Some of you may remember that local stations used to have guests in the studio regularly to either debate with each other or offer alternative opinions to the station’s editorials on current issues. Today I get annoyed when I watch Bill Fine, “president and general manager of WCVB Channel 5, Hearst Television’s flagship station and Boston’s ABC affiliate,” do on-air editorials like this one.
Sometimes I agree with Fine’s opinions and sometimes I don’t but that’s not the issue. What rankles is that he gets to express his viewpoint on the airwaves and all they offer the viewer is their web address at the end of the editorial as a way to respond. I find this paternalistic and insulting to the idea of entities that hold federal broadcast licenses having a public interest obligation – an ethical if no longer legally mandated one – to provide an opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be broadcast. I suppose I wouldn’t be annoyed if, like other local stations, WCVB presented no station editorials at all. What riles me is seeing Bill Fine’s mug promoting his opinions on camera to viewers over licensed public airwaves with zero opportunity for the rest of us to respond on those same public airwaves. The Internet and social media (net neutrality status notwithstanding) have opened up all kinds of opportunities for anyone to get their viewpoints out but as long as local TV stations like WCVB can do on-air editorials, I maintain my argument.
A facsimile of public response on local stations exists today in the selected guests on certain programs on NECN, WGBH (Greater Boston on weeknights) and Urban Update and CityLine on the weekend. All of the above have carefully selected guests and are not the kind of opportunity I am talking about where people from the community could contact the station and offer themselves as spokespeople on various issues. The stations used to do this. Obviously it would entail more work on a station’s part to vet potential commentators and it would cut into their precious ad revenue. So what.
The FCC had a Fairness Doctrine years ago that required stations to present opposing viewpoints but it was repealed or deactivated by Congress and the FCC. Here are several background links:
History of the Fairness Doctrine
Comments?
I guess I’ve always seen them as the broadcast equivalent of the house editorial of a newspaper and since they are clearly labelled editorials and air after the newscast has signed off I don’t mind. If I have an objection to Bill Fine it’s that so often his editorials are substance-free appeals to both sides to work together to come up with solutions and I find myself yelling at the TV, “For crying out loud, pick a side!” Just be thankful that I don’t think Boston has a Sinclair-owned station which I understand are required to infuse rightwing talking points into the regular newscast.
TV stations are awarded licenses to broadcast on what I thought were public airwaves. Doesn’t that come with responsibilities that are different then those of privately owned, unlicensed newspapers?
While I agree with the sentiment that any media outlet should WORK to have opposing views, the compelling argument for the Fairness Doctrine is that in the “old days” media outlets were a rare commodity–with TV and radio using public airways–and that requiring opposing views was necessary for those views to be heard. But the very fact that your views can now be shared through other means, thanks to technology, undermines arguments to reinstitute the fairness doctrine and past remedies..
Nonetheless, as I replied to Christopher above, local TV stations are awarded licenses to broadcast over public airwaves. I think that should come with the responsibility to present local speakers on local issues.
I made that observation about public airways and do feel it has merit, but not as much merit today as 30 years ago when you had no recourse in finding outlets to express your opinion. That is not the case today, given technology. But you failed to address this point in your response.