by hilzoy
As I’ve said in the earlier posts on the Fairness Doctrine, I’m ambivalent about it. But I can’t think of a better way for the right-wing media to make the case for it than running with an unsourced story about Barack Obama having gone to a madrassa that teaches Wahhabism, even after it has been thoroughly discredited.
It started in the Washington Times’ Insight Magazine:
“Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia. (…)
In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it. The sources said the opponents are searching for evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam.”
(Parenthetical note: given the journalistic standards shown by the nameless author of this article, I’ll need a lot more than his/her word before I believe that this comes from Hillary Clinton’s people.)
Then Fox News picked up the story and ran with it, asserting as fact that Obama went to a madrassa, that madrassas are funded by the Saudis and teach Wahhabism, etc., etc. “Later, a caller to the show questioned whether Obama’s schooling means that “maybe he doesn’t consider terrorists the enemy.” Fox anchor Brian Kilmeade responded, “Well, we’ll see about that.””
Think Progress has the video.
Yesterday, CNN sent a reporter to the school in question, which turns out to be a public school with children of various faiths. Again, ThinkProgress has the video (so, of course, does CNN, but I gave up waiting for it to load, and I have broadband.) It’s worth watching, just to get a feel of the sheer ordinariness of the school, and the bafflement of the headmaster and one of Obama’s classmates.
This morning, Obama sent out a sharply worded memo about the story:
“Insight Magazine published these allegations without a single named source, and without doing any independent reporting to confirm or deny the allegations. Fox News quickly parroted the charges, and Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy went so far as to ask, “Why didn’t anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised — spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father — as a Muslim and was educated in a Madrassa?”
All of the claims about Senator Obama raised in the Insight Magazine piece were thoroughly debunked by CNN, which, instead of relying on unnamed sources, sent a reporter to Obama’s former school in Jakarta to check the facts.
If Doocy or the staff at Fox and Friends had taken [time] to check their facts, or simply made a call to his office, they would have learned that Senator Obama was not educated in a Madrassa, was not raised as a Muslim, and was not raised by his father – an atheist Obama met once in his life before he died.
Later in the day, Fox News host John Gibson again discussed the Insight Magazine story without any attempt to independently confirm the charges.
All of the claims about Senator Obama’s faith and education raised in the Insight Magazine story and repeated on Fox News are false. Senator Obama was raised in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother. Obama’s stepfather worked for a U.S. oil company, and sent his stepson to two years of Catholic school, as well as two years of public school. As Obama described it, “Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks.” [The Audacity of Hope, p. 274]
To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa.”
But after all that, Fox’s John Gibson (on his radio show) said that the reporter CNN sent out “probably went to the very madrassa, now he works for CNN”:
“GIBSON [W]hat did they see when they went to the madrassa where Barack Obama went to school?
HOST: Kids playing volleyball.
GIBSON: Playing volleyball, right. They didn’t see them in any terrorist training camps?
HOST: No.
GIBSON: No. Um, but they probably didn’t show them in their little lessons where they’re bobbing their heads and memorizing the Koran.
HOST: I didn’t see any tape of that, no.”
Again, ThinkProgress has the audio.
***
I see the problems with the Fairness Doctrine. I really do. But this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it seem like a good idea: news organizations with an obvious political slant saying things that are simply and demonstrably false for political purposes, and pretending that it’s news. In a fair universe, anyone who did this, on the right or on the left, would be drummed out of the journalistic profession, the way Jayson Blair was, and regarded with bewilderment and horror by people everywhere.
In this universe, does anyone have a good idea about how to deal with manifest lies like this?
* Footnote: I hope it’s obvious, but: I don’t think that saying that someone is a Muslim is a slur, since I don’t think that being a Muslim is bad. For that matter, I don’t think that going to something called a “madrassa” is bad: as I understand it, ‘madrassa’ is the Arabic word for ‘school’, and is used to refer to religious schools; and there are lots of places called ‘madrassas’ that existed for centuries before Wahhabism even existed. (On reflection, I decided to check: here’s a madrassa that was founded in 988 AD. It also occurred to me that the word madrassa must be related to the Hebrew midrash.)
But saying that someone went to a madrassa, in an American electoral campaign, now, is an obvious attempt to do that person damage, and that’s true whatever one’s beliefs about Islam in general.
“Parenthetical note: given the journalistic standards shown by the nameless author of this article, I’ll need a lot more than his/her word before I believe that this comes from Hillary Clinton’s people.”
So how will we ever know then?
What’s the answer? Loosening the law so public figures have an easier time seeking restitution for defamation.
“I see the problems with the Fairness Doctrine. I really do. But this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it seem like a good idea: news organizations with an obvious political slant saying things that are simply and demonstrably false for political purposes, and pretending that it’s news. In a fair universe, anyone who did this, on the right or on the left, would be drummed out of the journalistic profession, the way Jayson Blair was, and regarded with bewilderment and horror by people everywhere.”
But Obama doesn’t need the Fairness Doctrine does he? He could easily just call a press conference or send out an aide if he wanted to get something in the news.
I see the problems with the Fairness Doctrine. I really do. But this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it seem like a good idea: news organizations with an obvious political slant saying things that are simply and demonstrably false for political purposes, and pretending that it’s news.
Take as an example, something as silly as John Kerry’s unintended insult to our military.
John Kerry did not say “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.”, what he literally said was ““You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Oddly enough, the major news services reported what he meant to say, as did Obsidian Wings without stating what words were actually spoken.
i just the think the fairness doctrine is too blunt an instrument. for one, i think it’s unconstitutional (particularly when there are alternatives to broadcasting). also, i think it would be impossible to administer coherently and is the type of thing that would inevitably lead to abuse (eg, the Bush FCC could say “balance the street bombing with a school painting”).
but you’re right to identify the problem. the solution i think is journalistic norms and political pressure. people need to become pariahs for stuff like this — they need to pay, ratings need to drop. this is an area where i think blogs are particularly valuable (i think the 2000 coverage of gore would have been dramatically different if blogs had been around) it’s not the best solution, but it’s the best of bad optoins
Oddly enough, the major news services reported what he meant to say, as did Obsidian Wings without stating what words were actually spoken.
Cites on the major news services, please, because every one I saw reported on at least the (botched) punchline to the joke. Cable news in particular replayed the exact gaffe several dozen times over the next few days.
And fwiw, I wouldn’t say that ObWi “reported” on the story at all, given that that post is dated, what, a week after the event? It was a commentary on existing reportage, contemporary historiography if you will, which is a very different animal.
That’s funny. The NY Times story Hilzoy links to contains the words actually spoken.
John Kerry made a gaffe. Fox News engaged in a lie.
There’s, like, a difference.
“So how will we ever know then?”
Clear evidence it came from elsewhere – say the Edwards camp? An admission by the source that it was made up? An admission by Clinton’s people years after her second term that it was from them?
“Parenthetical note: given the journalistic standards shown by the nameless author of this article, I’ll need a lot more than his/her word before I believe that this comes from Hillary Clinton’s people.”
This seems not strong enough: when I see a headline in the Nation Enquirer, my reaction is not to say, “I’ll need a lot more than their word”. If tomorrow Insight says that it turns out the story was given to them by Obama’s people in order to inoculate him against smears, I won’t start waiting for more evidence.
Second oldest University in existence, too. The oldest is in Morocco, and is connected to a mosque founded by a woman.
Another university in Morocco, Cadi Ayyad of Marakech recently hosted the TUG 2006 conference.
I have to say, some of the calligraphy/typography therein is stunningly beautiful, and I certainly wish I knew how to read Arabic, so that I could understand it, as well as just admire it. Unfortunately, TUGboat does not make it easy to view the proceedings online.
Quite how reporting on the intended speech as opposed to the given speech is controversial is beyond me; Hansard does it to some extent, and Hansard records semi-spontaneous debate, as opposed to the American set-pieces involved here.
Further more, no one claimed that Kerry didn’t say that; they said that Kerry didn’t intend to say that.
people need to become pariahs for stuff like this — they need to pay, ratings need to drop.
FWIW – The Madrassa story feels like a tipping point’s been reached in respects to Fox’s competitors.
There’s ratings to be had exposing the lies now, rather than peddling them.
rilkefan: I intended understated irony.
Anyone Got An Answer?
It might have been smart for HRC’s camp to have released a blistering memo of their own (if they did a cursory google misses it).
“I intended understated irony.”
Gotcha.
Though for all I know it _could_ have been a dumb HRC staffer. Which might explain the missing 2nd memo…
Sebastian: But Obama doesn’t need the Fairness Doctrine does he? He could easily just call a press conference or send out an aide if he wanted to get something in the news.
Ho ho.
(I hope this is a joke?)
Spartikus: There’s ratings to be had exposing the lies now, rather than peddling them.
If the people who own the networks want the temporary advantage of better ratings more than they want the permanent advantage of a right-wing Republican in the White House. Sebastian’s joke about “all Obama needs to do” is a joke because it’s obvious that Obama’s making the point that this is a crude lie – as crude as the lies told about Kerry or Gore – will likely only get out as a “According to Obama…” tag: “According to Obama, the school he went to is not a madrassa but teaches children of different faiths.”
I had some Photoshop mockery in mind, but abandoned it as unfair to the Weekly World News.
I’d be pleased to see more press coverage of Rev. Moon’s religious upbringing… The Insight editorial staff would (did, re. WaPo, but I’m not linking) claim that ownership linkage is scurrilous. Sure.
It might also be amusing to match attendees of Moon’s “coronation” with a list of vocal “Rathergate” critics. Surely some of these Congressmen would like to weigh in a second time on media failures.
I have always liked publius’s idea at 2:00. I would prefer journalists police themselves and each other, like doctors or lawyers or, hey, the blogosphere. In very serious consequential ways, like denying White House credentials or taking Fox/Murdoch off wire services or strongly pressuring the cable carriers. But internally. This is obviously not completely successful for medicine and law, and it is practically difficult to shut someone down.
But if it was consistent and repeated plagiarism, I am sure the industry would find a way.
But Obama doesn’t need the Fairness Doctrine does he? He could easily just call a press conference or send out an aide if he wanted to get something in the news.
And it would, of course, be carried live on FOX News, the spreader of the lie. Right?
According to what I read yesterday (truthout.org, I think) there is an official dementi by the Clinton camp. It (not the dementi) is suspected of being an intended double-hit on both Hillary and Obama.
a) spreading false rumors about Obama effectively insinuating that he is an islamist mole
b) pretending that that attack actually comes from her Democratic rivals, showing that they use tricks as dirty as the GOP’s
There is also an extensive report on the history and practices of Moon that among other things include a habit of spreading false but effective rumors against Democratic candidates that are then taken up by other media amplifiers from the right.
Oddly enough, the major news services reported what he meant to say, as did Obsidian Wings without stating what words were actually spoken.
odd. so, you take Cheney at his word when he said:
We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.
?
that’s what he said. and if you listen to the tape, there’s no pause or stutter or any other audible clues that he misspoke.
so, which is it: do people mean literally what the words they say add up to (in which case Cheney blatantly lied), or do they sometimes say things incorrectly ?
I know politicians in the US are reluctant to sue, but there’s no reason Obama couldn’t sue Fox for libel in the UK, where he’d win easily. British law would give him standing to sue because Fox’s website is accessible in the UK, as are countless other websites which have reprinted the slander. Furthermore NewsCorp has many assets in the UK, so getting US courts to enforce the ruling wouldn’t be an obstacle.
They’re not going to stop until they suffer some sort of penalty. Since constantly pushing deliberate lies to slander Democrats clearly doesn’t harm their ratings, I don’t see why the libel laws are not an appropriate response
i think [The Fairness Doctrine]’s unconstitutional (particularly when there are alternatives to broadcasting)
But the broadcasting spectrum was and is a publicly owned resource, like a national park is. Is it likewise unconstitutional to regulate the national parks by, for example, charging admission, and prohibiting snowmobiling in certain areas?
I think it would be unconstitutional to apply the Fairness Doctrine to cable TV and web sites, and problematic to apply it to broadcasting in today’s brave new world. But I protest the notion that it is unconstitutional to regulate access to publicly-owned property. Think oil drilling and logging as well.
Cleek, it’s worse than that, under the DaveC doctrine, we must take Bush at his word when he says
In this universe, does anyone have a good idea about how to deal with manifest lies like this?
Expose them for the lies that they are. The blogosphere is good at that. Exposing the lies (or just sloppy reporting) dings their credibility and makes people more skeptical of their reporting in the future. While the organization may not learn from that, the viewers do.
(Full disclosure, I commented on this back when, not so much that I believed the Manchurian Candidate aspect of it, but that I saw it as a hit from the Clinton machine. So I swallowed at least that aspect of it.)
people need to become pariahs for stuff like this — they need to pay, ratings need to drop.
Not gonna happen. It’s in too many people’s interest for stuff like this to go on.
They won’t become pariahs. Lots of folks will welcome them with open arms. I doubt the editorial staff and on-air talent at Fox, or most places actually, is particularly prone to shame, anyway.
Ratings will not drop. Lots of folks love this kind of stuff. They’ll line up to watch.
What to do?
They’re not going to stop until they suffer some sort of penalty.
There’s your answer.
Suspend their broadcast license. That would make a dent.
Require an on-air correction and apology. That would make a dent.
Make the on-air talent personally responsible for 7 figure damages to Obama. Not Fox corporate, not the station. Make actual people pay out of their own pocket. That will make a dent.
Short of that, expect more of the same. We’re heading into a Presidential election cycle, they’re just getting tuned up.
Thanks –
Maybe there needs to be some sort of truth in labelling act and some sort of objective rating system, the results of which would have to be displayed by shows porporting to be news.
But I like the idea of making it easierr to sue for libel.
Obama should simply say, in front of a camera:
“John Gibson is a professional liar.”
I’m reminded of a scene in the very last episode of Deadwood, when mining magnate George Hearst tells the editor of the local newspaper (who has been critical of Hearst) “I’ll have my people here start another paper, to lie the other way.”
Newspapers and news reporting in this country have always been slanted, at least a little. The proliferation of cable news and internet media just means that more people can read or watch the “news” that agrees with their slant. It’s not a great system, but I tend to think the propose cure (government intervention) would be worse than the disease.
Ask yourselves if you would want Bush & company deciding what’s balanced, and who should get equal time.
I prefer Geek, Esq.’s idea. Public figures shouldn’t be afraid to go on television and call out lies and liars.
“But the broadcasting spectrum was and is a publicly owned resource, like a national park is. Is it likewise unconstitutional to regulate the national parks by, for example, charging admission, and prohibiting snowmobiling in certain areas?”
Would be, if there were language in the Constutition stating that “Congress shall make no law… infringing on the right of the people to enter all public lands and engage in recreational activities there.”
