[fennecfoxen]

The main problem with the Fairness Doctrine is it's a limitation on freedom of speech. This is something that Americans can be quite sensitive to, more than Europeans, if we'd like to talk about people having blinkers on. :)

The Fairness Doctrine was designed in 1949 to "provide adequate coverage of public issues", and when challenged in court it was judged constitutional specifically because the radio and television airwaves were limited. With expanding sources of media, including cable television and the Internet, the availability of broadcast airwaves no longer presents a substantial limitation on Americans being able to access any given point of view.

Modern attempts to revive the fairness doctrine are led more or less exclusively by partisans who favor the Democratic Party and preferred the content of political speech under the old system. (For example, Bill Clinton stated that he supported it "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.") Many of these partisans would like to apply the doctrine to cable television and other non-public-airwave broadcast media. However, court rulings made it quite explicit that if they ever found that the doctrine was limiting political speech, it would be found unconstitutional, so it is likely all of these attempts will fail even if legislated or regulated.

Neutrality and "fairness" is, of course, impossible to judge objectively. Just ask any Wikipedia administrators dealing with edit wars. ;) Government regulation of "fairness" and government domination of the media have the potential to present significant limitations on political freedom - look at various South American dictators' and their forays into controlling the media and bullying opposing points of view. It is the fox guarding the henhouse. Of course, sometimes you may have relatively benevolent foxes (I hear the BBC's okay!) or you may just have suicidal hens who fawn over the latest bit of personality-cult politician voluntarily (no further comment on this topic, this post is enough of a digression).

[dalke]

I remember reading Pipi Longstocking, where she's asked why she's walking backwards. She replied 'Why not? It's a free country.' It was rather a surprise to me since I used to think of that as being an American reaction, not a foreign one. But Sweden (where I now live) is rather proud of its free speech heritage, and you can see its history in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Sweden . The Press Freedom Index rates it much higher than the US for its freedom of the press.

This does not apply to all of Europe. I do not like several ways in which Germany restricts speech, including its 'blasphemy against religion' laws.

In any case, it's true that I did mix up two different points to make a comparison. The BBC model, used also in the Nordic countries, does not have a monopoly on television broadcast. Other broadcasters, including commercial ones, can and do exist. The Fairness Doctrine does not apply, no, if others can and do broadcast? (Though on the other hand, radio here is not that diverse. I miss listening to odd-ball student radio.)

The Swedish view is that an independent news source, independent even of the advertisers, makes for a more informed public. Notice please that I'm saying "independent" here and neither neutral nor fair. Italian public television is part of the government, and not run by a (mostly) independent organization.

This also different than the US model, where public television is sponsored by its own viewers and by various grants. In the BBC model, the funding comes from the TV license fee, and the rates are under review by the legislature and subject to a charter. (I actually don't know how the Swedish equivalent works here.)

So, in the US we think that the news should be funded only by the people who watch it, either through voluntary membership payments or indirectly through its advertisers. In the Nordic countries (and others), they think that leads to a less informed public.