Reader feedback 1.14.04

‘Fairness’ history

Notwithstanding Jeff Goldblatt’s
dismissive tone about the Fairness Doctrine and government regulation of the
broadcast media (“Wronged by a Left-wing Columnist,” The Mail, December 23), he
is wrong about broadcast media history and misleading about the local media’s
performance.

            The
Fairness Doctrine was enacted during the Coolidge Administration (Republican)
in the 1920s after ships at sea began confronting tangled radio wavelengths.
The wavelengths became tangled because there had been no government assignment
and regulation.

            Recognizing
this, then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover (a liberal by Goldblatt’s definition) made this observation:
“Broadcasting is a public concern, and is to be considered from a public
viewpoint.” The Coolidge Administration, he said, had a duty to present a
variety of views on the limited number of airwaves available. Therefore, those
airwaves were not to be sold, but licensed to individual trustees and also
regulated to ensure the public interest was served.

            To preserve
a diversity of views, the Federal Communications Commission was created to
ensure that radio, then television, provided free time for alternative views
“on controversial issues of public importance.” And for four decades,
the government resisted granting radio, and later television, broadcast
licenses to monopolies or multi-media corporations over the airwaves.

            The FCC
closely enforced not only what became known as the Fairness Doctrine but a
lesser-known doctrine termed “local ascertainment,” which required
radio and broadcast television stations (at the time licensed for three-year
periods) to ascertain major local issues and present opportunities for them to
be aired free. For 40 years, that represented the embodiment of free speech and
democracy in this country. (The Fairness Doctrine applied only to opinions, not
to news.)

            After 40
years of court challenges by broadcasters, the US Supreme Court ringingly upheld the Fairness Doctrine’s Constitutionality,
Justice Byron White writing for a unanimous Court: “There is nothing in
the First Amendment which prevents the government from requiring a licensee to
share his frequency with others… with obligations to present those views and
voices which are representative of his community, and which otherwise, by necessity,
be barred from the airwaves.”

            And he
added: “It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the rights of
the broadcasters, which is paramount…. That right may not Constitutionally be
abridged either by Congress or the FCC.”

            With such a
unanimous, all-out endorsement by the nation’s highest tribunal, how could the
public possibly be deprived of free speech on the airwaves that the law still
says it owns? The setback happened under two
militantly-reactionary presidents — first Nixon, then Reagan.

            Nixon began
a campaign of disparagement of both the broadcast and printed media by having
his vice president, later to be convicted of lying, launch a sustained attack.
But it was left to President Ronald Reagan to pack both the FCC and the federal
courts with reactionary judges who vacated the Warren
Court’s ruling, a ruling that once had been
considered as fixed as the stars in heaven.

            So it’s
clear that Jeff Goldblatt is wrong in asserting that
both political parties did away with the doctrine. In fact, Democratic
legislators have more than once moved to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine,
bowing to an inevitable veto by either a Republican president or by the
right-wing Supreme Court.

            It’s sheer
nonsense to equate a few minutes of news-talk on WHAM with regular half-hour as
well as totally free discussion programs that had been the essence of democracy
for over 40 years.

            Mitch Kaidy, Crittenden Road, Rochester

Sexist-ageist?

In the December 30 film clip for Calendar Girls, Jon Popick includes a particularly nasty potshot at
the film’s subject of middle-aged women posing for a nude calendar: “I used
Clorox to wash out my eyes afterwards, but I’ve read that both Tabasco and
scalding hot water with a pinch of lemon juice work equally well, too.” I recognize
that this is Mr. Popick’s attempt at humor; in the same issue, he states that
“the photography session for the calendar is Girls’ best feature and, despite the nudity, I wished it were
longer.” However, the fact that a sexist, ageist comment is intended as a joke
does not neutralize its offensive nature.

            Why did you
choose to print this sexist remark? I could not care less what Mr. Popick
thinks about middle-aged women and nudity: He is entitled to his own opinion. I
am, however, disgusted by your decision to allow this comment to appear in
print.

            I am not
the first reader to accuse Mr. Popick of sexism. Why, then, do you continue to
print such insulting remarks? It seems a matter of rank hypocrisy that your
newspaper, which is so sensitive to social and political issues within Rochester
and MonroeCounty,
would decide to print something so mean-spirited and offensive. Unless you can
assure me that I can read film reviews free of hateful comments, I can assure
you that I will think twice about patronizing any business that advertises in
your newspaper.