Like there is, you know, having to do with freedom of speech and of the press…
Spectrum ownership by the government is a false issue; If the government passed a law tomorrow seizing all newsprint and ink, rendering them government property, would it moot the 1st amendment’s protection of press freedom? Seizing ownership of the airwaves was no different.
amos – you’re not just regulating access, you’re regulating CONTENT. that’s where the national parks analogy breaks down. even though the government operates national parks, they can’t force people to present ideologically opposite opinions within those parks.
And again, you have to thik about how this think of the administrative nightmare this could become (and the possibility for strategic behavior). if someone is discussing global warming, do you have to get a skeptic? same deal with stem cells?
we have the wash post op-ed page already, i’m not sure it needs to be federally institutionalized. 🙂
In this universe, does anyone have a good idea about how to deal with manifest lies like this?
Yes, it’s called the marketplace of ideas and it used to be quite popular with liberals.
Sorry for the snark, but this is ridiculous. The premise of the fairness doctrine is the assumption that there is limited bandwidth and limited points of views on any given subject. The former is becoming highly debatable in the age of the internet and rise of digital television (with its capacity to transmit literally hundreds more channels), and the latter has been demonstrably false forever. Moreover, the suggestion that the Fairness doctrine would prohibit folks in the media from telling demonstrative lies is ridiculous. The fairness doctrine would merely limit the views expressed by the hosts and may, in some circumstances (and depending on your point of view), require the media to recite the “lies” of a so-called “opposing party.”
The fairness doctrine was bad policy when it was removed, and the environment has made it an even worse policy today.
Spartikus, upthread, mentioned loosening the law to permit public figures to sue for defamation.
Wikipedia mentions in its entry on the Fairness Doctrine that a corollary rule stipulating that those who might be subject to a personal attack were to be given notice beforehand and a chance to respond. THAT rule, and another, were dropped in 2000.
FOX commentators are public figures. They have a past. Their mothers have a past. Their children, if the yuckee individual exists who would let each of them accomplish the awful deed, have a past. Their grandmothers have a past, the passel of minxes.
As well as identifying them with great detail as professional liars in a press conference and calling them out, parade their lives before the camera. If they are clean, make up dirt.
The Democratic Party needs a posse of folks who like to fight dirty to be available to appear on FOX and similar outlets (like the local sewage plant). Go toe to toe, yell, threaten the hosts who lie. Do it on camera. Throw stuff. Sean Penn would be the man for the job. A wrecked set or two would be photogenic.
If FOX doesn’t permit access, I’m sure Colbert and company would like to buy a funny spot to answer the dirt of the day.
Keep it up until the Republican Party itself begs for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. If they do so, tell them no, not just yet, liberals are having too much fun. Then examine your nails with a bored expression.
Re Gibson: His hair. That’s where I would look for Osama Bin Laden. Something’s up there, cemented in by a daily can of hairspray. Tall, blond, lacquered weeds would be where I would look for terrorists. Satellite imagery of his hair might be required.
Re Hillary: Well, she has made a great effort to court Rupert Murdoch. He likes her, what with his middle finger held up to the political winds. I would not be surprised if this was some sort of cooperative effort. If the Democrats win, he needs to own someone.
As an aside, what are the chances that events line up so that our number one enemy is named Osama and a candidate appears whose name is Obama? Paddy Chayevsky, the big scriptwriter in the sky, is still churning them out.
It seems to me that a “Hillstreet Blues” episode years ago had a character who wanted to be a cop and hung around the station. His name was Vic. Vic what? Umm, Vic Hitler. Imagine this: Ma’am, I’m Officer Hitler, what’s the trouble?”
I’ll preface this by saying I’m not entirely sure how any of this affects a cable channel like Fox News, which is regulated by the FCC, but is transmitted over wires rather than over the airwaves and involves a private intermediary in the cable TV provider.
Publius: amos – you’re not just regulating access, you’re regulating CONTENT. that’s where the national parks analogy breaks down. even though the government operates national parks, they can’t force people to present ideologically opposite opinions within those parks.
Can the government grant private entities the exclusive power to control what people say in national parks? Because that’s what we have on the airwaves, sans something akin to the Fairness Doctrine.
Von: Yes, it’s called the marketplace of ideas and it used to be quite popular with liberals.
How does government licensing of the means of expression fit into the marketplace of ideas? Why does it seem like the primary function of the FCC is sitting in a giant blind spot as far as this discussion is concerned?
And, given all the extra (non-government-licensed) bandwidth you mention, the marketplace of ideas will do just fine under the FD, will it not?
I just wanted to confirm, from one of the things I learned from two semesters of Arabic, that “madrassa” is indeed the word for school. Any school at all. So yeah, anybody who attends a school in an Arabic speaking country attends a madrassa, which doesn’t matter in the slightest to the attempted smearers.
How does government licensing of the means of expression fit into the marketplace of ideas? Why does it seem like the primary function of the FCC is sitting in a giant blind spot as far as this discussion is concerned?
And, given all the extra (non-government-licensed) bandwidth you mention, the marketplace of ideas will do just fine under the FD, will it not?
I do not understand your argument: What do you think that FD is intended to do?
Spartikus, upthread, mentioned loosening the law to permit public figures to sue for defamation.
The First Amendment is the “law” that Spartikus proposes “loosening.”* Also, wouldn’t such a loosened law potentially allow Gibson to sue based on the following statement (included upthread):
Obama should simply say, in front of a camera:
“John Gibson is a professional liar.”
von
* Specifically, New York Times v Sullivan — once a proud moment for liberals, now derided, apparently, by the Left.
Change “marketplace of ideas” to “marketplace of lies” and I think we would more accurately and fairly identify the bazaar in which Gibson hawks his stolen wares.
Someone wake me next time Gibson and ilk have an idea.
Von:
“Also, wouldn’t such a loosened law potentially allow Gibson to sue…”
Sure. Nancy Grace could cover the trial. I’m all for New York Times v Sullivan, but I like the lapsed little rule about prior notice of personal attacks, too, as it applies to the narrow purview of the Fairness Doctrine.
potentially allow Gibson to sue based on the following statement: “John Gibson is a professional liar.”
Heavens, no! Truth is its own defense.
Change “marketplace of ideas” to “marketplace of lies” and I think we would more accurately and fairly identify the bazaar in which Gibson hawks his stolen wares.
Are you rejecting what had been (for good reason, I had thought) a central tenet of liberalism? Or are you simply noting that, like democracy, the marketplace of ideas is not perfect — it is simply far better than the alternatives?
Sure. Nancy Grace could cover the trial. I’m all for New York Times v Sullivan, but I like the lapsed little rule about prior notice of personal attacks, too, as it applies to the narrow purview of the Fairness Doctrine.
It’s not narrow.
potentially allow Gibson to sue based on the following statement: “John Gibson is a professional liar.”
Heavens, no! Truth is its own defense.
Ah. So you’ve seen Gibson’s contract, and you know that it provides that, pursuant to it, Gibson is paid for lying?
FTR, this post and this thread is exactly why I see little common ground with the Left.
FTR, this post and this thread is exactly why I see little common ground with the Left.
Erm, “are exactly why”.
Carry on.
Von conveniently ignores the fact that freedom of the press only applies to those who own the presses. In Von’s world – only the wealthy have the right to speak, and that is how it should be. How exactly is one to engage in this marketplace of ideas that requires a several million dollar investment before one can open one’s mouth? TV blares what its ownership wants it to blare, and that has become ridiculously homogenized into the slickly sold deceits of the likes of Fox News and ABC/Disney.
How can that be corrected WITHOUT abridging the first amendment is the question Hilzoy was asking that Von so disengenuously dismissed as “the Left” trying to silence its opposition. I, personally, would like to see “absence of malice” removed from lible law, people should think before they talk.
FTR, this post and this thread is exactly why I see little common ground with the Left
Well, yeah: if we may for a minute trespass on the posting rules, the Right wants the freedom to spread pretty lies about its own policies and candidates, and damaging lies about its opponents and their policies, since the Right cannot win an election without lying about its own policies and the policies of its opponents (and it appears that the Republican Party can’t even come close to winning an election without lying about its opponents, too).
So, naturally, any means of preventing the Right from having a clear field to spread whatever lies it needs to win elections, won’t win much common ground with right-wing supporters, but will be popular with left-wing supporters, since the Left can win elections on truthful platforms.
Von conveniently ignores the fact that freedom of the press only applies to those who own the presses. In Von’s world – only the wealthy have the right to speak, and that is how it should be.
What a ridiculous canard. So, to balance the playing field, you’d endorse giving everyone a “press” so that they, too, can enjoy the so-called privilege of the wealthy? Or maybe we can ration the presses — you know, to each according to their (state-determined) need? Or perhaps you’d like to take a Sharpie to the Bill of Rights, and make some revisions to the First Amendment’s dictate that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Or maybe you’re one of those folks who disagree with the 14th amendment’s incorporation doctrine, thereby allowing the States to regulate speech (and impose Jim Crow, segregation, and the like)?
So, naturally, any means of preventing the Right from having a clear field to spread whatever lies it needs to win elections, won’t win much common ground with right-wing supporters, but will be popular with left-wing supporters, since the Left can win elections on truthful platforms.
The belief that one side (or another) has a monopoly on truth is the surest sign that you’ve jumped the shark.
What I advocate is a marketplace of ideas. It is inevitable in such a marketplace that you will be occasionally offended and that some of your dearest causes will lose. It is inevitable that you will see what you regard as “lies” to gain currency in the world. But it is better than any alternative.
Oh God von, now you’re talking about the Left with a capital L? Spare me a little, okay? Isn’t lying about a politician to appeal to bigotry somewhat more indicative of problems with The Right than overreacting and offering not fully thought out solutions to those lies?
Gibson is in fact showing “reckless disregard for the truth or falsity” of what he’s saying, but he’s probably staying too far away from factual assertions to qualify for libel…and in any case even if he met the U.S. legal def’n it would be bad form for a politician to sue absent something more compelling and damaging than this.
But our libel laws are better than England’s. There’s a good reason it’s hard. Really, everyone should read NY Times v. Sullivan before they go too far in this direction. You could argue that gross negligence about the truth or falsity of a statement should be sufficient, and a lot of courts aborad have rejected the premise about libel laws in private disputes being state action, but I don’t want English libel laws.
On the other hand airily appealing to the “marketplace of ideas” doesn’t cut it. That is how it should work but in practice good ideas and truthful reporting are, in fact, not reliably more profitable nor more politicially effective than professional liars and propagandists like Gibson.
Normally when you have a market failure the gov’t steps in. In this case there are limits to how that could work for First Amendment reasons–though better financed public broadcasting, free air time for candidates, etc. and other gov’t interventions are okay. So what fills the breach?
Maybe journalists should worry less about bloggers’ ethics and more about the ethical standards of paid media. You’re not going to have a system like law or medicine, obviously, because there’s no such thing as a license to practice journalism & it would be utterly unconstituional to require it. But some seriously organized peer pressure and pushback would not be amiss.
and von: could you please explain the scare quotes around “lies”?
von: I do not understand your argument: What do you think that FD is intended to do?
I think it is intended to mitigate, in some small way, the fact that the government grants select private broadcasters exclusive license to use certain frequencies. Our government already controls who can speak on the airwaves. To ignore this is to fail to discuss this subject in anything approaching a meaningful fashion. Access to the particular corner of that marketplace of ideas to which the FD would apply is not a free market under any definition of the word.
“Sebastian’s joke about “all Obama needs to do” is a joke because it’s obvious that Obama’s making the point that this is a crude lie – as crude as the lies told about Kerry or Gore – will likely only get out as a “According to Obama…” tag: “According to Obama, the school he went to is not a madrassa but teaches children of different faiths.”
And you think “This is a publically mandated response time” would do so much better?
Interesting.
As is the belief that both sides must be equally guilty of lying.
I am extremely skeptical about the prospects of crafting a government invention that wouldn’t be a cure worse than the disease, but I’m also disturbed that Von and Sebastian find Gibson’s behavior so yawn-worthy.
“Normally when you have a market failure the gov’t steps in.”
I don’t buy that as a general solution premise. IF and only IF the government can do better on a regular basis to correct the failure and IF and only IF the government can do so without trampling on other important rights and outside issues should we engage in a long term government solution. If we find it almost impossible to make useful Constitutional distinctions about obscenity–not a core part of 1st amendment protections–it is ridiculous to think that we can make useful Constitutional distinctions between the very most core part of the 1st amendment free speech protection.
The First Amendment is the “law” that Spartikus proposes “loosening.”*
If that’s how you wish to characterize it, so be it. Funnily enough, I think Barack Obama might possibly win under the rules set down by NYT v. Sullivan. But I don’t think the idea that Fox News can be made to prove it did basic due diligence in airing this story is a threat to the First Amendment.
Other countries have higher standards in regards to what people and media can say about each other in the public discourse, and their democracies seem to be healthy, indeed, healthier. Yes, it’s true these countries haven’t had to deal (recently) with problems of the scale of the institutionalized racism that existed in the United States of the era of NYT v. Sullivan….
….I suppose, at the end of the day and to cut to the chase, it was in society’s best interest that the rules be such that documenting the oppression and violence occurring in the American South be made public.
I’m not sure what the public interest is in having a leading candidate for the President of the United States falsely accused of being an Islamic Manchurian Candidate.
Such practices undermine, in a serious fashion, the foundations of the American democracy, in my opinion.
Also, wouldn’t such a loosened law potentially allow Gibson to sue based on the following statement
He would lose the case.
actually, in context, you may not be referring specifically to Gibson. So if not scratch that question.
I wouldn’t claim that The Left has a monopoly on truth or the The Right on lies–not least because those entities do not actually exist–but there is no question which side relies more on disinformation to win elections. Fox, talk radio, and a fair # of blogs are basically volunteer propaganda organizations for the Republican party: whether a piece of news “feels true” & serves your agenda matters more than its factual accuracy. There are liberal weblogs that do this, and I suppose there must be Air America hosts, etc. but they have nowhere close to the influence. The New Yorker may be as far left of center of US public opinion as Fox News is right–the Nation is further left–but they are fundamentally not in the same business. Hilzoy and I may be as far left of center on detainee issues as, say, Powerline is right–but we research our posts, and they’re accurate, and when they aren’t we correct them. And you can be damn sure we would not behave that way if a Democratic administration were doing this stuff. And I just can’t think of a liberal equivalent of the Swift Boaters. etc. etc.
Granted, I’m liberal, I’m going to think my side is more honest, saying so doesn’t make it so–but you know, it’s possible that I’m right. Can you give me any evidence to the contrary?
“but I’m also disturbed that Von and Sebastian find Gibson’s behavior so yawn-worthy.”
Who said yawn-worthy? This post offers his case as suggesting the need for government action. I think that a worse case of more blatant lies wouldn’t suggest government action. That isn’t an endorsement of lying, that is saying that government games with free speech aren’t a good idea even in really bad cases.
