A long time ago, in a galaxy far away (America in the 1960s), radio and television stations were required to provide equal time to political candidates, lest they incur the wrath of the Federal Communications Commission and face losing their license.
Regularly scheduled news programs, however, were exempt from this rule, lest the government fun afoul of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.
The equal time rule was set in the early days of radio, when many media markets had only one broadcast facility. Eventually, as stations proliferated and listeners had more choices, the rule was abandoned as no longer necessary.
Formerly, candidates with less money for ad buys could not compete with well-heeled competitors who could dominate the airwaves. In addition, sympathetic station owners would freeze out some candidates in favor of those with similar political views. Therefore, the equal time rule was essential to guarantee the spread of differing views.
The rule never applied to print media, however, because government did not have the leverage of licensing to force compliance. The idea of licensing or taxing newspapers went out in the 18th Century and the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Broadcasting, however, was different, since the airwaves were deemed to be public, and someone had to decide who could use what portion of the broadcast spectrum, and for what purpose. That task fell to government and the FCC, which then allocated sections of the broadcast spectrum to various uses and users.
Commercial radio stations, for example, were assigned to different positions along the frequency spectrum of 530 to 1600 kilocycles. Police, military and amateur radio enthusiasts as well as international broadcasters operated on different assigned frequency ranges.
Along the way, international agreements set up arrangements as to who could broadcast on what frequency. In all, government regulation was needed to prevent chaos, and licensing was the cudgel to enforce order.
Then came television, and the equal time rule, coupled with the so-called fairness doctrine, combined to ensure all sides of an issue were discussed. One problem with that, however, was that there could be more than two or three opinions on an issue, not all of them equally valid. There was no room for editorial judgment, and no way to filter out crackpot theories. Consequently, some broadcast facilities opted for a third choice -- rather than present the two major sides, they chose none of the above, rather than be accused of propagandizing for one party, demonizing another and ignoring a third.
The little time allocated to news consisted largely of a five-minute segment at the top of each hour, thus filling the licensing requirement that the station serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. What's more, these short news segments were not subject to the equal time rule.
Then came cable television providers who, because they were not broadcasters using public airwaves, were not subject to the strictness of close FCC supervision, even though they did have to comply with local franchise regulation.
Broadcast stations, however, still had to abide by FCC rules.
So as the industry grew, saturating the market with radio, TV and cable outlets offering an ever-wider range of news, opinion and entertainment programming, the equal time rule and the fairness doctrine were no longer needed. Listeners and viewers had the ultimate consumer choice -- turn the dial or change the channel. One problem with that, however, is that people tend to focus on programmers, commentators and presenters whose approach to news and information coincides with their own. They are no longer exposed to neutral or opposing views.
This problem, by the way, is endemic in Congress, unlike years past when politicians who disagree strongly with each other during formal debates, socialized in friendly fashions in their off hours.
Today, the Internet enables anyone with a computer to vent opinions and to slant information to a worldwide audience. This has both benefits and drawbacks. For one thing, there is no editorial or government supervision, filtering or censorship. Conscientious and competent editors can filter out the more outlandish claims and dangerous propaganda. But this same lack of filtering enables the few to post their wildest ideas to the many. At the same time, this lack of filtering prevents government or corporate censorship and control of content.
At least, this is true in America and many other advanced nations, but not in others, where government control of information is strong.
So freedom of the press -- including Internet communication -- has both good and unpleasant aspects. It's up to individuals to do their own filtering, to consider the relative merits of one TV, radio or Internet personality's content, and either accept it as true or reject it, just as readers of newspapers and magazines exercise this choice of believing or not believing what appears in print.
People have long done this with newspapers, magazines and broadcast commentators (remember Walter Winchell, Paul Harvey and Drew Pearson?) -- choosing which to believe. The same is done today, as TV viewers select from among commentators such as Bill O'Reilly on the conservative Fox network, or Rachel Maddow, the liberal voice on MSNBC. Or neither of the above, and they tune to the nightly broadcast network news program on CBS, ABC or NBC.
There certainly have been, and will be, many changes in how news outlets operate, and the soaring rise of social media on the computerized Internet will cause many of these changes.
But newspapers are not likely to ever die. Some 80 years ago, it was said that radio would kill newspapers. It didn't. Later, it was said that television would kill newspapers. It didn't. Now we hear predictions that the Internet will kill newspapers. It won't.
Communication is a wonderful thing, and the more information more people have on more issues, the better society will be. There will always be a radical few who will attempt to control the free flow of information, and thereby control the many. And for all its faults, the Internet and its capacity to transmit vast amounts of information to more millions of people, the better for all.
Meanwhile, the old saying still applies: Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. Or anywhere else.
No comments:
Post a Comment