            Juliet Sloger, Aberdeen Street, Rochester

Baring it

Jon Popick’s Film Clips of Calendar Girls and Something’s
Gotta Give seem to raise a similar classical issue. In Popick’s words, Calendar Girls portrays “eleven
bored, fifty-something British housewives … [who] bare it all in a nudie
calendar.”

            “I used
Clorox to wash out my eyes afterwards,” he writes, “but I’ve read that both
Tabasco and scalding hot water with a 
pinch [sic] of lemon juice work equally well, too.” Similarly on Something’s Gotta Give, after mentioning
Diane Keaton being seen “in the buff,” Popick writes,
“Meanwhile, the doctor says I might regain the sight in my left eye, even
after stabbing a straw through it 14 times.”

            I find
myself pondering whether or not Popick sees the Oedipal similarities between
his focus on the older female body and his violent response to damage his own
eyesight.

            Valerie McPherson, Crosman Terrace

Bush is protecting

us from terrorism

You have run some bizarre letters recently concerning the
death of US soldiers in Iraq.
One tried to compare soldiers’ deaths to aborted fetuses (you know: the little
ones who can’t shoot back), and the most recent lamented soldiers dying in Iraq
when Iraq posed
no threat and did not attack us. George Bush, our president, seemed to be the
bad guy in both letters.

            On the contrary,
I believe George Bush and his able administration are saving countless American
lives by putting our brave men and women in uniform on the front lines against
terrorism. As some of your readers may recall, New York
businessmen unexpectedly found themselves on the front lines in that war some
28 months ago. I realize some of your readers are at an informational
disadvantage, getting their info from the likes of Tom Tomorrow and Michael
Moore, but I believe Iraq
did have a hand in both WTC attacks, not to mention its encouragement of
Palestinian suicide bombers (“freedom fighters,” you libs
may prefer).

            During the
last Democrat administration, terrorists were free to attack our embassies, our
troops, and our ships at sea. We didn’t respond very much, did we, Mr. Clinton? For that matter, we blew a chance to
declare war against another contributor to world terrorism, Iran,
nearly 25 years ago, didn’t we, Mr. Carter?

            Let us also
recall that without the interference from one Ross Perot in 1992, Bill Clinton
might not have ever been elected to begin with. Instead of Clinton
allowing Iraq
an attempted assassination of GHW Bush, the US
might have had an extra four years to get rid of Hussein back in the ’90s. I
hope everyone who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and/or 1996 will join me in
voting for GW Bush for president in 2004, so the United
States will be able to continue to make the
world a safer place by fighting international terrorism.

            The death
of each US
soldier in Iraq
is a tragedy for our country. The death of each innocent civilian in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and,
let’s not forget, Israel,
is a tragedy for the human race. The sooner we, the United
States, rid the world of international terrorism, the better off life will be for the people of all
nations.

            Joseph St. Martin, Fairport Nine Mile Point Road, Penfield

Defeat Bush

To catch the “Butcher of Baghdad,” we killed
thousands of people, including his two sons. I recently heard an American
general on television discussing the various ways Hussein could be tortured to
make him talk, from burying him in a hole to threatening his daughters. Under
these conditions, how could we be sure that anything he said would be true? And
most importantly, how can we resort to the same methods for which we condemned
him?

            There has
still been no good reason given for the invasion of Iraq.
Blaming Iraq
for the WorldTradeCenter tragedy is like blaming Spain
for IRA bombings in Ireland.
The real culprits are still at large, and most of our National Guard is out of
the country. It will take us decades to recover from the cost of this
ill-advised lack of diplomacy.

            This whole
war has been one big photo opportunity for George W. Bush, from his absurd
“Mission Accomplished” banner to the fake turkey he held on
Thanksgiving for our troops. Bush literally spits on the White House lawn in
front of reporters and uses profanity to describe Democrats, who are fellow
Americans. I urge the Democratic Party to focus on the most important task
facing our nation: keeping GW Bush from serving a second term. His corrupt
administration rivals his father’s.

            Carolyn Swanton, Sackett Road, Avon

Writing to City

We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester14607.

            Our
guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and we ask that you include
your street name and city/town/village. While we don’t restrict length, letters
of under 350 words have a greater chance of being published.
We do edit letters for clarity and brevity. And in general we don’t publish
letters (or longer “op-ed” pieces) from the same writer more often than once
every three months.

This article appears in Jan 14-20, 2004.