The Fairness Doctrine?

In coming days, many of us will start to hear increasing clamor about the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Opponents say that the 1940's era rule that was repealed by the FCC in the 1980's will abridge free speech by forcing broadcasters to include competing assessments to balance their coverage of any given topic. Specifically, they claim and fear that the doctrine will compel broadcasters, especially popular talk radio hosts, to include content (opinions, analysis, etc.) they disagree with but comply with the government's standard of counterbalance.

Supporters claim the rule should be employed to combat what has become a fundamentally unfair and unjust political propaganda apparatus. The argument has many forms but one common one is that media consolidation in the hands of a surprisingly small number of corporate owners has homogenized media content and suppressed substantive competition from divergent analysts, especially if they don't conform to a bombastic presentation style.

As is usual in politics, both sides have a legitimate point and many of the important issues will probably remain unaddressed.

But let's try to get a lay of the land here. First, this doctrine does in fact put speech under government control. That should be troubling to us all even if it does allay concerns about the role of talk radio. Second, the doctrine is being resurrected as a political tool against what has become the media outreach efforts of the Republican apparatus. Now, these two facts alone should warrant our opposition to the proposal. Democrats should pursue other means of eroding Republican political power.

What is not being discussed is just as important. Media consolidation is a worrying trend with many outlet and broadcast types being owned and operated by a smaller number of groups. So, while the actual outlets (satellite radio, traditional radio, cable TV, etc.) proliferate, ownership and content are becoming disturbingly homogenized. The effect is that in a quest for profits, too much content is controlled by too few. Freedom thrives at the intersection of divergent analyses, and media consolidation suppresses that tendency of freedom, that cornerstone of democracy. Additionally, the faith that the goals of profits and substantive public debate are convergent is at best woefully optimistic and at worst willfully misinformed.

Additionally, sensationalist, bombastic, controversial broadcasters grab the attention of media consumers with all of the appeal of hard-hitting journalism but none of the rigor. The resultant product is an all-too-common regurgitation of political party talking points in the name of corporate profits. All the while the regulatory function of the FCC to act in the public's interest is lost. So, the principle freedom of the Bill of Rights is being employed for profits and not public interest.

Does that imply that broadcasters such as Limbaugh and Hannity don't serve the public? No. In fact, they do, just not primarily. Having opinion sharing programs is good. The problem is that their goal is listenership and listenership is driven by style and presentation rather than sober fact finding (e.g. C-SPAN ratings aren't really competitive with, well, anyone's). I am reminded of an example from Hannity's radio program In the wake of the Iraq invasion and faced with lack of evidence of WMD, Sen. Rick Santorum went on Hannity to audaciously declare that the U.S. actually did find WMD. Hannity offered no critical questioning. Of course, Santorum was refuted (painfully if the number of reports documenting the lack of evidence is used as the measure). The style of that interview led one to believe that the truth of WMD's being found was being suppressed, but the facts of that exchange pointed to Sen. Santorum's obvious wrongness, if not prevarication.

There are of course other related issues. For example, where were the concerns over free speech when the public, peaceful, political demonstrations have been relegated to government controlled "free speech zones," well away from where anyone can see or interact with them? Where were Republicans' outrage over the use of gerrymandering and political appointments to advance party agenda?

Let's be frank, the Democrats are willing to infringe on our civil liberties to advance party power, but to about the same degree as their Republican counterparts.

A real "fairness doctrine" should demand accountability for this type of political machination from whatever its source. Shame on the Democrats willing to suppress free speech and shame on the Republicans willing to exploit it.

The Dark Pall of Gitmo Just Got Darker

My previous post may have been too generous to our government's treatment of detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere. 

In testimony this week before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson testified that over 100 detainees have died while in U.S. custody, more than 25 of those have been identified as murder.

The McClatchy news service released a report detailing detainee treatment at Kandahar, Bagram, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. 

