for the same reasons Bingaman does.

“I’ve lived through its demise and I’ve seen what has occurred as a result -– a deeply and severely uninformed and uneducated population,” she says. “People have lost any ability to develop critical thinking skills, because they don’t have to. They can just listen to their favorite talking head.”

Alvarez said she thinks the equal-time doctrine should only apply to federally-regulated broadcast media. That would still leave plenty of other options for news seekers, she said.

“A lot of people are opposed to the idea, but they can just go online and get their perspective. That will require some critical thinking skills. It will require research. And that in itself is a meaningful exercise.”

Sophie Martin, administrator of the popular local blog Duke City Fix, said she has issues with the idea of the Fairness Doctrine, or even with so-called balanced journalism. Sometimes, she says, one side is right and the other just plain wrong, and expecting mainstream media to present both sides as if they were equal is a real disservice to society. Take the issue of global warming as it emerged a few years ago, she says.

“Mainstream journalists were all interviewing scientists who said it was real and were warning us against it. In order to get the other side, they were kind of turning over rocks to find people to say it didn’t exist.”

Even venerable media literacy scholar Bob McCannon, who generally favors regulation and full disclosure when it comes to the media, isn’t quite sure about the relevance of the Fairness Doctrine these days.

There are just so many places for increasingly sophisticated consumers to find information that regulation of just one part of it would be silly, he says.

And while he laments the concentration of media outlets and the immense power they wield, he says he would be wary of limiting anyone’s free speech.

Except, he says, when it comes to hate speech and blatant lies by political candidates, drug companies and other large corporations, which have no place on the public airwaves, he said.

“I understand why Bingaman said what he said. And there is something to the response of the right when they say there are so many more news outlets and way to get news, that some of the reasons that motivated the Fairness Doctrine may (be obsolete).”

So while McCannon says he won’t be crusading for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, he would favor a reform of the current system to regulate hate speech while cutting down on the concentration and corporate dominance of media outlets.

My opinion?

Well, I’m one of those people who read a million blogs a day, along with newspapers, magazines, books -– everything I can get my hands on.

I have made the transition from traditional print reporter to online journalist.

These days, my writing is regulated by what I think is fair.

And it feels pretty good.