The fundamentalist responded in kind by using a series of radio addresses. When the writer got wind of the radio talk, he demanded that the radio station give him an opportunity to respond -- free of charge. Predictably, the station wasn't all too enthusiastic to comply.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), back in the days when the group steered clear of political whim and strove for fairness in the mass media, ordered the station to give the writer time to reply, whether or not he paid for it.
The FCC was applying a principle called the "fairness doctrine," something that seems foreign these days. It requires "radio and television stations to (1) devote a reasonable percentage of broadcast time to discussion of public issues and (2) assure fair coverage for each side." Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). Is that dogma still valid today? One has to wonder.
When a major broadcast network compliantly airs ads about Medicare and anti-drug use, compliments of the Bush Administration, but refuses to air an ad about who will be paying for our massive deficits, because that network doesn't want to air advertising that they deem to be 'attack ads,' are we being fair?
One might argue that the Medicare ads serve the public in that it educates them about changes under the recently passed law. And that the anti-drug ads basically serve the same purpose: they want to inform us that illegal drugs are bad. Hm. That these aren't attack ads; this is informative. Perhaps that depends on your definition of 'informative.'
While we can almost uniformly agree that illegal drugs -- and abused prescriptive drugs -- are not healthy for our bodies, what aren't we being told about the Medicare deal? As citizens, we are entitled to see the weighty document; all it takes is a call to the Government Printing Office. Yet realistically, very few of us will take the time to do so.
Many more of us will watch the ads on television -- although I confess, I've paid scant attention to them -- and many tend to believe what they see in Government-sponsored advertising. Therefore, the Government should be held responsible for the truth of the content. And there is a Government agency responsible for policing truth in advertising too. I wonder if they've been paying attention, and would they truly adequately police themselves? But I digress.
Go To Page: 1 2
