Modest Proposal for a Real 'Fairness Doctrine'
By: Daniel Gallington, OpEd Contributor
-
November 6, 2008
According to some media observers, interim “Meet the Press” host Tom Brokaw has been showcasing – reluctantly, as he clearly covets a return to network news - candidates for the late Tim Russert's media chair. Witness the endless panels of NBC news correspondents every Sunday.
Who's next? Are we really ready for blabber-wocky Chris Matthews - maybe even sports-hack turned petulant pol-wonk Keith Olbermann? Can any of the contenders for Russert's job be a new beacon for integrity and objectivity at NBC News?
In this same vein, recall the recent suggestions by Democratic senators Clinton, Boxer and Feinstein that - because market-driven talk radio has evolved (strangely, on it's own) to be so overwhelmingly conservative - we should return to an FCC-enforced fairness rule for "balance" in electronic media.
And Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has given her strong support for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, which was abandoned during the Reagan Administration.
Regardless of how these mini-media dramas turn out, I have come up with an idea that will virtually guarantee TV news impartiality. And, there will be no need for new "fairness" rules - or even for NBC news to try and convince us that they are impartial.
Here's what inspired me: When you see Senator Windbag on “Meet the Press” or some other talking head show from Washington, you know that the senator is a Republican or a Democrat because of that little "D" or "R", on the bottom of the screen.
So, you're not surprised to hear the Democrats criticizing the Republicans, and vice – versa - in fact, you expect it. However, you also understand Senator Windbag's subtler point of view on other issues – just by that one letter.
Now, hold on to your hats, because when the networks adopt my idea, we will no longer care about the bias or point of view in what their anchors, reporters, correspondents or commentators say. And liberals will rejoice because conservatives will have to stop complaining about the so-called "liberal bias in media".
My proposal:
Let's have the FCC require that the networks designate their news people with either a "D" or a little "R". Some examples: "Katie Couric (D-CBS)", Wolf Blitzer "D-CNN", "Keith Olbermann (D-MSNBC), "Chris Mathhews (D-MSNBC), Bill Moyers and Gwen Ifful (D-PBS) and yes, Joe Scarborough (R-MSNBC). Get the idea?
If FOX News is really "fair and balanced" - like they say they are - let's make them put a "D" or "R" under the person's picture as he/she talks. I want to know for sure if that feisty Irish guy on the "No Spin Zone" is a Democrat or a Republican – and not, as he alleges, an "independent."
A caveat: I'm afraid if we let FOX use an "I", then all the networks would want to use it and we would end up exactly where we are now. So, to keep the system brutally honest – absolutely no "I's" would be permitted. After all, that's what they all say they are now.
Also helpful would be short bits of bio information, like: "Stephanopoulos (D-ABC) was Bill Clinton's press secretary", "Buchanan (R-MSNBC) ran for president three times, was a speech Writer for Richard Nixon, and communications director for Reagan," "Matthews (D-MSNBC) was press secretary for former House Speaker Tip O'Neil (D-MA)" and "Mark Shields (D-PBS) worked on several Democratic presidential campaigns".
NBC must already be concerned about its liberal political image because they hired this guy Chuck Todd as their so-called "Political Director" [an odd title – as if they are somehow in need of "political direction"].
And, NBC lists him as having "practical political experience in national campaigns" – however, and a really big surprise here - this turns out to be the 1991 presidential campaign of super-lefty Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA).
But none of this would matter with my proposal: They would simply caption Political Director Todd as "D-NBC" - right along with the jabbering Matthews and sulking Olbermann.
Is this a neat idea, or what? Perhaps the only real question now is who will have the courage to do it voluntarily, as I have here:
Daniel Gallington was a liberal "D" in the 60's - now, he's more of a conservative "R" with some definite libertarian leanings.