And you can be damn sure we would not behave that way if a Democratic administration were doing this stuff.
This isn’t clear: I think you mean to say the standards you use in your writing would not change, regardless of which party is in power.
it was in society’s best interest that the rules be such that documenting the oppression and violence occurring in the American South be made public.
This isn’t clear either. Rewind the tape, and…: the rules be such that documenting the oppression and violence occurring in the American South be possible.
“The New Yorker may be as far left of center of US public opinion as Fox News is right–the Nation is further left–but they are fundamentally not in the same business.”
No, actually the are in much the same business, but not as successful at it. They are from the model where influencing an elite cadre was more important than caring about the general population thought. Which was the correct model for when they began I suppose–swaying one Kennedy would be worth far more than talking to 10 million rural Americans.
“I wouldn’t claim that The Left has a monopoly on truth or the The Right on lies–not least because those entities do not actually exist–but there is no question which side relies more on disinformation to win elections
…
Granted, I’m liberal, I’m going to think my side is more honest, saying so doesn’t make it so–but you know, it’s possible that I’m right.”
For sufficiently large definitions of the Right coupled with sufficiently small definitions of the Left and for sufficiently tight historical looks (say 12 years) you might be correct. Otherwise, no.
And you load a lot of analytical baggage onto the ‘more’ in “more honest”.
Enough that government should be allowed to meddle with free speech? Not hardly.
Just for the record: we aren’t actually talking about a Fairness Doctrine for cable TV, or print, or the internet, are we? I know I’m not.
Thanks for mentioning Fox’s latest bit of mendacity, Hilzoy. To paraphrase one of my own paraphrases of Twain, “There are liars, damned liars, and people who work for Fox News.”
Von- I agree in principle with your objection to the fairness doctrine (I hang out near the less authoritarian end of liberalism, along with Camus)…you say:
As Seb and others here have already noted, we’ve already got such a system — the Internet.
Technology is not the problem, nor is scarcity on the technological side. The majority of people don’t have the time or the skills or the inclination to track down and evaluate the information that is already available, and the majority of that majority would rather that someone else do all that work for them anyway. Teaching a college course in rhetoric and research is enlightening. It takes a ton of effort to shift any the students, whatever their political leanings, out of their informational habits and into actual analysis.
The problem is not a lack of information, which can be corrected by mandating that more information of a wider ideological range be carried on each channel. The problem is that too many people only want information that reinforces their own biases and worldviews.
Sebastian Holsclaw: Enough that government should be allowed to meddle with free speech?
Good grief! Government is already meddling with free speech when it comes to broadcasting! The FD was a remedy for this. Maybe it wasn’t a good remedy in your view, but what it absolutely was not was an instance of government interfering in an otherwise free exercise of the first amendment. Am I shouting into a hole in the ground here?
“Just for the record: we aren’t actually talking about a Fairness Doctrine for cable TV”
We’re talking about FoxNews, correct? That is cable TV.
“but there is no question which side relies more on disinformation to win elections
…
Can you give me any evidence to the contrary? ”
Sure:
the Social Security lockbox;
the Byrd dragging death ads by the NAACP;
in local campaigns I often see massive promises for new spending with allegedly no need for higher taxes (from both sides but more from Democrats)
Democrats (not just THE LEFT) engage in disinformation to win elections.
as too often happens in threads like this, people are conflating issues that are and should remain both logically and legally distinct.
[and now that i’ve insulted everyone…]
1. The opportunity to rebut. One core justification of the FD was that the limited number of venues available at the time justified mandating a rebuttal opportunity. Obama clearly does not need to force Fox to give him TV or radio time to have the opportunity to have his rebuttal heard. CNN, frex, is willing to give him air time.
so, we don’t need and shouldn’t want the FD. CNN still serves.
2. Effective punishment for gross lies.
Even given Fox’s strong links to the Republican party, I think NYT v. Sullivan was correctly decided. But if there’s one thing reading blog comments should teach us, it’s that people love hearing lies / gross misrepresentations / distortions so long as they’re good for our side and bad for the other.
I think the idea of Obama suing Fox in Great Britain is kinda funny and maybe a remedy. Imagine a press release which states: Fox’s conduct was perfectly legal in the US. But Fox rebroadcast the same show in countries where that conduct is against the law. As an American politician, I have the right and obligation to my constituents and my country to pursue legal remedies overseas when libel is committed against me overseas. VTY, Barack Obama.
to be honest, i think the backlash for seeking foreign jurisdictions to suppress free speech would far far outweigh any possible benefit. The better idea is for Obama to press publicly for an opportunity to appear on Gibson’s show, and call Gibson a coward if he refuses.
“Good grief! Government is already meddling with free speech when it comes to broadcasting!”
Are we talking about FoxNews and the WashingtonTimes or not? I believe that is a newsPAPER and a CABLE TV channel.
Brett: If the government passed a law tomorrow seizing all newsprint and ink, rendering them government property, would it moot the 1st amendment’s protection of press freedom? Seizing ownership of the airwaves was no different.
It was plenty different. Newsprint and ink are already privately owned and protected by the 5th amendment. The broadcast spectrum was a new resource. Claiming ownership of it was like claiming ownership of great tracts of western lands (except for the absence of an indigenous population in the broadcast spectrum).
publius: you’re not just regulating access, you’re regulating CONTENT. that’s where the national parks analogy breaks down. even though the government operates national parks, they can’t force people to present ideologically opposite opinions within those parks.
Evidently they can.
But the regulation of content did not attempt to suppress anyone’s speech, or any one particular point of view. It was an attempt to manage an important public asset in the public interest, rather than surrender control to whichever corporations got there first, and, at the time, a reasonable compromise with the 1st amendment issues.
we have the wash post op-ed page already, i’m not sure it needs to be federally institutionalized. 🙂
No argument here — no broadcast spectrum involved. And in case I didn’t make it clear above, I think the time for the FD has passed, due to technological changes that reduce the importance of the broadcast spectrum in the nation’s public life. But I still protest the idea that it was unconstitutional.
“No, actually the are in much the same business, but not as successful at it. They are from the model where influencing an elite cadre was more important than caring about the general population thought. ”
I do believe this makes me as angry as anything you have ever written.
Oh God von, now you’re talking about the Left with a capital L? Spare me a little, okay?
Is there not such a thing as the Left, Lefists, etc.? Have discussions regarding the Left over the course of the last 100+ years been totally misguided and stupid? Is there not some common governing philosophy to which (say) Jes, Spartikus, and Thullen subscribe — albeit to greater or lesser degress (and with the natural caveats and exceptions that you find anywhere)?
But our libel laws are better than England’s. There’s a good reason it’s hard. Really, everyone should read NY Times v. Sullivan before they go too far in this direction. You could argue that gross negligence about the truth or falsity of a statement should be sufficient, and a lot of courts aborad have rejected the premise about libel laws in private disputes being state action, but I don’t want English libel laws.
Agreed (obviously).
On the other hand airily appealing to the “marketplace of ideas” doesn’t cut it. That is how it should work but in practice good ideas and truthful reporting are, in fact, not reliably more profitable nor more politicially effective than professional liars and propagandists like Gibson.
No one (least of all me) is claiming that the marketplace of ideas is perfect. The argument — with which you seem to at least partially agree in light of your defense of NYT v. Sullivan — is that the alternative is worse.
But some seriously organized peer pressure and pushback would not be amiss.
That I would very much like to see.
and von: could you please explain the scare quotes around “lies”?
Because not everyone will agree on what is a “lie” and what is not.
“but I’m also disturbed that Von and Sebastian find Gibson’s behavior so yawn-worthy.”
I can’t provide a better response than Sebastian, who’s comment (upthread) demands repetition:
A lot of truly stupid & terrible things have been done for the best reasons. (“The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions” is an old saw for a reason.)
Von- I agree in principle with your objection to the fairness doctrine (I hang out near the less authoritarian end of liberalism, along with Camus)…you say:
There is no authoritarian wing of liberalism. There is leftism and socialism, which may make common cause with liberalism from time to time (and are frequently confused with it because of the fact), but they are not liberals.* This used to be quite explicit in places like the UK, where you had a Liberal Party that was quite different & distinct from Labour.
*Indeed, if the Republican party is the bastard child of evangelicals and finance types, the Democratic party could be viewed as the bastard child of liberals and leftists.
unless I completely misunderstand you–are you just saying they’re both trying to make money and that the New Yorker are going for rich people and Fox isn’t? I stll totally disagree but that’s a bit less offensive.
“Because not everyone will agree on what is a “lie” and what is not. ”
But some of them will be right. And some of them won’t. The number of people who hold a belief doesn’t make it true or false.
Is there not such a thing as the Left, Lefists, etc.? Have discussions regarding the Left over the course of the last 100+ years been totally misguided and stupid? Is there not some common governing philosophy to which (say) Jes, Spartikus, and Thullen subscribe — albeit to greater or lesser degress (and with the natural caveats and exceptions that you find anywhere)?
As a denizen of that vast, murky end of things, I don’t think it’s useful to think monolithically. If it was, there’d be more internal discipline, akin to what we actually do see on the Right. The ideology, and , more importantly, the behavior is much more fragmented and is just not useful to be speaking of a singular entity.
If it’s just that they’re trying to make money, then McDonald’s is in the same business too.
“I do believe this makes me as angry as anything you have ever written.”
You aren’t seriously suggesting that the New Yorker isn’t (and especially wasn’t) about influencing an elite cadre of powerful people are you? And the Nation was all about influencing an elite cadre that it hoped would become powerful.
They are both in the business of telling their target audience what they want to hear often in a very slanted way. They have moments of good reporting (well the New Yorker does anyway) but that doesn’t change their general function.
So what precisely are you mad about?
Sorry, katherine, I cross posted with you, but I think I attempted to answer your question anyway so tell me if it did.
Are we talking about FoxNews and the WashingtonTimes or not? I believe that is a newsPAPER and a CABLE TV channel.
Well that’s the rub, isn’t it?. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the FD didn’t apply to print or cable. Hilzoy didn’t lay out a specific policy proposal (and, indeed, carefully distanced herself from the FD, only saying that these attacks might tend to justify it) so I can only assume she is talking about the FD as it was implemented or as it is proposed to be implemented (which still would not apply to cable as I understand it).
I don’t even think TV is the major concern here with respect to the proposed return of the FD. The TV broadcasters actually do a passable job of providing a diversity of views. I suspect this is all about radio.
But some of them will be right. And some of them won’t. The number of people who hold a belief doesn’t make it true or false.
Sure, but I’m not the final arbiter of such things (nor could I be).
If it was, there’d be more internal discipline, akin to what we actually do see on the Right.
Yes. Unlike the front-page posters at RedState Jes, Spartikus and Thullen don’t actually communicate via IM to ensure our stories stay on message.
As a denizen of that vast, murky end of things, I don’t think it’s useful to think monolithically. If it was, there’d be more internal discipline, akin to what we actually do see on the Right. The ideology, and , more importantly, the behavior is much more fragmented and is just not useful to be speaking of a singular entity.
It’s useful only to the extent that I used it, which is to point out that I am not a member of that vast, murky end of things or the arguments that it inspires.
RedState? Are we applying the Fairness Doctrine to the INTERNET?
Okay, you do think what I thought you did.
Wow. Okay, we have nothing to say to each other about this. Wow. Please never claim to oppose relativism in any context ever, okay?
von–of course you’re not the final arbiter, and that sort of thing is why most gov’t intervention probably hurts more than it helps (though not all–I’m all for public TV, and the courts do make themselves arbiters of truth in libel cases), but isn’t your own judgment a more trustworthy arbiter than the Nielsen ratings or a poll?
Are we applying the Fairness Doctrine to the INTERNET?
Uh, no. “We’re” making about about a different topic.
Making a point that is.
Also, I’m the one in favour of giving public figures an easier time in court.
I’ve never said anything about the Fairness Doctrine.
In this universe, does anyone have a good idea about how to deal with manifest lies like this?
Two points:
1) Historically, this type of lying media has always been present since before the Constitution was written, and probably more so in the past. The founders provided for freedom of the press and freedom of speech knowing that the press could be this awful. Standards are probably lower now than in the recent past, but by no means as low as they have been.
2) The Fairness Doctrine’s only justification is alleged lack of access to public airwaves such that the licensing process for granting access must provide for some degree of balance. (i.e., what von said) It is the affirmative action doctrine for media access, and maybe made some sense when network television was very dominant. It should remain happily dead since the alleged lack of access for other points of view is no longer what it once was.
The best response to bad speech is more speech.
“As I’ve said in the earlier posts on the Fairness Doctrine, I’m ambivalent about it.”
Well to put on my mind reading hat… I suppose it makes sense that you are ambivalent. Bush didn’t propose it and crushing freedom of speech for conservatives probably isn’t going to keep you up at night.
One could just as easily apply this Act to all the lies Joe Wilson told, but have been reported in the MSM as truth for the last few years. But you never really had a problem with those “mistakes” so its easy to be ambivalent.
I can’t believe I have been reading this site for so long and all the talk about the evils of the Patriot Act, BusHitler and such. But now when Democrats really are trying to take away one of our basic freedoms all Hilzoy can muster up is ambivalence.
Well, not surprised, just disappointed. I am comtemplating not posting here anymore. I really don’t see any reason. I thought this might become a reality based blog when the Democrats took Congress. But instead people like Hilzoy are just trying to help them gain more political capital at the expense of some of our basic freedoms.
I think I’m done here. I really do.
Perhaps “yawn-worthy” was overstating things, but the title of the post and the last sentence in it are both questions — questions that make no reference to the Fairness Doctrine. Von’s and Sebastian’s answers aren’t yawns, but seem pretty much equivalent to “There’s no problem, or at least no need to do anything — the marketplace of ideas will take care of it.”
I am largely going to agree with dmbeaster, especially his first point.
However, part of the “more speech” answer is for persons who generally share the point of view with the person making the bad speech, but objecting to this specific bad speech, to denounce the bad speech. And that is not what I am seeing happen, either here or in the larger world.
With respect, both von and Sebastian’s responses are effectively the same as a yawn. They are not even offering a perfunctory “Bad Fox” — von is even suggesting that a denunciation of Gibson as a professional liar could lead to a legal action against the denouncer.
Katherine:
“Because not everyone will agree on what is a “lie” and what is not.”
But some of them will be right. And some of them won’t. The number of people who hold a belief doesn’t make it true or false.
I understood von’s point in part to be that the principal of equal access to address “lies” means that even the manifest liars will get equal time to respond to truth. Express opinions that global warming is underway, and Exxon/Mobil hacks get to provide a rebuttal? Talk about evolution, and creationists or IDers get equal time?
A Fairness Doctrine has every possiblity of ending up being enforced in this manner.
I believe he was talking about what might happen under “loosened” laws, not in the world we currently live in.
