Does the FCC's failure to fine Limbaugh represent regulatory capture?

[melm00se]

68. in some aspects yes.

Where you and I (apparently) differ is that I look at the media landscape in its entirety and see how it has progressed over the last several decades.

Lets look at the media landscape from 1949 (inception of the Fairness Doctrine) to 2011 (the final end of the FD):

In 1949, as a consumer of information, your electronic sources of information was limited to AM band radio broadcasts and that was just about it. While TV and FM bands did exist, they had not come into their own as sources of information (that came much later). So at this point in time, the Fairness Doctrine made a certain amount of sense.

Less than a decade later, TV began to become a household staple. During the period ca 1950 - 1976(ish), the vast majority of Americans were limited to 3 stations (local ABC, NBC and CBS) and possibly a local PBS outlet. So, once again, the information consumer was still limited to a relatively small numbers of outlets and the Fairness Doctrine had a role to play.

(Before I continue, you will notice that I have omitted the FM band - I do this because the vast vast majority of FM stations provided music only formats due to the superior sound quality possible on the FM band. FM stations as news outlets is a relative new phenomena) .

Now, in 1976, a true electronic revolution began. In Atlanta, Ted Turner formed what would become a staple of TV today: the nationally broadcast TV superstation: TBS. TBS, as it was uploaded via satellite and made available to local cable companies brought non-local programming into local markets. TBS was followed up (from an entertainment POV) with numerous other "superstations" some of which survive in their original forms (WGN out of Chicago is one) but others have morphed rather dramatically.

Out of the 1st superstation came the next big advancement and that was CNN which in turn spawned numerous other news/information outlets.

So what does this all mean?

By the mid-1980s visionary folks began to see the writing on the wall: the electronic media landscape was going to change from a small limited number of outlets to a larger number of outlets providing a wide range of view points on innumerable topics. So the Fairness Doctrine began the march down the path of superfluousness. During this time period, the average consumer went from 12 stations or so to having access to 20-30 (thanks to the now ubiquitous cable box).

As we continue the march towards the current day, the 1980's visionaries were proven right but on a far larger scale than even their wildest imagination could come up with. Today, the consumer has potential access to several hundred (the dreaded cable box capabilities march onward) and I can't count how many news type outlets - the Fairness Doctrine continued to move further and further back in the closet of useless things.

the one thing that the 80's visionaries couldn't really imagine the explosive growth of an entirely new medium: the internet.

The internet brought something to the electronic media universe some that mere cable/satellite providers couldn't do. It brought the consumer:

1) Current and relevant print media sources from not only their small piece of the world but also from the world at large. In pre-internet days, you might have seen out of town newspapers but generally only their Sunday editions and then it might have been several days after the fact. Ditto for magazines. Don't even start on internationally produced/published sources.

2) Video sources. The internet brings far more video sources than any cable/internet provider could imagine bringing in and from far far more places.

3) Blogs/independent commentary. The internet gave voice to uncounted numbers of commentators and their analysis. Take DU as an example: in the pre-internet days could you imagine a 150,000 progressive voices meeting on a daily basis to discuss issues and share information?

4) the future. Who knows what the internet will bring 2-5-7-10 years from now. Today's internet is almost unrecognizable when compared to it's iteration from just 2 years ago.

All of these factors and the evolution of electronic media frontier does something that the Fairness Doctrine could (and did) never do: brought to your doorstep opinions from across the political and social spectrum on issues from the 4 corners of the globe.

While all of this was happening the Fairness Doctrine continued to diminish as a needed public policy and it was finally removed from the books as unneeded and unnecessary regulation.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine as it was would not really have the impact most folks think it would and it, in fact, could take a nasty unexpected turn.

Take FoxNews: they are a cable only outlet and thus exempt from a license threat by the FCC. As to Limbaugh: the Fairness Doctrine, as pointed out above, would not apply to him directly but rather to the stations that carry him. This would require approximately 600 individual actions, most of which (if not all) would be challenged in court delaying any enforcement of the rules and the USSC (where it would ultimately end up) has traditionally sided on the free speech side and if that case is successfully argued the enforcement action goes down in flames - - meanwhile Limbaugh would continue to blather on. There is also the distinct possibility that he moves off the OTA and ensconced himself on the internet which is no longer limited to a physical location with the advent of mobility devices (iHeart radio/Pandora/Live365 all come to mind - which all can be received on a smartphone or via the internet).

Now what about that nasty turn? It the fervor to ensure "fairness" Congress might very well reach to write the law/regulation to encompass not only OTA media outlets but also the internet. How could they do that? the FCC has some regulator control over telephone lines that make up the internet and a little prest-o-change-o, the FCC now can extend it's neo-Fairness Doctrine tendrils out on the web. Then the door is truly open - places like DU could be forced to allow for alternative viewpoints. Would you really want a bunch of freepers posting? it could happen

My final point is: if all you do is focus on this 1 small sliver of the electronic media pie of which talk radio is an even smaller slice of the pie (there are approximately 15000 radio stations in the USA but only 1861 are classified as "News/News-Talk or Talk" formats - that is less than the number of Country stations - source and Limbaugh is on 590 of those - 4% of the radio spectrum and then for what? 3 hours a day) you run the risk of looking petty and fall into the Republican trap/meme of trying the silence them and/or taking away their 1st amendment rights.