On Demand
Vote 2008: WNYC's Election Coverage
Art.Cult blog
Street Shots: NYC Photography
Studio 360: Klezmer in Krakow
The Takeaway: Electoral College prediction tracker
The Toni Morrison Lectures: Newark Mayor Cory Booker
Radiolab LIVE in Chicago!
Fair and Balanced?
Monday, July 02, 2007
Should the FCC mandate equal time for broadcast journalists on the left and on the right? Journalist Nat Hentoff and senior analyst for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Steve Rendall debate the issue.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date. Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Obviously if any imbalance is to be addressed it is the overwhelming Democratic bias on almost every major media outlet, from the NY Times to NPR and CNN. This is ridiculous.
Wow!!!!! Does this mean that PBS will have to broadcast an opposing view everytime they air NOW ??????
Of couse not, this is not about "balance," it is a naked power grab by congress.
What should occur:
NEWS programs should be forced to be NEWS programs and not opinion
factories. If they wish to have opinions expressed, there should be
CLEAR visual/audio statements that the following is an OPINION and NOT
news, like when the news programs once upon a time had a segment
clearly labeled opinion or editorial.
OPINION programs (like Rush and others), as long as they are CLEARLY
marketed and explained as OPINION and not NEWS programs, are fine.
TheOpEdPage.com
Why is there no discussion of how American broadcasting is financed? America never had a discussion about it.....somehow, by default, it came to be financed by commercial sponsors. Surely, this is as much of a censorship factor as government-financed media is, if not more, since there is no democratic input.
What about diversity in ownership of broadcast licenses? There's an excellent coalition at http://www.stopbigmedia.com
The restriction on 1st Amendment argument is weak because the doctrine is NOT about censorship, it's simply about allocating equal time to different viewpoints. It's more of a time management issue.
The point is not to have the government *decide* the alternatives but to require that they have time to do so. The stations would still have the 1st amendment right to decide who gets to represent what kinds of opinions would be aired. If these alternatives were considered inadequate by any side, they'd have the opportunity to challenge the lack of range.
It would give a forum for people to challenge--that's the point.
Steve Rendell mentions the rise of conservative talk radio that railed against Civil Rights, women's rights, etc.
I don't have the citation, but it seems that audiences of such shows are more susceptible to advertising messages-- When Rush Limbaugh says, "buy this product" his listeners are more easily influenced to comply.
How can any Fairness Doctrine compete big corporate money?
the corporations, who run TV and radio stations, will never broadcast opinion contrary to their financial goals. the only hope for the people is to turn to the internet while it's still free from corporate control. it is the last real place for free speech.
why does the right wing guy have to yell to be heard?
Hentoff does not understand the concept of equal debate! Why is he so angry about the possibility of those he named related to the Sudanese govt being interviewed? Brian just mentioned that he'd take them!
Brian started to say "we'd take" an hourlong interview with the Sudanese government, which Hentoff didn't hear to respond to.
Hentoff is being pretty arrogant in saying that he's the only one who can possibly come up with radio programs that people will listen to. Having the money to get wide distribution and jam advertising of salacious, vitriolic, and sound-bite teasers down everyone's throat gives a powerful, unbalancing result.
Does the BLS need to recreate commercial talk radio in order to cover it? this is making my head hurt.
If Nat is worried about the Gov't contorlling the news, then I pose this question: He is debating this fact on NPR (National PUBLIC Radio); would he be entertained on the privatre FOX news channel? I think those only need to look as far as PBS Frontline to see the difference. Thank you.
hjs writes:
"why does the right wing guy have to yell to be heard?"
NAT HENTOFF????? RIGHT WING???? I can tell I am getting old!!!!!
Was Hentoff always that shrill and crotchety? I used to read his Voice column all the time.
What's terrible is that I agree with Hentoff, to a degree. Given the nonsense that this administration put NPR and PBS through in the last few ears, I don't think I would want that imposed on everyone else.
Further, I question the whole concept of 'balanced' as requisite. Why should any argument be considered equal to any other regardless of validity?
If I think pigs can fly and everyone else knows better, why should my argument hold as much weight?
Seems to me the real problem with the lack of fairness and the rise of what can only be termed Hate Radio, was embodied in Nat Hentoff's strident, righteous, "let's-punch-somebody" tone.
Like Mark Levine, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and the others, the appeal to emotion over reason, and outrage over discourse, all while wrapped in a super-patriotic costume, is poisonous to American standards.
IIRC, the Fairness Doctrine applied to opinion pieces, not the news. I don't recall any attempt to demand counterprogramming time to the Watergate hearings to allow Nixon and the plumbers, or whoever, to rebut the findings of testimony before the televised committee hearings.
Actually, a new Fairness Doctrine might helf the MCM* to actually reports knowable, verifiable facts--like, you know, the news? And not get all sorts of opinion intertwined with reporting the news.
Cable is exempt, but were it under a Fairness Doctrine then FOX cable news night be very interesting!!! Can you imagine O'Reilly followed by, say, an hour of Noam Chomsky? (I am not equating them at equal distances from some imagined center.)
dear John Lobell
i had no idea who he is but he sound right wing to me! AND crazy too boot
i looked him up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff and in fact he's right wing enough for me to call him right wing.
thanks for the heads up JL
i enjoy hearing from all sides
I wouldn't call Nat Hentoff right-wing, he's a libertarian. Read his column in the Village Voice, he doesn't have many kind words for the Bush administration and their policy towards detainees. He has followed those types of stories when no one else was paying much attention.
I like his crankiness. He's got passion. :) I enjoyed the segment.
I can't wait to hear Rush on WNYC. If you think the government should have a say in opinion programming, then you should talk to Europeans about their terrible radio programming.Furthermore, who is the antidote to Limbaugh and "insert your favorite lefty" when you disagree with both of them. Poor Thomas Paine, etal, no room for them when your choice is a corporate message or government approved messages. The real problem is all of these network shows which incessantly focus on Washington DC to the detriment of local issues. I think the time alloted for network shows carried by a station should be limited to a certain number of hours per day, that would force stations to address local and regional issues more directly whether as news shows or opinion shows. Keep up the good entertaining work Brian Lehrer and Bob Grant.
This thread is closed.
Back to Episode