KCinDC,
“I believe he was talking about what might happen under “loosened” laws, not in the world we currently live in.”
Umm, no. In response to a truth would be a defense, von said:
“Ah. So you’ve seen Gibson’s contract, and you know that it provides that, pursuant to it, Gibson is paid for lying?”
I’m a perfectly mainstream Democrat – yes I am – and I happen to be 100% in agreement with von on the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, there are two things that leave me bewildered:
1) After the episode with Kenneth Tomlinson and PBS, how can liberals not understand how dangerous it is to let government bureaucrats be the arbiters of “fairness” on the airwaves?
2) Given how swiftly the Obama smear was debunked far and wide, why doesn’t this example demonstrate that the Fairness Doctrine is utterly unnecessary?
I understand that we all long for a world where any untrue smear instantly results in the speaker vanishing in a sulfurous puff of smoke, never to be heard from again. The Fairness Doctrine is not the silver bullet you’re looking for. As Seb says, requiring the announcers on Fox News to make some perfunctory acknowledgment that Obama disagrees with the story is not going to accomplish anything. And what’s more, if you assume Democrats are more often on the side of truth, this means that the Democrats cannot use the media to get out their truthful message without simultaneously watering it down with Republican lies. Is this really the world we want?
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention bril’s trademark hand-wringing about how ObWi is not sufficiently outraged at this threat to our freedoms. I decided to Google “democrats fairness doctrine” to get a sense of just how major a part of the Democratic agenda this might be. Sure enough, on the first page of hits I see WorldNetDaily, LaShawn Barber, Captain’s Quarters, CNS News, the “Radio Equalizer”… leading me to believe this is more a case of overreaction from the right than a strong legislative push from the left.
If it ever looks like there’s a serious chance of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstituted, I will happily call my legislators, write diaries against it on Daily Kos, and do whatever I reasonably can to make the case. But I don’t think we’re there yet.
“Wow. Okay, we have nothing to say to each other about this. Wow. Please never claim to oppose relativism in any context ever, okay?”
Huh? Self-righteous retreat, umm ok its becoming a pattern. Are we talking about free speech or not? Why do you feel the need to drag in everything at once?
My claim very limited. For purposes of free speech protections, Nazis and good faith speakers are identical. For purposes of free speech, the New Yorker, and the Lyndon LaRouche
The purpose of the New Yorker has self conciously been to influence policy elites from a particular point of view (or that is the purpose of its political side). Its otherwise purpose was to celebrate a certain type of humor, and taste which it believes represents a certain New York refinement. It is hugely elitist in concept which is precisely why I said that it comes from a model where influencing a Kennedy is much more important than appealing to much of the rest of America. It self-conciously tailors to that crowd.
Do you disagree with that somehow? Do you read the magazine and somehow miss that?
Seriously?
Steve,
“Given how swiftly the Obama smear was debunked far and wide”
Assumes facts not in evidence.
“There’s no problem, or at least no need to do anything — the marketplace of ideas will take care of it.”
No. This is a classic liberal/conservative failure to communicate with each other.
Von’s position and mine is not that there is no problem here. It is that there is no problem THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE TRUSTED TO CORRECT here. This is especially true with free speech because free speech is how we communicate to and about the government in order to change the government. Trying to get that very same government to police that is going to squelch the feedback process which free speech is supposed to provide.
Just because there is a problem doesn’t mean there is a government solution.
And I would like to second the idea that how quickly the truth came out (one day) suggests that the truth really can get out.
I would also like to note that liberals were not suggesting such things when Republicans controlled the Congress and Administration. In the “would you give this power to people who don’t like you” category, I suspect this should set off alarm bells.
“Assumes facts not in evidence.”
It was widely reported on CNN without Obama even actively trying. If he wanted to make a formal statement he could have gotten it on ABC, NBC and CBS with no big problem.
how can liberals not understand how dangerous it is to let government bureaucrats be the arbiters of “fairness” on the airwaves?
this liberal understands.
Sebastian,
“If he [Obama] wanted to make a formal statement he could have gotten it on ABC, NBC and CBS with no big problem.”
As the post noted, he has. I have not seen it on the nightly news, nor on MSNBC’s website.
More importantly, as noted in the original post, Gibson and Fox are standing behind this smear disguised as a story. And paying no price for it.
From the “for what it is worth” department.
“I would also like to note that liberals were not suggesting such things when Republicans controlled the Congress and Administration. In the “would you give this power to people who don’t like you” category, I suspect this should set off alarm bells.”
It wouldn’t have mattered if they did, so why bother. Also, some liberals (not necessarily in public office) where talking about it.
“the marketplace of ideas will take care of it.”
Here the problem is that “idea” is being conflated with “facts”. Gibson was not presenting an “idea”, he was presenting something as a “Fact” knowing it wasn’t.
And that is a real problem, no matter which side is doing the presenting.
“And I would like to second the idea that how quickly the truth came out (one day) suggests that the truth really can get out.”
Kind of. Although, since (I presume) most Fox viewers don’t watch CNN and vice versa, the original target audience is not really being exposed to the truth.
See, none of this has anything to do with the FD. This has to do with a societal problem as well as an industry problem. I agree the FD is not the answer.
And that is what hilzoy is asking. What is an answer to this form of deceit presented as fact?
I really don’t know, except, as was suggested above, to start teaching our children (and responsive adults) how to really develop analytical thinking and to search for “truth.”
What price would you have them pay, Dantheman? Who decides that they should pay, and who decides how much?
It is that there is no problem THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE TRUSTED TO CORRECT here.
Which is why you need me. Or something like me.
Sebastian, the government is already involved. By saying that the correct response is to do nothing, you’re not saying that the government should stay out. You’re saying that the current environment of laws and regulations regarding corporations and communications is the best of all possible worlds.
ThirdGorchBro,
“What price would you have them pay, Dantheman? Who decides that they should pay, and who decides how much?”
I’d like the price to be in their market, by losing credibility and viewers. As noted, I am not seeing it happen, and seeing the opposite occur. They are getting away with this, as no one on the right side of the aisle is denouncing them.
More importantly, as noted in the original post, Gibson and Fox are standing behind this smear disguised as a story. And paying no price for it.
They wouldn’t be able to stand by their story if there were a Fairness Doctrine? What would happen, the Fairness Czar would force them to recant or lose their broadcasting license? Surely not.
Having CNN broadcast far and wide that Fox is a bunch of liars is far more effective than anything a government bureaucrat could accomplish – and then you have Keith Olbermann and everyone else in the left-wing infrastructure gleefully piling on. Fox News is already a propaganda-spewing joke to many; every time something like this happens, more people realize just what they are. That’s a meaningful outcome.
I understand that we all long for a clearer sort of justice. Lost credibility isn’t something we can measure, so we’d like to see tangible punishment meted out to liars for our own satisfaction. But the Fairness Doctrine won’t get us there. Heck, in my view, the whole reason humans came up with the notion of Heaven and Hell is because there’s so little in the way of earthly justice for those who do wrong, we desperately want to believe that bad people will get theirs in the end.
I don’t have a better answer than free speech. The Fairness Doctrine probably made sense in a world where almost everyone got their news from the same three major networks. Today, we can do far better.
You’re saying that the current environment of laws and regulations regarding corporations and communications is the best of all possible worlds.
I suspect Seb would be in favor of even less content-based restrictions than the current regime, actually. I doubt he’s the sort who thinks we all need to be saved from Janet Jackson’s nipple.
Where you have only a limited number of frequencies on the radio dial, some sort of government intervention is unavoidable if you don’t want chaos to result. But just because government regulation has its foot in the door doesn’t mean that everything is up for grabs now.
As long as we do something about media consolidation – the far more important issue here, IMO – there’s going to be more than enough voices out there that we won’t need a bureaucrat to decree what is “fair.”
Seb — Trying to get that very same government to police that is going to squelch the feedback process which free speech is supposed to provide.
Okay…but given a feedback model like this it is also clear that, with parties using a single large input into the system (in this instance Fox News) repeating a false signal often enough to circumvent any self-correction, government is not the only problem?
The ‘market of ideas’ is not equivalent to ‘the market’, and plenty of people are willing to sabotage the former in order to gain more of a share within the latter.
This is why media consolidation has been such a bad thing. It increases the ability of a few strong false signals to overpower a million smaller, more accurate signals.
Steve, that’s the point: doing something about media consolidation would involve government action, so Sebastian presumably would be opposed.
The subject is “Anyone got an answer?”, not “In praise of the Fairness Doctrine”.
I’d like the price to be in their market, by losing credibility and viewers. As noted, I am not seeing it happen, and seeing the opposite occur. They are getting away with this, as no one on the right side of the aisle is denouncing them.
For the record, I denounce Gibson as a d—-d liar. But if the average Fox viewer or right-wing blogger does not, then what? Should the government intervene and force Fox to retract the story?
“Sebastian, the government is already involved.”
Not in poltical content control it isn’t. And as far as I’m concerned we could do with a lot less content control in general. The idea that you can’t say certain magic words on the radio is just stupid. Noticing that we can’t have radio stations broadcasting on top of each other isn’t at all the same as regulating what they are permitted to say once you have granted the license. If you want to talk about distributing the license differently feel free, but as far as I’m concerned regulating it on political content should be strictly 100% off limits.
Bush is still President. Do you want an executive branch like his to have this power?
“Should the government intervene and force Fox to retract the story?”
Not really. I’d like to change libel laws to create some mechanism to force public corrections, but no damages, with a lower standard of proof the that of libel with respect to public figures. I don’t see it happening, but I think it may be a potential place to start looking for an answer to this type of smear.
“Okay…but given a feedback model like this it is also clear that, with parties using a single large input into the system (in this instance Fox News) repeating a false signal often enough to circumvent any self-correction, government is not the only problem?”
The bolded section is just false. CNN isn’t a major outlet. We are talking about the first day of the self-correction now. We don’t even know what day 2 will bring. Hell, I’m talking about the correction and I wouldn’t have even heard the original report if I weren’t talking about the correction!
Ah. So you’ve seen Gibson’s contract, and you know that it provides that, pursuant to it, Gibson is paid for lying?
Gibson lied. Gibson continues to lie. Gibson was employed by FNC when he lied in the course of performing his duties and continues to be employed by FNC.
Res ipsa loquitur. Let the good times roll.
And obviously, like Dan Rather, Gibson is too incompetent to keep his job.
“Not really. I’d like to change libel laws to create some mechanism to force public corrections, but no damages, with a lower standard of proof the that of libel with respect to public figures”
That’s an intriguing idea. Less chilling effect potential than damages; on the other hand, it’s more direct gov’t control: a court would be ordering a newspaper to print or a broadcaster to say something specific. So it might actually be seen as worse under First Amendment law–like a prior restraint, except that you would be compelling speech rather than forbidding it. Public recantations for criticizing public figures.
In fact, I trust the courts to adjudicate these suits fairly–I don’t think they’d make people do self-critcisms for standard issue political commentary. But that’s because I trust the independence of the judiciary, and that would presumably be equally true of other libel lawsuits.
So on further reflection I don’t think this would work. Von et. al: what say you?
Gibson’s behaviour after the CNN debunking really speaks to intent in my mind, which is why I think a lawsuit might have more than a snowball’s chance.
If he had only kept his mouth shut….but his arrogance has gone unchallenged for far too long.
Sebastian’s 2:49 PM brings up a good point. This story (and the refutation on CNN) are pretty recent. How do you know Gibson won’t be forced to resign, or at least retract, by his employers?
How do we know Bush won’t start pulling out of Iraq tomorrow?
Sebastian — the bolded section is not “just false.” It is a question of how much accurate new input into the system needs to be supplied in order to counteract the false input which has already been and is still being supplied. If a sufficient population receives only one set of signals and discounts all other inputs, then the system may be out of balance despite corrections being made.
You may believe that the corrections are sufficient, but that is a matter of tolerances and assumptions, not of truth. The system is dynamic, and we do not know what effect this will have yet.
in my view, the whole reason humans came up with the notion of Heaven and Hell is because there’s so little in the way of earthly justice for those who do wrong, we desperately want to believe that bad people will get theirs in the end.
i love it.
DanTheMan:
Umm, no. In response to a truth would be a defense, von said:
“Ah. So you’ve seen Gibson’s contract, and you know that it provides that, pursuant to it, Gibson is paid for lying?”
I frankly don’t know if Gibson has a cause of action for libel against this blog under NYT v. Sullivan, given that he is a public figure. I do know, being personally on the line if he does and chooses to pursue it, that I’ve made the call that free speech would be worth such a defense. I also note that we have multiple defenses against such a claim under current law, including that he cannot establish actual malice; the statement was hyperboyle; the statement was clearly one of opinion, not fact; etc. (In other words, the fact that I note that Gibson at least has an argument that the statement may be literally false is not the same thing as conceding that he’s established a libel claim.)
Obvious, as a publisher, I would like to avoid having those defenses taken away so that I’m not in put into a position where I have to delete such comments. I find it terribly regrettable that folks on this blog are so unwise as to disagree, given that it’s their freedom that is directly at stake.
von,
Noting that to you Gibson’s possible defenses to a libel action remain a more important topic than acting in the marketplace of ideas against his smears. Moving on.
Calling Gibson a professional liar is obvious hyperbole, no reasonable listener would take it to mean lying is called for in his contract. Non-actionable. Next case.
This is why media consolidation has been such a bad thing. It increases the ability of a few strong false signals to overpower a million smaller, more accurate signals.
This is extremely true, and the proper area for government intervention. It also has a far greater likelihood of accomplishing something, unlike a rekindled fairness doctrine.
Your concern for Gibson is admirable, von. I’m sure he appreciates the pro bono work.
Of course, I share your desire that Gibson not misconstrue our words here so let me be clear: We have no way of knowing if his employers paid Gibson to lie, but since he did lie demonstrably, did repeat his lie after being corrected, and is (almost certainly) paid for his time on air, then John Gibson is a liar whose has been paid, i.e., a paid liar.
Can I just that, while I’m happy to have it, I just don’t understand how the 14th A. incorporates only some of the Bill of Rights.
“You may believe that the corrections are sufficient, but that is a matter of tolerances and assumptions, not of truth.”
But the whole system of free speech is all about tolerances. Surely no one expects every uttered word to be truth at all times.
“It is a question of how much accurate new input into the system needs to be supplied in order to counteract the false input which has already been and is still being supplied.”
But if you inject the government into this system you have a host of other issues. Now you have the government deciding what is false. You have the government deciding the ‘impact’ of the false statement. You have government deciding the ‘impact’ necessary to ‘counteract’ the ‘false’ statement. As a general rule, I strongly suspect that the government is not well equipped to do that. Add in the fact that many of the decisions will be made about speech made about government officials or government acts, I definitely don’t trust the government to make that decision in an evenhanded way.
“Your concern for Gibson is admirable, von. I’m sure he appreciates the pro bono work.”
