THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. GO TO THE HOMEPAGE TO FIND OUT WHAT TO DO NEXT.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. arch emisou panton
	Phil's Blogservations Saturday, February 07, 2009 Posted by philgomes 9:45 AM The Fairness Doctrine Is Not A PR Tactic The Fairness Doctrine Is Not A PR Tactic PR Week discusses the quite inappropriately dubbed "Fairness Doctrine" and basically ends with the the following message in the form of a quote by Chris Battle of the Adfero Group: PR people can use this crusty old regulatory idea to browbeat broadcasters into covering their clients. From the article: However unlikely its reimplementation, Battle adds that the Fairness Doctrine – even if applied only to now-conservative-dominated talk radio – could benefit the PR sector. If the measure were to gain passage, PR firms could, in theory, demand airtime for their clients, he says. “In a sense, it could be a boon for the PR industry,” he says, “because any time Rush Limbaugh [or a liberal host] makes an argument that goes against the message or mission of a client, [a PR pro] could call up with the law on [his or her] side and demand an opportunity to put the client's views forward.” I imagine that this news whipped around some agency email lists with blind enthusiasm. I also really hope no working PR practitioners actually take this stercoraceous nonsense seriously. For those who don't know, the Fairness Doctrine (which I have previously mentioned) came into being during a time in American broadcasting when available spectrum — and, therefore, variety in broadcast content — was meager. Thus, rules had to be put in place to ensure that the airwaves, considered a public trust, would carry all major viewpoints of a particular issue. (This is very different from the equal time rule, which is only relevant during a campaign, or the personal attack rule, which only applies to when someone is attacked on-air.) Today, we don't have that problem. In fact, I argue we have the opposite problem — no one in America ever has to consume content they're likely to disagree with. (That's a debate for another time.) Suffice to say, the Fairness Doctrine has been dead since 1987. Newly empowered congressional Democrats, however, seek to resurrect it. There are various reasons why the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea, to say nothing of its possible use as a PR tactic: Technology has made the spectrum-scarcity argument absolutely moot, and I know that I probably don't have to go into too much detail with my readers on this point. The Fairness Doctrine is 100% unconstitutional, as it creates a First-Amendment-violating environment of "prior restraint." In other words, a broadcaster would be reluctant to tackle any issue worth discussing for fear of triggering the Fairness Doctrine. In such a media environment, no one wins. (For more on prior restraint, review Near v. Minnesota, Austin v. Keefe, U.S. v. Progressive, The New York Times Co. v. United States, et al. I'm not a lawyer, but I nevertheless find media law fascinating.) Enforcing "fairness" is simply not the government's job, justice is. Few people understand the difference between the two. Life, unfortunately, is inherently unfair. (And there's no Santa Claus either.) The Fairness Doctrine is as impossible to enforce as the term "fairness" is to even define. That said, perhaps some percentage of the 91,196 regulators that George W. Bush added to the Federal payroll in the past eight years need to be kept busy. Who knows? This is little more than a "Hush Rush [Limbaugh]" idea, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with "fairness" so much as silencing the harshest public critics of the current legislative majority and the executive branch. I'm not terribly fond of Rush, to tell you the truth, but he got to where he is through his own hard work, his knowledge of his audience, and his deep confidence in what he believes. Agree with his views or not, he certainly doesn't deserve to be punished for them. In any case, the net effect of forcing a Fairness Doctrine on "El Rushbo" would have the net effect of shutting down his program. The Democrats must know that using the Fairness Doctrine to silence a leading conservative voice evokes that scene in Star Wars when Darth Vader kills Obi-Wan Kenobi: "If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possible imagine." Sure, enterprises like Air America struggle to gain an interested listenership. Why? Because no one is interested in what they say or how they say it. That's fine. There are plenty of other places where someone can obtain left-leaning opinion commentary, and most don't rely on an executive's highly placed spouse, either. Most certainly, some outlets would love the reinstatement of a Fairness Doctrine. However, using the Fairness Doctrine to achieve a PR goal is for PR folks who don't know how to change minds, but do know how to run to daddy. In any event, PR people need to always think in terms of chess, not checkers. So, best-case scenario, say you're successful in using the Fairness Doctrine to get your client time on the airwaves. Exactly what do you think it does to your client's credibility if the only way it could get its message out is through bureaucracy and procedure? I can hear it now: You're listening to WANK-AM, newstalk 790. Last week, we received a Fairness Doctrine notice from the FCC's Ministry Of Fairness. So, today, we have to bring on Mike Romaneger... I don't want to live in that media environment. And I definitely don't want the public relations industry to be even partially responsible. Technorati Tags: fairness doctrine, broadcasting, pr, public relations HOME | OBSESSIONS | FAQ | HEROES | CAREER | BLOG | CONTACT Note that the views expressed on this site do not necessarily reflect those of Phil's employer, its business partners, its clients, or anyone or anything that doesn't come from Phil.	ABOUT THIS BLOG This blog not only discusses PR and media matters, but Phil's everyday observations about a variety of topics. EMAIL phil[at] philgomes[[dot}]com SYNDICATE Feedburner ARCHIVE YAHOO! IM SKYPE WISH LIST PITCH POLICY MY PHOTOS www.flickr.com Photostream RSS Enter your Email Powered by FeedBlitz COMMENT AND TRACKBACK POLICY Comments and trackbacks are unmoderated, though I will delete the patently offensive ones. Any comments and trackbacks are the opinions of the individual writer of those comments and trackbacks, and not those of Phil Gomes, his employer, its clients, or its business partners. If you have a bone to pick, bug the people who wrote the comment or trackback.