Several key points from the piece: a multitude of aggressive interrogation techniques were used that in conjunction (if not individually) constitute torture; many intelligence officials admitted that very little quality intelligence was being acquired overall due to the fact that many of those captured had tenuous connections to Al Qaida or were mere foot soldiers; of the over 700 people passing through Gitmo only 6 people have been charged, that's a 99% failure rate; and finally, a small cadre of lawyers referring to themselves as the "war council" provided the legal reasoning (however specious) to underwrite the administration policy and eschew future legal culpability.

RADM Mark Buzby was quoted as saying, "It's all about developing the [intelligence] mosaic...there's value at both ends of the spectrum..." A sagacious observation.

The mosaic that is developing shows a small circle of federal officials who view our country's laws and the principles on which they are based as impediments to executing a Global War on Terrorism. These men are anathema to our constitution and our democracy.

The Guantanamo Problem

Oh, what to do with Gitmo? The U.S. finds itself in the midst of true quagmire. 

On one hand we have apprehended, by many accounts, some pretty unsavory players on the world scene who have been shown to go back and inflict the kind of harm on American and other forces that we have feared they would. On the other hand, there are some truly dubious reasons put forth for keeping some of the detainees locked up, without access to any representation, without any endpoint to their detention, and under the hope that onlookers trust the process put forth in the Military Commissions Act.

The problem here appears to turn on credibility: do we trust a military tribunal system in whose interest the long-term detention of combatants without a flag seems to be, especially given the detainees' potential ability to provide valuable, if not actionable intelligence. Or do we trust a legal system who is willing to afford those caught perpetrating the most wanton aggression against our countrymen its legal defenses? One group seems ignorant to the basic tenants of the fundamental processes of our democracy while the other ignorant of the prima facie weirdness of offering enemies of our state deferential protections.

But the problem is more fundamental than trust in our government to act effectively in good faith and in our defense. The problem of Gitmo is the central problem of the so-called War on Terrorism: what the hell is "terrorism" anyway and how do we treat it? Is it a criminal enterprise or asymmetric military operation? Are the captured criminals or prisoners of war?

The Military Commissions Act (perhaps just window dressing on a desire to maintain open-ended detention) struggles to deal with stateless combatants and offers a plan to determine their eligibility for inclusion in its processes that barely understands the complexity and gravity of its own purpose. The effect is a quasi-jurist prudence that seeks to try and convict the captured for crimes but not afford them the legal protections essential to American democracy. Also, it regards supposed criminals as warriors who can only be dealt with by military processes.

The result is a juxtaposition of military and civilian institutions that fails to ground itself in the best principles of either. Fueling the polarized interpretations of the processes and institution of Gitmo are the broad spectrum of real possibilities: open-ended detention of potentially innocent prisoners; release of clearly guilty prisoners who rejoin the fight against America; persons of truly unknown status who have no access to disinterested, competent representatives; and obvious combatants who are afforded unprecedented civilian legal rights.

So, this week the Supreme Court  handed down a decision that was sure to be riddled with contradictions, as Scalia's dissent and many commentaries have indicated. But the opposite decision would have been little better. Basically, the Court had to choose between allowing for the disappearing of citizens or a process that puts combatants right back on the battlefield. 

In the end, the country continues to suffer from poorly conceived policy.

The Loss of Tim Russert

I remember watching Tim on Meet the Press just as my political interests began to emerge as a senior in high school. As an adult, Meet the Press became the highlight of my week following politics, especially if there was an interview with a current newsmaker. There are only two shows on television that I set an alarm for and Meet the Press was one of them. My wife couldn't understand my interest, the way I watched with rapt attention, or why the show was unique because of Tim Russert. He embodied the model of good journalism: well-informed, tenacious in his pursuit of truth in the public's service, as fair and balanced as anyone could aspire to be.

His journalism was an asset to us all and his absence will leave the institution of American journalism and American democracy feeling the loss.