Wasn’t there a recent outrage about imputing bad intention on those who defend people accused of being members of Al Qaeda?
Wasn’t there a recent outrage about imputing bad intention on those who defend people accused of being members of Al Qaeda?
what an insinuation! do you have any evidence that Gibson is a member of Al Qaeda?
Yes I do! 🙂
Cleek is OTM. While Gibson is obviously a paid liar, suggesting that he’s a member of Al-Qaeda is just hysterical. I don’t know what you’re talking about, Sebastian.
“Can I just that, while I’m happy to have it, I just don’t understand how the 14th A. incorporates only some of the Bill of Rights.”
Reader’s Digest version: Shortly after the 14th amendment was passed, the Supreme court ruled that it didn’t incorporate any part of the Bill of Rights, because the Supreme court wanted to render the amendment moot. By the time the Supreme court was of a mood to undo this outrage, some amendments in the Bill of Rights had become unpopular with the ruling elites, so they only incorporated the parts they liked.
Are we still playing the Bizarro World game?
Turnaround in Baghdad?
In today’s New York Sun, there is a rather remarkable article by Nibras Kazimi with the seemingly-innocuous title of “Turnaround in Baghdad.” Mr. Kazimi appears to be well-connected on the ground in Iraq, and if his column is correct the situation there has been improving considerably while no one was paying close attention.
Relevant detail:
Nibras Kazimi is a visiting scholar at the Hudson Institute. He also writes a weekly column on the Middle East for the New York Sun. Previously, he directed the Research Bureau of the Iraqi National Congress in Washington DC and Baghdad, and was a pro-bono advisor for the Higher National Commission for De-Ba’athification, which he helped establish and staff.
Here’s a video report on the “turnaround” in Baghdad. Don’t watch it with your kids.
In response to these:
There are days in which I wonder whether the folks on the other side are arguing in good faith. Nowhere have I defended Gibson’s behavior; indeed, I think he’s a right ass. My point is that Hilzoy’s prescription to address it will cause more problems that it solves.
Now, as to flap re: whether saying “Gibson is a paid liar” constitutes libel, I noted that I thought we at ObWi would have a strong defense to any such claim. But, given the context of my comments — i.e., that folks are arguing in favor of reducing the protections available to defendants in libel suits — it’s worth noting that your wonderful intentions could create a personally negative result for you and me.
von,
“There are days in which I wonder whether the folks on the other side are arguing in good faith.”
That’s OK, I’ve already come to my own conclusion with respect to you.
On the other hand, for someone whose initial contribution to this thread is to childishly deride liberals for having no faith in the marketplace of ideas, it seems to have escaped you that a very significant part of that marketplace is each person doing his part to combat the propagation of untruths, especially by those on the same side of the aisle. And seeing the general silence of the right side of the blogosphere to repeated manifest untruths by Fox makes me conclude that they are more interested in smokescreens than an open marketplace.
On the other hand, for someone whose initial contribution to this thread is to childishly deride liberals for having no faith in the marketplace of ideas, it seems to have escaped you that a very significant part of that marketplace is each person doing his part to combat the propagation of untruths, especially by those on the same side of the aisle.
Hilzoy is suggesting that Gibson’s remark is a reason to consider reenacting the fairness doctrine: the harm caused if that policy shift is allowed to happen far outweighs any harm that Gibson could possibly do. Gibson is, after all, not the government and does not enjoy its monopoly on licensing, regulating, fining, and jailing.
I, like XBrill above, find this entire conversation wholly discouraging.
I’m with von. Well, I’m not sure who’s arguing what, but as someone who mostly agrees with Chomsky’s criticism of the mainstream press I don’t think the fairness doctrine is the answer. Aside from principled objections (covered adequately by several people above), I think such a thing would only contribute to the marginalization of viewpoints outside the political mainstream, since “fairness” would most likely mean that people in the mainstream officially deserve airtime and people outside do not. Which is sort of how it works now anyway, but without a governmental imprimantur. (sp?)
Anyway, I don’t think major figures like Senator Obama should need governmental protection from Fox News. He’s doing just fine so far. It’s true we’ve just been through a period where the rightwingers and the so-called liberal press could print all sorts of rubbish about prominent Democrats (Somersby convinced me that I had been misled about Al Gore, for instance)but that period may be gradually ending, as Democrats are starting to fight back.
Now on the other hand, Carter has just stirred up a fuss claiming, among other things, that the mainstream press has been biased against the Palestinians (or so I’ve heard, since I haven’t read the book). I happen to agree with that, and with a lot of other things one could say about how the press covers US foreign policy. But it never occurred to me that a fairness doctrine would be the answer. For one thing, how would a government agency decide when an alternative point of view has been left out and needs to be presented? I want Chomsky on the air–someone else wants Patrick Buchanan (who, of course, already gets airtime). And since I brought up the Palestinians, maybe someone wants a Hamas spokesperson. How is the government supposed to decide what’s a legitimate point of view that deserves air time?
von,
We’re done here. You seem to have no intention of actually responding to what I have said, so if you want to make more statements about people’s lack of good faith, find someone else.
Von: Your lengthy unwillingness to say anything so concise as “You’re right, Gibson said things he should have known weren’t true and repeated them after he did know they weren’t true, and Fox should never have aired his statements, and should have retracted and apologized by now if they missed them first time around” while going through a lot of verbiage about other matters works a lot like an endorsement. You know this, or should. You can spot the same tactic when people you’re arguing with dance around admissions of error; it’s not a brand new innovation.
Not to mention that an assessment of how much Gibson could soak ObWi or constitutents for would depend, wouldn’t it, on the facts of the matter? If he is a paid liar, or in a situation that can sensibly construed as that, it would (I’d think) have some bearing on the matter. So dealing with the initial claim is sensible even if your primary concern is protecting ObWi et al under a hypothetical new law.
I, like XBrill above, find this entire conversation wholly discouraging.
If you focus on just the folks disagreeing with you, yes. And if you focus on just the specific tactic, without considering the strategy behind it, yes.
However, as with terrorism, one may agree with the overall end, but not agree with the methods used.
The Fairness Doctrine is a tactic rooted in its environment; a ham-handed tactic suited for constrained situations. It is totally unsuited for the current environment. Many on the Left are agreeing with you on this.
The initial question are to look for answers–far too much time is being focussed on an answer that doesn’t fit the here and now.
Von, hilzoy never said that she would support reenacting the fairness doctrine. What she said was Gibson’s flagrant disregard for the truth displays a problem in the current media (and I don’t care which side of the fence you are on)for which a solution needs to be found.
She states this type of behavior is what could cause one to consider the FD, but above all is asking for other answers.
I grant that you have been overly criticized for something you didn’t say, but looking through the thread I see very little support for the FD itself.
Just for fun I note a tactic which has been recently roundly condemned when employed against hilzoy.
“And seeing the general silence of the right side of the blogosphere to repeated manifest untruths by Fox makes me conclude that they are more interested in smokescreens than an open marketplace.”
I believe bril has tried this repeatedly on various topics to allegedly indicate hilzoy’s unconcern with various topics. Needless to say it shows no such thing.
But to be clear (and I’m certain I’ve already said this) Gibson’s lies are ridiculous and awful and bad. A good journalist would never make reports like that. But restricting political free speech to shut him up is a horrific idea because free speech (regulated for correct political content) is a way to destroy the core value of free speech. And I would remind you, that this is NOT an unanticipated fact of free speech. When the 1st amendment was passed, political attacks were more prevalent and more vicious than now.
There are days in which I wonder whether the folks on the other side are arguing in good faith.
This is an odd reward indeed, von, for my repeated and lengthy posts of agreement with you throughout this thread.
You misread something, right? You surely didn’t mean to accuse someone who posted “I happen to be 100% in agreement with von on the Fairness Doctrine” of bad faith?
Sebastian,
hilzoy, delightful as she is, is not an entire side of the blogosphere.
Please also note that, as noted above, hilzoy asked for other possible solutions. My only proposed solution had nothing to do with the fairness doctrine.
Seb, I could agree with you more easily if youstopped equating Gibson’s statements with political free speech. He is supposed to be reporting news not commentary.
Unless he is willing to state publicly on his show that anything he says must be understood as being politically driven, then it is not political free speech.
At the same time, it is understandable that a journalist may report something that is not factual but presents it as such. The real problem is when the falsehood of that reporting is made clear and it is repeated.
The discussion here is how to deal with instances like that.
Rather did, after all, admit that there was not enough checking of the allegedly forged memo.
von: please note what hilzoy actually said:
I’m ambivalent about [the FD]. … In this universe, does anyone have a good idea about how to deal with manifest lies like this?
you wrote: Hilzoy is suggesting that Gibson’s remark is a reason to consider reenacting the fairness doctrine
ahem. That is what I would call a mischaracterization of Hilzoy’s post — you have substantially strengthened her desire to enact what you believe is a poor and possibly unconstitutional government program.
Let’s not overreach on what our opponents are actually proposing. Actual proposals are usually bad enough.
now, as I argued above, most of this thread is about 2 distinct issues — Obama’s ability to rebut, and effective means of punishing Fox.
Most commenters are conceding the point that Obama has effective avenues for rebuttal and therefore the FD doctrine isn’t really the issue.
The real issue is how to stop the Republican party’s broadcasting arm from lying with impunity.
and for that, there is no easy answer.
Can anyone provide an example of speech being curtailed due to the FD?
By “example” I mean an actual person, who actually would have spoken on some topic of public interest, but did not, because of the FD.
If that’s not available, I’ll settle for an example of an actual editorial policy that prohibited discussion of particular topics, or presentation of particular points of view, because of the FD.
Again, in the latter case, I’m not interested in policies that were motivated by good taste, fear of losing sponsors, or the like. I’m looking for an example of editorial policy motivated by the FD, specifically.
Thanks –
“Seb, I could agree with you more easily if you stopped equating Gibson’s statements with political free speech. He is supposed to be reporting news not commentary.”
If reporting about politics weren’t a subset of political free speech, this complaint might actually make some sense.
Well, 144 comments in already, and the answer to hilzoy’s title question is still, apparently, a resounding “No”!
PS: von, while agreeing with you pretty much about the utility of reviving the old Fairness Doctrine (i.e., none) – I think relying on “the marketplace of ideas” to regulate the type of abuses of the truth exhibited by Fox News (and the Obama/madrassa flap isn’t a unique event). Like any other market, the “marketplace of ideas” is prone to abuses: monopolization, price-fixing, discriminatory practices, etc. – it is as common for the “market” of information (or “news”) as any other commodity.
While over-regulation by government is certainly a poor alternative (especially since, as you point out, we have a First Amendment to respect) – you seem as bereft as any of us about how to deal with the case of a major news outlet repeating unsourced, unconfirmed (and untruthful) allegations about a public figure – and ignoring, AFAICT, any contadictory evidence. In favor, apparently of negative political commentary.
Is it then your contention that outright lies (whether about a political personage or not) ought to just be let go unchallenged? Or do you think that Sen. Obama should have some right to publicly correct a broadcast falsehood about himself? Or not?
“hilzoy, delightful as she is, is not an entire side of the blogosphere.”
And both von and I have expressed that Gibson’s action was bad. Since I was unaware of the initial statement until I read about the rebuttal, I couldn’t have commented earlier. And now that I’m aware and commenting, I don’t see a point in having a separate post on the topic just so I can condemn him under my byline. Nevertheless I’m still on the right.
“I could agree with you more easily if youstopped equating Gibson’s statements with political free speech. He is supposed to be reporting news not commentary.
Unless he is willing to state publicly on his show that anything he says must be understood as being politically driven, then it is not political free speech.”
I don’t understand your distinction. News and political comment are in the eye of the beholder so far as the 1st Amendment is concerned (katherine please note the last clause before hitting me on moral relativism grounds). Having the government decide what is ‘news’ and what is ‘opinion’ is part of the whole problem that I don’t think government should be involved in. Free speech about politicians is right at the core of the freedom of speech and of the press.
I fully believe that there is a difference between news and opinion. I don’t believe that government should try to police the distinction because criticism of the government is part of the core protection and it can’t be easily trusted to be fair in policing it.
“Rather did, after all, admit that there was not enough checking of the allegedly forged memo.”
After what, 45 days and a firestorm of criticism? We are still on day one.
We’re done here. You seem to have no intention of actually responding to what I have said, so if you want to make more statements about people’s lack of good faith, find someone else.
I don’t even know what this means, DtM. So far as I can tell, you want me to focus on denouncing Gibson — something that has already been done repeatedly and well — while ignoring the far more dangerous threat to civil liberties posed by using his stupidity as an excuse to reenact the fairness doctrine. Please excuse me for not taking you up on the offer.
Bruce, I don’t see any reason to concede that anyone is “right” about Gibson, given that I’ve never taken any position in support of Gibson. My argument has consistently been that it’s foolish to use Gibson as an excuse to enact a very bad policy.
gwangung, I appreciate your points.
Steve, my inclusion of you in my general throw-up-my-hands was an error. I’ll try to do better by my allies on this issue.
Francis, I don’t see the contradiction that you see. I don’t argue that Hilzoy is endorsing the fairness doctrine; that would be a false statement of her position. But she has certainly raised the FD as a possible response to it. Thankful though I am that she remains “ambivalent” towards it, pardon me for not feeling comforted by he lack of specific denunciation. (Ask yourself whether you would be satisfied if someone had written that they were “ambivalent” about waterboarding.)
“you seem as bereft as any of us about how to deal with the case of a major news outlet repeating unsourced, unconfirmed (and untruthful) allegations about a public figure – and ignoring, AFAICT, any contadictory evidence. In favor, apparently of negative political commentary.
Is it then your contention that outright lies (whether about a political personage or not) ought to just be let go unchallenged? Or do you think that Sen. Obama should have some right to publicly correct a broadcast falsehood about himself? ”
No government policing whatsoever is not the same as “let go unchallenged”. As Francis has repeatedly noted, Obama hasn’t had much trouble getting the word out challenging this.
Seb, nowhere did I say the government should be involved in policing the distinction between opinion and news. I merely pointed out that there is a distinction.
One other point about the difference between the Rather incident and this one. CBS went directly to the WH prior to broadcasting the story with the memo and other things they were going to present. The WH made no objection.
Gibson did not, AFAICT, approach Obama prior to this report.
So far as I can tell, you want me to focus on denouncing Gibson — something that has already been done repeatedly and well — while ignoring the far more dangerous threat to civil liberties posed by using his stupidity as an excuse to reenact the fairness doctrine.
. . . I don’t argue that Hilzoy is endorsing the fairness doctrine; that would be a false statement of her position. But she has certainly raised the FD as a possible response to it. Thankful though I am that she remains “ambivalent” towards it, pardon me for not feeling comforted by he lack of specific denunciation.
Uhhhhhhhh . . . yeah. OK.
