In Favor of the FFC’s “Fairness Doctrine”, Essay Example

In order to prove this statement, it is essential to look into positions and interests of various stakeholders in the target market for radio communications. First of all, the primary purpose of broadcasting companies has nothing to do with an altruistic desire to enlighten people and spread knowledge and information via communication media. Thus, the main purpose of private companies is to make profit and they make the profit by selling time of broadcasting to those political figures or lobbyists who pay more or whom they support for economic and political reasons. Since the final audience does not pay these companies directly and broadcasters make money by placing advertisements and selling air time. The broadcasters have a stronger position in the free market than the final consumers mainly because profit is gained from the third parties that are not directly controlled by consumers.

Since the listening audience does not pay for the service directly, it is in weaker position under the conditions of the free market than broadcasting companies. Consequently, they final audience is being exposed to the information that is favourable to the people that are eager to pay more for the time and influence the target audience the way they want. In other words, the audience has no control over the content that is aired, and it is fragile to the influence of the chosen ones.

Placing this discourse into a political context of elections’ year, the electoral audience can be manipulated by the candidate to pays more money for the time on the radio or who is favoured by the owners of broadcasting companies. Therefore, uncontrolled communication results in the violation of democratic values and manipulation of electorate’s thinking with unfair means. In this regard, the “fairness doctrine” suggesting equal time for both political parties is fair and necessary way of monitoring telecommunications because it equalises the degree of influence of both political figures on the target audience and gives listeners a fair chance to choose between the candidates. By controlling telecommunications in this way, the doctrine protects the rights of audience and equalises them with broadcasters under the conditions of the free market.

Against the FFC’s “Fairness Doctrine”

The FFC’s “fairness doctrine” is its very nature is neither a fair nor necessary method of monitoring telecommunications. First of all, it violates property rights of broadcast companies. Since the owners have the broadcast in their property, they can do with it whatever they wish. They can sell it or give it for free to their business allies, or to the advertisers they think to be the most suitable for their framework. By controlling this activity, the doctrine violates the property right and denies the primary purpose of ownership – making a profit. Since the doctrine suggest that equal time should be given to both political candidates, instead of selling the time to the advertisers or another representative of the same supported party, the broadcasters have to scarify the potential profit for the sake of fairness, which is unfair regarding them.

Regarding the audience, the initial premise that it can be manipulated by a single perspective on the state of affairs is based on the assumption that people are weak and lack independence in decision-making. However, people are self-responsible adults, capable of making choices and judge the situation systematically irrespective of what is broadcasted. In this regard, people can decide whether to listen to a certain program or do something else. One’s political beliefs are quite difficult to change by broadcasting speeches of the rival politician. It can result in the reluctance to listing the broadcast, but that is the program of broadcasting companies that need to make their broadcast interesting for the audience. Thus, the broadcasting companies are more interested to satisfy the audience without “fairness doctrine” control and limitations, since, at the end of the day, it is a consumer they need to interest to listen to the broadcast. Thus, without the doctrine it is a win-win situation for all participants without violating any rights and freedoms of anyone.