Theres more besides the joyrides
Little house in the countryside
Understand, learn to demand
Compromise, and sometimes lie
Get the Balance Right – Depeche Mode
After their first two records were released in 1981 and 1982, respectively, Depeche Mode band member Vince Clarke, who was the bands original songwriter, left the band. With the group making inroads in the active European new wave music scene, they recruited Alan Wilder to join the group, and the bands lineup would remain stable for nearly 15 years.
While they toured Europe on the music from their first two albums, Depeche Mode went into the studio to record a new album that included Wilder. While band members recounted the difficulty of using new synth technology in the song to record, when it was released as a single in 1983, it immediately hit the UK charts, peaking at No. 13 on the British charts. The song did not fare as well in the US, topping out at No. 31 on the dance music charts and never coming near the Billboard Hot 100.
The story behind the songs video, as well as its lyrics, makes it an excellent choice today. When Depeche Mode met with director Kevin Hewitt to put together the video, he assumed Wilder, the new band member, was the lead singer, rather than Dave Gahan, who actually provides the lead vocal on the track. The band was too embarrassed to correct the director, and the video ended up pushed out of the groups live video rotation during concerts until nearly 20 years later.
Many felt that the songs creation struggles were a reason for Depeche Modes inconsistency in including the tune in their tour playlist, let alone featuring it or its video. Instead, it was entirely about the bands discomfort with the video.
All too often, something that appears one way on the surface can have underlying things that alter our view.
In our bipartisan world, one thing has become unified recently: a push to reinstitute the fairness doctrine.
Unfortunately for those who are acting in good faith on all sides, theres a lot of misunderstanding about what the fairness doctrine would do in the modern world.
For background, the fairness doctrine was a rule of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that was introduced in 1949. At its core, it required that anyone holding a broadcast license to present tough issues, and to present them by fairly reflecting both sides. Court rulings further clarified that due to limited broadcasting channels available for over-air radio and television at the time of the fairness doctrines implementation, the doctrine could be applied to radio and television broadcasts, but not to print media.
The fairness doctrine began to face real legal challenges with the advent of cable programming, but before that, what seemed to be a tool to promote even broadcast coverage was really utilized by both parties to stifle party-focused radio broadcasters, with representatives of both the Kennedy and the Ford administrations admitting that they used the doctrine to harass radio talk show hosts who were on the other side.
The first legal challenges to succeed led to settlements by the government in the early 1980s, and then FCC chairman Mark S. Fowler put together a committee to examine how the doctrine had been used in its (at that time) 30-plus years of existence. Fowlers commission stated that the execution of the doctrine had resulted in nothing short of free-speech violations by the government. Based on that report and a pair of court losses for the government, Congress directed the FCC to consider alternatives to the fairness doctrine. In 1987, the FCC opened up an inquiry that included public comment, and the doctrine was abolished by unanimous vote of the FCC board. This was during Ronald Reagans presidency.
Once the doctrine was removed, one immediate change was heard on the radio airwaves. Rush Limbaugh was signed to a national radio deal in 1987, and similar bombastic personalities from the far end of each side of the aisle really made their push onto the radio once the fairness doctrine was no more.
Portions of the doctrine were still enforced by the FCC until a full removal of the doctrine was approved in 2011, though by that point, there was only one small portion of the doctrine that had succeeded when challenged in court and was still in use.
Television broadcasting didnt experience a major impact when the doctrine was revoked because court cases established in the early 1980s that cable and satellite television did not fall under the purview of the doctrine. Roughly at the same time that the doctrine was eliminated, partisan cable entertainment news channels began to pop up, but that was in response to the expanded availability of channels on cable and satellite TV.
Those who would like the fairness doctrine put into place often are seeking to do things that the doctrine never did in the first place, such as regulate cable and streaming channels, regulate satellite radio channels, and regulate internet content for balanced coverage of issues. None of those would have been affected by the fairness doctrine when it was in place.
There is still the equal-time rule that states that political candidates on broadcast television should receive equal broadcast time. Again, this has been shown to only be enforceable on broadcast television and radio, so cable and news print are not part of the rule.
Could something akin to the fairness doctrine be put into place again? Certainly. Many attempts to do exactly that have been tried and failed for various legal reasons over the last forty years. The likely angle for change would involve tightening rules around the number of stations one ownership group could legally own.
What this means for you, the news media content consumer, is that the onus for ensuring the news you get through broadcast media, cable or streaming media, the Internet, or even print news is verifiable and accurate falls back on you.
Many have exploited the lack of attention to back-checking through social media memes and false stories, meant to draw clicks through rage-bait against the other side. The rise of artificial intelligence will only increase this.
In concept, the fairness doctrine is a great idea. In execution, enforcing such a doctrine runs contrary to our First Amendment rights as Americans and has been shown to be easily abused by those in power in the past.
The most balanced and fair approach is to educate yourself on the issues, allowing you to understand the slant in what you are presented.
Leave a Reply