Steve, my inclusion of you in my general throw-up-my-hands was an error. I’ll try to do better by my allies on this issue.
Fair enough, and thanks. To be clear, my post about Gibson’s hypothetical defamation claim was intended to accomplish nothing more than to put an end to what I saw as a completely irrelevant side-discussion.
I see now that I was a bit over-glib in that I failed to realize the whole thing was brought on by a rather vague, off-the-cuff suggestion in the second comment on this thread that maybe we ought to make it somewhat easier to sue for defamation. Somehow, an equally off-the-cuff response to that suggestion prompted an extended tangent, with various observers suggesting that the participants in that side-discussion were revealing something dark in their souls through their choice of priorities.
In reality, we deal in non-issues all the time here in blogcommentland; Seb and I might lapse into a lengthy colloquy on whether a semicolon belongs inside or outside the closing question marks, for example. While that would assuredly be a waste of our time, does anyone seriously think it would illustrate that we care more about punctuation than, say, the genocide in Darfur, or whatever else we could be spending our time discussing?
Having gone all meta-meta-meta in this comment, I must withdraw, with a bit of a wry smile, in order to get some actual work done. 🙂
“Sebastian, the government is already involved.”
Not in poltical content control it isn’t.
How charming. I’ll keep it in mind the next time Puny Human #1 and Puny Human #2 decline, in advance, to participate in any televised presidential debates to which a third party is invited.
Phil, I’m not sure where you’re going by taking two of my comments out of context and juxtaposing them in the manner that you do. (If you’re confused why I say you’ve taken them out of context, you need to go upthread and figure out who has been arguing what and where.)
Doesn’t it bother anyone on ‘The Right’ and Their Representatives Here (since we are going with capital letters that this smear was not only calculated to get at Obama, but was also crafted with an eye to smear HRC? Or is this the brave new world of McCain’s black baby?
It was actually all one comment with some ellipses, von.
I just find it tres amusant that you are not to be held to account for not condemning Gibson strongly enough, but hilzoy is to be held to account for not condemning the FD strongly enough. Convenient, that.
And the rhetorical trick of conflating the Fairness Doctrine with muthfargin’ waterboarding? Brilliant. Absolutely Hinderaker-worthy.
So much for things getting less testy once the elections are over. to sum up my positions:
Fairness Doctrine: bad.
John Gibson: bad.
hilzoy: good.
waterboarding: very bad.
White Zinfindel: bad.
Alternative To FD To Smackdown Foxnews et. al.: unknown.
Yankees: bad.
Tiger Woods: good.
You’ve neglected to mention your position on kittens, Ugh, and that speaks volumes….
Which Puny Human did the government force to decline to participate in any televised presidential deabte to which a third party is invited?
You’ve neglected to mention your position on kittens, Ugh, and that speaks volumes….
kittens: good, unless they’re in my house.
The problems with the fairness doctrine are many, not the least of which is what the current administration would do with it. A general shaming and shunning of Gibson would be nice but since, AFAICT, the current administration and their allies only desire Isildur’s Bane they will continue to shower Gibson and Foxnews with their presence and praise, and, indeed, are more likely to do so after this latest ridiculousness as they think it will keep them in power.
Sebastian, are you seriously arguing that if representatives of the two major political parties in this country — for whom Presidential debates usually consist of an incumbent and his challenger — conspire to keep other parties out of the televised debate process, that does not amount to political content control? Really? I mean, to get there, you have to argue that people who serve in the government are not the government, but . . . well, OK. Go right ahead.
@von:
*Indeed, if the Republican party is the bastard child of evangelicals and finance types, the Democratic party could be viewed as the bastard child of liberals and leftists.
This seems to me to be an interesting statement. You’re plainly not using the popular sense of “liberal” here, and to some degree you seem to be harkening back to the classical 19th century definition of the term. So, in that light, I am inclined to ask: just what do you mean when you say liberal? Because if you do mean to use it as it was construed back then, how exactly do you justify saying that the Democratic party consists of liberals and leftists, whereas the Republicans are fundamentalists and… “finance types”? Both parties are generally Classical Liberal parties. Period. Their differences lie in what kinds of populism they incorporate to broaden their appeal; the ideology that each group of parenting liberals happened to find on the other side of the covers.
So… just what did you mean by liberal? Because if you meant the Old Definition (as some of your usage suggests), your presentation of “finance types” as a category of individual that is distinct from (and perhaps even exclusive of or opposed to) liberal sounds… well… silly. Admittedly, this is coming from someone whose perceptions of language are more than a little colored by Continental and anarchist usage, but still…
(Trust me to focus on the Really Important Things in a thread…)
“Sebastian, are you seriously arguing that if representatives of the two major political parties in this country — for whom Presidential debates usually consist of an incumbent and his challenger — conspire to keep other parties out of the televised debate process, that does not amount to political content control?”
I don’t understand this argument. Is there a general rule that an incumbent has to debate with all comers? Last I heard there isn’t even a requirement that he debate the other major party representative. It is typically a personal choice whether or not to debate and what the structure of the debate will be. It certainly isn’t a governmental choice.
For someone so skeptical of government power structures, Sebastian, you’re certainly willing to be naive when it suits you.
Try to envision a time when, say, a Republican incumbent will say, “Well, I’m not going to debate my Democratic challenger, but I will debate the Libertarian and Green candidates.” Then try not to laugh yourself to death.
“Not a governmental choice.” Ha.
Actually, Phil, unless I am grossly mistaken, the “Presidential debates” commonly aired before the elections aren’t any sort of governmental affair at all: typically being sponsored (IIRC) by disinterested “third parties” (The League of Women Voters used to do the organizing, but I am not sure they still do). And participation by the major-party candidates is, AFAIK, completely voluntary: a candidate doesn’t have to debate his/her opponent: it is just that the two-party system we have militates against either side begging off: if only if to avoid having the opposition use “they won’t debate” as a campaign issue.
Yeeearggh!
OK. Probably I was less clear than I should have been. My point in this post was not to say: hey, let’s reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. It was to say (partly because I had the FD in mind because of the previous posts): the FD was a response, a very flawed response, to a real problem, as this incident makes clear. How should we deal with it? (Imagine the last question not thrown out as a rhetorical challenge, but as a real question.)
john miller, I think, paraphrased my point accurately:
For this reason, I don’t at all agree that the FD is “Hilzoy’s prescription to address it.” (cite.) Though if von thinks that, it makes the idea that “this post and this thread is exactly why I see little common ground with the Left” a bit easier to understand.
(von: do you actually think I’m on the Left, as you understand that term — the Left as distinct from liberals? If so, why?)
On rereading what I wrote, I’m not sure what in it makes people think I was coming out in favor of the FD, as opposed to just being perplexed about how to deal with a problem, but probably that’s because I now what I meant to say, which always gets in the way of a neutral rereading.
No, I know all that, Jay — I’m saying there are other ways of exercising control besides an FCC rule or somesuch. The two major parties know darned well that the televised debates are the only opportunity that the entire country will have to see both major candidates discuss the issue together prior to the election, and they both ensure that nobody else gets to horn in on their racket. It’s a sub rosa form of content control, but it’s content control no less.
Debates these days, as it happens, are sponsored by the Commission for Presidential Debates, a “non-partisan” organization co-chaired by a former head of the RNC and a former head of the DNC. Their selection process is a delightful document of circularity which ensures that third parties will nearly (Perot excepted) never get invited simply because they are not among “those candidates who have achieved a level of electoral support such that they realistically are considered to be among the principal rivals for the Presidency.” Gee, I wonder why?
Thanks, Phil: the CPD link was quite informative – you’re right about their criteria for inclusion in the Presidential debates: 15% “national” support in polls, and “…at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2004 general election.”
Wonder who does the math…… ?
The problems with the fairness doctrine are many, not the least of which is what the current administration would do with it.
What would the current administration do with it? Finally, at long last, get their side of the story told? Or do you mean they might levy fines against outfits like Air America or Pacifica? Is the thinking here that the FD allows bureaucrats to dictate programming? If so, is there any historical evidence for this?
I’m not particularly invested in the Fairness Doctrine per se, but it really bugs me to see it painted as some sort of boot on the neck of broadcasters who make their money in part by subleasing their exclusive use of public property to advertisers while enjoying government protection from pirate signals and jamming by competitors. It also bothers me that so many on the left side of this discussion seem so ready to cede to the right the very same points that will be offered in opposition to rolling back media consolidation (new media is marginalizing broadcast, on the internet anyone can be Rupert Murdoch, the First Amendment precludes government meddling in the business practices of licensees even though it allows the issuance and enforcemnent of licenses in the first place, etc.).
The two major parties know darned well that the televised debates are the only opportunity that the entire country will have to see both major candidates discuss the issue together prior to the election, and they both ensure that nobody else gets to horn in on their racket.
No one disputes this, but what you’ve identified is, if anything, an antitrust sort of problem. It’s like saying that Wal-Mart and Target have monopolized your local market and no one else can open a business. What you’re actually complaining about is a LACK of government control – the sort of government which might, say, pass laws requiring that debates be open to all comers – but the underlying problem is the result of wholly private activity.
To put it more simply, not every racket in this country is a government racket.
What you’re actually complaining about is a LACK of government control – the sort of government which might, say, pass laws requiring that debates be open to all comers – but the underlying problem is the result of wholly private activity.
In what meaningful ways are the combination of the Democratic Party and the Repulican Party not “the government?” And in what meaningful way is a racket headed up by closely-connected former heads of those parties not “a government racket?”
How should we deal with it? We should say, “John Gibson is a liar.” That’s about all that can realistically be done. The idea that there is some overarching solution that solves the completely innate and foundational problem of human lying is absurd.
So, yes, count me in on the “marketplace of ideas” side. If human beings freely communicating is a fundamental problem that needs solving, than the entire concept of liberalism is dead. See Kant’s “man needs and wants a master, but no man is capable of justly being a master” argument if you don’t believe little old me.
Phil,
It’s a racket alright, but it at least has the virtue of not prohibiting anyone else by law from putting on a debate. I know I’d watch the Greens Vs. Libertarians more excitedly than what we’ve got on now.
Katherine:
Not criticising. Defaming. If the “criticism” is true, or justified, or opinion, then there’s no problem. And I really don’t see how this qualifies as prior restraint.
Well I’m not trying to endorse UK libel laws, but in the UK libel cases are decided by juries.
I really don’t see what’s wrong with having a robust libel law, so long as it’s the plaintiff that has to prove untrue defamation. Even in the UK, where the libel laws stupidly put the burden of proof is on the defendant, I haven’t noticed much of chilling effect (for politics – it certainly exists in other areas). Plenty of politicians have tried to sue and had it backfire horrendously – Neil Hamilton, Jonathan Aitken, even Jeffrey Archer in the end. Political discourse is not improved by being so stuffed with lies and slander that only the diligent observer can discern the truth. The US system incentivises the worst sort of Atwater/Rove style gutter politics, because once the allegation has been aired the damage is done.
Thank you, hilzoy. I certainly read your post the way you intended.
Sebastian,
“And both von and I have expressed that Gibson’s action was bad. Since I was unaware of the initial statement until I read about the rebuttal, I couldn’t have commented earlier. And now that I’m aware and commenting, I don’t see a point in having a separate post on the topic just so I can condemn him under my byline. Nevertheless I’m still on the right.”
By my count, it took you over a dozen and a half comments in this thread to say that Gibson’s actions were wrong.
On the other hand, we’ve had two recent threads on the Fairness Doctrine, and I saw few people there, and no one here, defending it. And yet, both you and von spent enormous time here attacking the straw notion that this post was arguing for it.
If we are to reduce the pressure for government intervention, then it behooves all of us to make the marketplace of ideas work better. And that certainly means policing our own, especially when they are as prominent as Fox.
In what meaningful ways are the combination of the Democratic Party and the Repulican Party not “the government?”
Because their agreement is not backed up by any sort of government power. The debates are sponsored by private entities, and absent government coercion, the candidates are free to decline to attend for any reason of their choosing or for no reason whatsoever. Indeed, the only way we could force the major-party candidates to participate in debates with all the third-party candidates, against their wishes, would be by means of government coercion.
Possibly of interest: Hill v. Church of Scientology, the Canadian court case that rejected the malice standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Can anyone provide an example of speech being curtailed due to the FD?
I’ll take that as a collective “No”.
Here are some of the realities in play.
Holding a state or federal office in the US is a potential gateway to enormous money, power, and influence. Having any form of influence on public policy at the state or federal level, ditto. There will always be an endless and inexhaustible supply of people willing to swear on a bible that their grandmother has sex with goats on Main St if they can get a piece of that, directly or indirectly.
Radio and television bandwidth is a finite resource. If you don’t believe me, get yourself a transmitter, start broadcasting, and see what happens.
The internet is not, remotely, a realistic counterbalance to broadcast media. The most heavily trafficked political site is Kos. They get 500K hits a day, which translates to, maybe, 50 – 100K unique pairs of human eyes. Nielsen ratings are based on 111.4 million television households. Arbitron claims over 15 million radio listeners in the NYC market alone. There is, simply, no meaningful comparison between the two in terms of ubiquity, audience size, and penetration. None.
Print is arguably a much stronger counterweight to broadcast media. There is that.
The Fairness Doctrine never, ever, ever prevented anyone, anywhere, from saying anything they damned well pleased on the air. The only thing it required was that, if someone found what was said objectionable or just plain wrong, whoever held the license for the channel over which the offending statement was made had to give the second party an opportunity to rebut.
That is all.
There is no first amendment issue here. Congress passed no law restricting anything whatsoever. The FCC Fairness policy imposed no restriction, at all, on what anyone could say, anywhere, anytime. The policy only required, as part of the privilege of receiving a license to broadcast over the public airwaves, that license holders prevent discussion on matters of public interest, and that folks be allowed to rebut controversial statements. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is not an extraordinary burden.
I don’t expect to ever, ever, ever see the FD return in my lifetime. Over the last 30 years, the US has acquired a pathological fear of state regulation of private commercial activity. I see this as a loss, because the regulatory state did a hell of a lot of good in its day. But, so be it.
But, whatever your issues with the FD, it never prevented anyone from saying anything they damned well pleased.
Thanks –
D’oh!! For crying out loud.
The policy only required, … that license holders prevent discussion on matters of public interest
Please make that present discussion etc.
If I was a Freudian I’d be in trouble.
Thanks –
Good comment, russell: and I don’t want to to nitpick too much, but:
“Arbitron claims over 15 million radio listeners in the NYC market alone.”
Is there a cite for this figure? It seems to me to be a tap on the optimistic end of the estimate: the population of NYC (5 boroughs) is 8MM – and just about the same number in the regional “metro area” (out to NJ and CT and upstate) – 15MM may be the total potential audience: but it’s doubtful whether 75-80% of the entire population is listening to the radio! (Mets-Yankees games may be an exception!)
