[lit-ideas] Re: Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:41:44 -0800
David Ritchie wrote
One of the things I wanted to discover when I ran a seminar on the
history of the newspaper, is where this idea of "balance" came from.
It's not there at all in the beginning of newspapers, or even in the
middle.
I don't know of any laws, regulations, requirements, or treaties that
require 'balance' ('equal time,' 'fairness') in newspapers. Newspapers
are usually known for leaning left or leaning right in their editorial
policies; which way they lean and how far is usually a function of who
owns them. Colonel McCormick never bothered to give Catholics equal inches.
Surely, with newspapers you pays your money and you takes your choice—?
My guess is that the belief that newspapers had some sort of obligation,
legal or moral, to provide 'balance' came from the former 'Fairness
Doctrine,' made up of several FCC regulations which themselves grew out
of the Commmision's policy, at first uncodified, that radio stations
(did it ever apply to TV channels?) were required by law to give 'equal
time' (loosely measured) to opposing viewpoints on controversial issues,
on the grounds that they were federally licensed users of the public
'air waves.' (There's no longer a Fairness Doctrine.)
This is of course, just a guess. I've never heard it suggested that
newspapers have even tacit obligations to be 'fair,' so I hope David's
research will turn up something useful.
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