I don’t know, but I’d assume that the “mathematical chance” might have something to do with how many states the candidate is actually on the ballot in. What in your opinion would be a fair system for determining who gets to be in a debate? Do we want debates featuring a dozen candidates? A hundred?
The voting system we have more-or-less ensures there can never be more than two parties, because any new party can win votes only at the expense of the existing party that most agrees with it, thus causing the party it likes least to win. That’s why the Greens tend to get support (but not votes) from Republicans, and why Democrats like the idea of Judge Roy Moore running as an independent. It’s mathematics, and it’s not the fault of the parties themselves. The solution isn’t to give third parties greater exposure, but to change the voting system.
von: The belief that one side (or another) has a monopoly on truth is the surest sign that you’ve jumped the shark.
However the belief that the other side is wrong, and wrong about damn near everything — never mind the outright lying — sometimes just means you’ve got your eyes open.
“What in your opinion would be a fair system for determining who gets to be in a debate?”
Ideally: an appointment for myself as dictator (sorry, “unitary executive”) of the CPD, so I could exact the maximum amount of payoff for debate slots. Allocated, naturally, on the fairest basis the market would bear.
BUT: back in the real world, KC: your comment goes to the heart of the problem: the US is, and has been since the Whigs packed it in in the 1850s, locked into a two-party political system: with all of its advantages and drawbacks. The main advantage being a long-term systemic stability in the non-parliamentary type of legislature the US has to work with: the drawback being an almost insurmountable barrier to “third” parties (of any ideological stripe) being able to make more than token inroads on the established order – thus marginalising (often fatally) any attempts to change the foundations of the system.
To be honest, I’m not sure, offhand, what metric of “significance” of a non- Democratic/Republican challenger would be “fair” for inclusion in the formal “national” debates: Ross Perot in 1992 comes to mind: but aside from that –
I’ll defer to more expert analysis.
Is there a cite for this figure?
Here you go.
http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/mm001050.asp
If 1% of that audience is listening at any given time, that’s 150K people. And that is just the NYC market, which is one of 299 markets tracked by Arbitron. The smallest is Casper WY, at 60,300 people.
Per Arbitron, 94% of the people in the US listen to the radio in the course of any given week.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/narrative_radio_audience.asp?cat=3&media=9
How many of those 60,300 folks in Casper, WY read political web sites in the course of any given week? For that matter, how many read newspapers, magazines, or any other form of public media other than broadcast media?
Thanks –
I think I’m done here. I really do.
Posted by: xbril | January 25, 2007 at 01:35 PM
Be still, my beating heart.
Isn’t there some ‘Audi alteram partem’ in journalism in the US? In the Netherlands if a person (or group/organisation) is accused of something the media should contact that person or group and give them the right to answer the accusations. Not give them equal time, but they do have to mention the other parties point. If not, those media can be sued for rectification.
You are treading very close to being banned, Phil. (My first.) Your elipses conceal the fact that the first part of the comment was directed to Dan The Man and responded to his concern, while the second part of the comment was directed to Francis and responded to his (her? – I’ve known Francis’es of both genders) concern. It’s misleading, and it should stop.
Hilzoy:
You link appears broken but, if you look at what I actually wrote in the quoted text, it does not say that “the FD is ‘Hilzoy’s prescription to address it.'” As I stated in response to your post (in italics):
After which I apologized for the tone of that statement (“Sorry for the snark”) — well, not really (“but this is ridiculous”) — and attacked the only prescription you did offer (albeit with “ambival[ence]”): the FD.
The point is that we should not be looking to some sort of regulation or government action to control or punish speech with which we disagree — whether the fairness doctrine, the quasi-loosening of the libel laws proposed by Dan the Man, or something else. These sorts of things almost always backfire or have unintended effects, as I tried to point out to the commentators on this thread. (E.g., by noting that a change in the libel laws could very well make the comment “Gibson is a professional liar” or the like actionable libel.)
That’s fine. But bemoaning the problem of lies in public life should not make one ambivalent about the FD, which is terrible policy.
As for the terms liberal and the Left: I am using liberal in a late 19th early 20th century context,* to mean those who tend to favor liberty and progress. The Left has historically been something different, and, although it has historically made common cause with liberals, grew out of the labor movements and has always endorsed a much heavier hand of government. The Left gets you well-meaning programs like the fairness doctrine and (at its extreme in this country) speech codes, giant puppets, and the like. Liberals have historically opposed such measures, and it’s unlikely that you’ll find liberals wanting to dismantle the WTO.
I think that it’s useful to distinguish between these two groups — one more a political theory, the other more a movement — because, well, they can have different reactions.
I do regard this post as a leftist post and Hilzoy as tending toward the Left rather than strict liberalism.
As for those who dislike my comparison about feeling “ambivalent” about the FD and feeling “ambivalent” about waterboarding: (1) the example is apt; (2) I am not ambivalent about either — I oppose both; (3) in certain respects, it can be argued that the FD is more harmful to the public good than certain uses of waterboarding.
von
*Although it’s worth noting that The Economist uses the term liberal in the same sense as I.
We could try Public Works Punditry. Three square, a bed, and health insurance for anyone who spends eight hours a day at least theoretically investigating either the media or other public works pundits for bias, collating or printing or editing or distributing the results of such efforts, filming or speaking on film or advertising the film for such efforts, etc. Day care on site.
We could hold elections for the various chunks of bandwidth every 6 years.
We could do labeling, with a “news” program required to make its general procedures for handling investigation and correction public, to some level of detail, and instructions on how interested citizens can verify their compliance.
We could ensure that sufficiently large groups of citizens could petition for certain information to appear on the public airwaves at a certain time.
Ridiculous fantasies, granted, submitted only on the off chance they inspire a practical idea.
Rebecca
So… just what did you mean by liberal? Because if you meant the Old Definition (as some of your usage suggests), your presentation of “finance types” as a category of individual that is distinct from (and perhaps even exclusive of or opposed to) liberal sounds… well… silly.
You’ve never met an illiberal finance type? Or someone who’s liberalism extends only to markets?
Isn’t there some ‘Audi alteram partem’ in journalism in the US? In the Netherlands if a person (or group/organisation) is accused of something the media should contact that person or group and give them the right to answer the accusations. Not give them equal time, but they do have to mention the other parties point.
We had this until 2000. The DC Court of Appeals asked the FCC to explain why this should continue to be in force. The FCC declined to do so. The policy was therefore repealed. It is no longer in force.
A discussion of this is available on the Wikipedia article on the FD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
As someone more Liberal than Left, I find myself agreeing that government regulation, via the FD, loosening libel laws, or anything else I can think of, isn’t going to be worse than the disease. There’s no doubt that certain ‘journalists’ are happy to spend their time on politically motivated slander, and that there’s been a near total breakdown in the moral consensus that was the primary protection against such things — I’m not saying it existed at the outset of the Republic, but rather in my childhood. Many on the Right have been, for decades, much more interested in winning than in being honest. Then they have the brass to lecture Liberals or the Left on their moral superiority.
The only answers, it seems to me, are refutation and ridicule. Calling the man a professional liar falls into this category, as does calling the people who would defend him (or shout down opposition even if not defending him) moral midgets.
Nothing can prevent people who wear their simplicity — and intolerance for nuance — as a badge of honor from believing any old slander that comes down the pike. We may be, though, entering an era where slander from the far right is going to get aggressive response whenever and wherever. I wish it didn’t have to be so, but in the absence of self-policing — which could only come from people in the target audience switching off the slanderers — this is where we’re fated to go.
is going to be worse!
The primary problem with a fairness doctrine is that it promotes a false dichotomy. It reduces arguments to a simple set of binary choices, with us or for the terrorists.
“in certain respects, it can be argued that the FD is more harmful to the public good than certain uses of waterboarding”
Wow, who knew that Edward R. Murrow was less liberal than John Yoo?
Von, you’re of course free to do as you wish, but I’d suggest that banning works better when the banner is on the same “side” as the bannee, and it’s certainly preferable that the banner not be the target of the offending comment. Avoiding conflicts of interest, when possible, enhances trust in the system.
As far as Fox News goes, here is your solution:
FCC pushing à la carte cable again
I wonder how many people would willing to pay to get Fox News…
I wonder how many networks would go out of business practically overnight?
von, about my being liberal and/or Left: as I wrote, I wasn’t advocating the FD in this post. That said, the FD does not, as I understand it, prevent anyone from speaking; it only requires that someone from the, or an, opposing side be given an opportunity to respond when the speech occurs via publicly controlled, and heavily regulated, media.
If it prevented anyone from speaking, I would regard it as completely and totally different. I am, after all, on record as supporting the right of Nazis to march through Skokie, and (also for the record) that’s not because I am unaware of the demographics of Skokie, and in particular the number of Holocaust survivors who live there. I therefore find it odd to be placed on any spectrum whose extreme is speech codes.
The WTO is a different matter. As I wrote back during CAFTA, I support the extension of trade, and the removal of protectionist barriers to it. On the other hand, I think that it takes some amount of regulation to make that trade free and fair. This is not, I think, a position that distinguishes me from the people who negotiated the WTO, and their supporters — or if it does, I am at a loss to explain the length of the treaty, and its many, many provisions.
Where I do differ from some people who support it is simply in the kinds of provisions I think it should contain. Specifically, I think it should contain some minimum labor and environmental standards. The reason for this is to prevent certain market failures, not to enshrine protectionism; and therefore I (at least) do not regard this as an anti-globalization position, but as a difference in policy, a difference about which long and cumbersome rules the WTO and similar treaties should contain. (I also oppose some of the parts of NAFTA that strip away the rights of local governments to craft for themselves environmental regulations, and that give corporations the right to sue for hypothetical lost profits. I think that this is a silly piece of policy.)
As for the puppets: I’m not sure I see how this follows from any particular set of political views, so I suppose I’ll just have to mull that one over.
The point is that we should not be looking to some sort of regulation or government action to control or punish speech with which we disagree — whether the fairness doctrine, the quasi-loosening of the libel laws proposed by Dan the Man, or something else. These sorts of things almost always backfire or have unintended effects, as I tried to point out to the commentators on this thread.
The law of unintended effects strikes ALL systems; it’s a feature of complex systems. All well and good to note that there are minuses to regulation, but what we’re noting here is an unintended effect of THIS particular system.
What the debate here is what combination of factors, regulations, what have you, are going to do the least amount of harm.
And adding to gwangung’s last, whether the situation is bad enough to require something be done. If you don’t agree with the fact that what has been happening to the way the public at large is getting its info, resistance to any renewal of FD notions is understandable, but that disagreement happens way before we even start discussing FD, so using support of FD to define political opposition seems a bit misguided.
“If it prevented anyone from speaking, I would regard it as completely and totally different. I am, after all, on record as supporting the right of Nazis to march through Skokie, and (also for the record) that’s not because I am unaware of the demographics of Skokie, and in particular the number of Holocaust survivors who live there. I therefore find it odd to be placed on any spectrum whose extreme is speech codes.”
I guess this is where my experience with the legal system makes me wary. People (the ACLU in particular and media defense groups and Supreme Court Justices as well) often talk about the potential ‘chilling effect’ of loosening libel laws. I tend to agree that too loose libel laws would encourage lots of people not to talk publically about certain things if they always had to worry about getting sued. And remember the problem is not just LOSING a suit, but rather being forced to defend a suit.
The real chilling occurs in the arena of avoiding the costs of defending a suit even if you’d win. Even honest people fear an IRS audit, because it is so much trouble. People pay lots of money to minimize the risk in an IRS audit. The problem with any ‘fairness’ approach is that it would open up a whole avenue of government attack and investigation based on speech. Defending against it would be expensive, and rather than worry about that, prudent people wouldn’t get involved in certain types of political speech.
Remember, NYT v. Sullivan was largely concerned that too loose libel laws would allow public figures to use the threat of libel to cut off dissent.
While “fairness” ideas attempt to avoid that by merely requiring the access of counterargument, in practice it would have similar effects. Why? Because how do you enforce it. What happens if you don’t give access soon enough? Surely letting Obama rebuttal time 6 years from now won’t be sufficient. With what threat do you enforce immediate compliance such that you can get a rebuttal on air soon enough to make a difference? Obviously if you litigate each case, they will always come way too late. So you need a really ugly threat of consequences when you lose or everyone will ignore it. But with a really ugly threat, legitimate speakers will wisely avoid speaking because no matter how obviously innocent you are, the chance of losing in court always exists. (I had a boss that said no matter how much of a slam dunk you have, there is always at least a 10% chance of randomly losing becuase of an odd judge or a flukey jury).
The same problem arises with “how many rebuttals”. You can’t give many more than two without severely eating up your general time. But if you don’t give it to all ‘legitimate’ comers, you are going to get hammered by the government. Why risk that?
In short, if you want more political engagement, you can’t have government standing anywhere near free speech with a big hammer.
Von, you’re of course free to do as you wish, but I’d suggest that banning works better when the banner is on the same “side” as the bannee, and it’s certainly preferable that the banner not be the target of the offending comment. Avoiding conflicts of interest, when possible, enhances trust in the system.
Understood, of course, which is why I provided a warning. For clarity, the offense was not that Phil disagreed with me — otherwise you’re all banned! Rather, it was his misleading quote of my comment and then, when I noted the problem for him, his decision to respond with another misleading statement (“it was all one comment,” which was hardly the point). I don’t expect retractions & I even expect defenses, but this particular defense deserves at least a warning that its proponent is on dangerous ground.
If it prevented anyone from speaking, I would regard it as completely and totally different. I am, after all, on record as supporting the right of Nazis to march through Skokie, and (also for the record) that’s not because I am unaware of the demographics of Skokie, and in particular the number of Holocaust survivors who live there. I therefore find it odd to be placed on any spectrum whose extreme is speech codes.
But doesn’t it preclude speech (in addition to requiring speech)? Although the exact parameters of a new FD is unclear, let’s assume that it at least covers radio. Rush Limbaugh says, on air, that a particular immigration is anti-American. The formal proponent of the tax increase is a democrat, but let’s say that a number of others are also identified with the policy — including President Bush. Does the Democrat get the right of response? Does Bush? How about the all-powerful Mayor of Albuquerque, who also favors the policy and is in a tight race with Juan Tacredo, Tom Tacredo’s son and an opponent of the policy? What about the Libertarian party head?
Presumably, the answer is one of the following:
1. None of these folks get to respond because Rush didn’t identify a particular person (although every single one is clearly a target of his words). In this case, the FD has essentially failed its intended purpose.
2. Some of these folks get to respond, in which case others are rightfully frustrated that they are not heard (would you accept only a response from Pres. Bush?). Or,
3. All of these people get to respond, which would be impractical and essentially make the private station a common carrier.
Defending free speech does not stop at defending the right of Nazi’s to march on Skokie.
Where I do differ from some people who support it is simply in the kinds of provisions I think it should contain. Specifically, I think it should contain some minimum labor and environmental standards. The reason for this is to prevent certain market failures, not to enshrine protectionism; and therefore I (at least) do not regard this as an anti-globalization position, but as a difference in policy, a difference about which long and cumbersome rules the WTO and similar treaties should contain.
These are not market failures (environmental issues are sometimes market externalities, but that’s something different). Moreover, most of these programs are being pushed by unions and are aimed at making trade deals either impossible or irrelevant as a practical matter, by imposing so many requirements that there ceases to be a comparative advantage to trade.
Incidentally, the proven way to increase wages & improve the environment in low income countries is to enact trade deals without such restrictions. Mexico has seen tremendous improvement under NAFTA — it may have been the single best thing that has happened to Mexican workers since, well, ever.
As for the puppets: I’m not sure I see how this follows from any particular set of political views, so I suppose I’ll just have to mull that one over.
I claim special expertise in this matter, given that I once hosted one of the primary puppet makers (a friend from way back, though we haven’t kept in touch the last 5 years). About the only economic issue on which we agree is immigration policy.
von: The point is that we should not be looking to some sort of regulation or government action to control or punish speech with which we disagree — whether the fairness doctrine, the quasi-loosening of the libel laws proposed by Dan the Man, or something else.
I agree that loosening libel laws is a bad idea. But I don’t see how the FD is in anywhere approaching the same category, to say nothing of being as harmful (in some instances!) as waterboarding, a notion that I find as offensive as it is absurd (are you thinking here of instances in which the person providing the rebuttal is such a spit-talker that his mouth spray nearly drowns someone?). Dubious claims of chilling effects aside, the FD doesn’t punish speech, but rather punishes the suppression of speech.
In any case, historical examples of the horrors of the FD are certainly welcome. If it was awful as you make it out to be, such examples should be plentiful.
The Left gets you well-meaning programs like the fairness doctrine ….
Programs similar to the Fairness Doctrine (I’m thinking Equal Time, in particular) date back to the inception of federal broadcast licensing, which began under the Coolidge administration.
Whoops, let me fix that first paragraph (above). I changed my example half-way through writing it, and now it’s terribly unclear. It should read:
But doesn’t it preclude speech (in addition to requiring speech)? Although the exact parameters of a new FD is unclear, let’s assume that it at least covers radio. Rush Limbaugh says, on air, that a particular immigration plan is anti-American. The formal proponent of the immigration plan is a democrat, but let’s say that a number of others are also identified with the policy — including President Bush. Does the Democrat get the right of response? Does Bush? How about the all-powerful Mayor of Albuquerque, who also favors the policy and is in a tight race with Juan Tacredo, Tom Tacredo’s son and an opponent of the policy? What about the Libertarian party head?
Von, wouldn’t it be instructive to look at how the FD was enforced throughout the 53 or so years it was in effect, rather than relying on thought experiments?
Also, do you think broadcast decency standards are similarly objectionable, and also as damaging to the public good as some forms of torture?
“Also, do you think broadcast decency standards are similarly objectionable, and also as damaging to the public good as some forms of torture?”
Similarly objectionable in the sense that we probably shouldn’t bother with it, yes.
As bad as torture, no–because it doesn’t corrode the right to political discourse the way that meddling with free speech on or near political topics does.
Von, wouldn’t it be instructive to look at how the FD was enforced throughout the 53 or so years it was in effect, rather than relying on thought experiments?
We know that it was used for partisan political gain by Nixon (and, according to the Heritage Foundation, Kennedy as well), and there were several reports by journalists that it caused journalists to avoid controversial subjects for fear that they would not be able to satisfy regulators’ demands. As you might suppose, the best aggregators of these reports are groups that oppose the FD. Cato has a discussion here: http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040420-tk-2.html.
the standard spelling of my name is “i” for men and “e” for women. given the variances in the shape of human genetalia between male and female, i trust you can remember the distinction. 😉
That Cato Institute article conflates the idea of a “chilling effect” with the desire to protect audiences’ tender ears from ideas or opinions they don’t want to hear. One of the articles to which it links, also from Cato, claims the explosion of talk radio post-1987 is proof of a chilling effect. I think these two ideas are closely related, in that the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine might not have lifted a chilling effect on the expression of certain views so much as it opened up a new market for radio targeted at listeners who are strongly intolerant of viewpoints with which they disagree.
As for alleged intimidation on the part of the Nixon and Kennedy adminstrations: Is there evidence that it had the intended effect? And couldn’t you use similar logic to argue for the abolition of the FBI?
Oh, and I get the sense that the author is kind of clueless about the current state of the media landscape:
Hasn’t the author seen Franken’s infamous confrontation with O’Reilly on Book TV? Say what you will about Al Franken, but I suspect he would be giddy with glee if O’Reilly agreed to come on his show to offer rebuttals on a regular basis (and “equal response time” seems like a mischaracterization of the FD). Bill is the one who threatens people with violence and cuts off their mics, after all.
Sigh. Now we’ve got liberals bashing leftists. That’s not unusual and it goes both ways, but is this entity called “The Left” in favor of government control of speech? Because the far lefties I read are utterly opposed to this. Perhaps y’all are thinking of Bolsheviks.
We know that it was used for partisan political gain by Nixon
What we know is that some folks in Nixon’s cabinet threatened broadcast license holders with the loss of their license.
If we are going to eliminate every instrument of government because it was abused by Richard Nixon, we will find ourselves back in the political stone age in a hurry. While we’re getting rid of the FD, let’s also get rid of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and DOJ.
Clinton used the IRS to harrass his opponents. Let’s get rid of them, too.
If we want to include all of the institutions the current President has abused, we might as well call it a day.
It’s probably more useful to discuss the merits of public policy in the context of its normal and intended use.
Thanks –
russell: It’s probably more useful to discuss the merits of public policy in the context of its normal and intended use.
I don’t think we should ignore unintended consequences. But otherwise, I think we are on the same page.
It’s worth noting that this article, also at Cato, and referenced in the article von offered, provides a lot more detail on these Nixon’s and Kennedy’s use of the Fairness Doctrine against political opponents. According to the article, Kennedy’s “intimidation” of broadcasters consisted of Democratic campaigns to demand opportunities to rebut right-wing commentaries. The supposed evidence of a chilling effect is that some stations stopped carrying a particular right-wing preacher’s shows because the target of his attacks demanded free time to answer those attacks, and was substantially aided in his efforts by the DNC. That’s it, as far as I can tell.
Nixon’s campaign looks quite a bit uglier, and apparently involved direct attempts to intimidate broadcasters, but it looks like Nixon also employed other FCC powers, most notably meddling in the license renewal process, which is a hell of a lot more threatening than simply demanding free rebuttal time. The effects of this are similarly murky, though. According to the article CBS may have made a change to the way it covered the Nixon White House as a result. Or maybe not. In the one notable instance of an actual Fairness Doctrine challenge by the RNC (basically they demanded that they be allowed to rebut Democratic rebuttals to Nixon speeches) the courts emphatically overturned the FCC rulings. Which is the way things are supposed to work when the Executive abuses regulatory power for political purposes, right?
The arguments against the fairness doctrine are making it seem more and more appealing to me, largely because I find the language of “gosh, look, here’s a problem, but of course law and policy can’t help it, so we should all sit quietly and let the plutocrats have their way, again” familiar and repulsive. It was the libertarian arguments against national health care that first led me away from libertarianism, because they were so compact and logical and seamless…except that they foundered on reality. Whenever I now see a similarly smooth and compact argument that amounts to an airtight argument for the inability of the state to do anything constructive in a sphere of action that affects the health of the society and is currently in the hands of a lil’ group of oligarchs, I get suspicious.
It helps, of course, that Russell’s asking a lot of good questions and providing a lot of good info. It’s not just Von and Slarti and Sebastian that are persuading me that state action in the interest of honest discourse is both possible and desirable. Thanks, Russell.
Bruce is right. Thanks Russell.
Indeed. It would be nice if Von et al. actually responded to Russell’s careful explanation of what the FD meant in practice, and the explained why they regard the Fairness Doctrine as it actually operated was objectionable, rather than referring to first principles and some (Anti-?)Platonic Ideal Of Fairness Doctrines.
Did any of you read the Cato links?
” but it looks like Nixon also employed other FCC powers, most notably meddling in the license renewal process, which is a hell of a lot more threatening than simply demanding free rebuttal time.”
I don’t understand how you (and others on this thread) can so neatly divide rulemaking from enforcement. When you demand free rebuttal time what happens if the station doesn’t believe you should get it? If the rule is based on the government license, threatening the license is an obvious step.
You are treading very close to being banned, Phil. (My first.)
You have got to be kidding me. Under precisely which posting rule?
Your elipses conceal the fact that the first part of the comment was directed to Dan The Man and responded to his concern, while the second part of the comment was directed to Francis and responded to his (her? – I’ve known Francis’es of both genders) concern. It’s misleading, and it should stop.
Ah, I see. So all the utterances you make — even within the context of a single comment post — are completely disconnected from each other and there is no underlying stream of thought which unifies the things you say? Good to know for future reference. Also good to know that you appear to believe that, like you, nobody else reads the other comments on the page or refers back to things higher up.
For clarity, the offense was not that Phil disagreed with me — otherwise you’re all banned! Rather, it was his misleading quote of my comment and then, when I noted the problem for him, his decision to respond with another misleading statement (“it was all one comment,” which was hardly the point).
Precisely who was “mislead” by my comments, and in precisely which direction were they mislead? I’m going to need some specifics, here. Everyone who felt my comments were in some way “misleading,” please speak up, because I’d hate to see von out there on his own on this one.
Incidentally, the proven way to increase wages & improve the environment in low income countries is to enact trade deals without such restrictions.
Surely you have a cite for this.
And I have to say, the kind of sophistry that can lead one to say that a fairness doctrine — or, more to the point of the original post, any sort of organized mechanism for allowing the targets of slanderous, lying attacks to respond to them in a meaningful way — is worse for the country than legalized torture . . . ? (Oh, sorry, “certain uses of waterboarding.” Wouldn’t want to be misleading.) I don’t even know how to respond to that without profanity. It’s absolutely breathtaking.
I guess the point is that it’s OK to become complete moral monsters as long as we protect the rights of outright fabricators to spread crap via the publicly-owned airwaves. I know that’s the America I envision? Is that about right?
Yes, Sebastian, I followed the link, and found it (alas) exactly what I’ve come to expect from Cato – a basically useless collection of heavily shaded interpretation and a collection of raw data I know better than to trust without outside confirmation. Cato reports seldom outright lie, but when it comes to understanding an issue they’re about as useful as the typical management consultant firm’s reports.
Nor, of course, is there any declaration of potential conflicts of interest on the part of the folks who put it together, and Cato has had problems with that in recent years, to put it mildly.
Did any of you read the Cato links?
Yes, I read both von’s and Gromit’s.
The only concrete case cited in von’s was Nixon threatening broadcasters with a loss of license. As noted above, Nixon’s was a uniquely criminal administration, and I’m not sure we should decide that public policies do or do not have value based on whether Nixon abused them. We would, quite honestly, not have much left in the way of government. That may be appealing to some, but not to me, personally.
The far more damning critique of the Fairness Doctrine as it was actually applied was the discussion of the systematic demands for free air time on the part of Democratic partisans in the ’64 election cycle. They were able to make it expensive enough for conservative broadcasters to honor requests for rebuttal time that those broadcasters simply stopped airing conservative editorials.
That particular avenue of abuse could be addressed by giving broadcasters some financial relief in return for providing rebuttal time. Allow them to charge market rate, allow them to write off the lost revenue, etc.
In other words, if there is a flaw in the policy, you can correct the flaw without throwing away the policy.
What none of the examples in any of the Cato cites show is that the FD, in it’s normal and intended application, prevented anyone from saying anything at any time.
And no, I do not ignore the very real and harmful distortions of that normal and intended use that actually have occurred. I do, however, balance those against the very real and harmful distortions that occur, each and every day, in the absence of something like the FD.
The Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly contained a study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes. Yes, PIPA is no doubt a bunch of dirty hippy communists, but PSQ is a non-partisan, refereed academic journal, so the numbers are probably pretty sound.
The study demonstrated that viewers of Fox News during that time were significantly more likely than viewers of any other news source to believe the following three things:
1. Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda
2. The US had found WMD in Iraq
3. The majority of people in the world favored the US invasion of Iraq
These three things were and are false. They are, frankly, lies that were promulgated, deliberately, by Fox to bolster public support for the war. The widespread belief that those things were true contributed, materially, to our involvement in Iraq. In the absence of something like the FD, they went unchallenged on Fox stations.
Gibson can stand up on Fox and tell blatant lies about Obama. Absent the FD, those statements go unchallenged on Fox stations.
They can be challenged elsewhere, but Fox viewers are not highly likely to be watching elsewhere.
Broadcast media is unique because of the number of people that watch and listen to it. Internet and print don’t come close.
Broadcast media is also a finite resource. Even in this day and age. We therefore make broadcasting a privileged activity, that you can only engage in if you hold a license. I include cable under this heading because cable providers normally operate as a government-granted monopoly in any given area.
The FD required exactly two things in exchange for the privilege of holding one of those licenses:
1. You had to present discussion of issues of public importance
2. You had to allow all points of view to be presented
The second requirement was not pro-active. That is, you only had to do it if someone complained.
In the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of cases, it was not an extraordinary burden. In the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of cases, it facilitated, rather than hindered, the open exchange of ideas.
IMO, people’s opinion about the FD depends on whether they think government is a responsible actor or not. Either government can be trusted to act in the public interest, or government is at all times an oppressive force which must be restrained with the strongest possible chains from interfering with the daily lives of normal people.
I consider government to be a responsible actor, which can be trusted to act in the public interest. If I lived someplace other than the US, I might feel differently. But, I don’t, so I don’t.
Given all of that, the idea that there should be a public policy requiring broadcast license holders to let people rebut points of view they disagree with on matters of public interest just does not bug me. As far as I can tell, putting ideology aside, the actual historical facts surrounding the FD are on my side.
I think, at this point, the poor dead carcass of the FD horse has received enough beatings from me.
Thanks –
Sebastian Holsclaw: I don’t understand how you (and others on this thread) can so neatly divide rulemaking from enforcement. When you demand free rebuttal time what happens if the station doesn’t believe you should get it? If the rule is based on the government license, threatening the license is an obvious step.
That would be a fair point, if that was what I was doing. The article is pretty vague, but it leads me to the impression that these license renewal challenges weren’t necessarily tied to alleged violations of the FD. The most detailed anecdote of the Nixon admin using the FD itself as a cudgel ends in the courts harshly rebuking the Nixon administration for its abuse of power. This suggests to me that the FD might be no more prone to abuse than any other regulatory power.