Don’t expect a sudden return of Fairness Doctrine
$845K purchase would place new site ‘nearly’ in center of the city.
Speak not ill of the dead, I was taught in Sunday school. I respect that. But if I couldn’t eulogize Rush Limbaugh, who died Wednesday, without such pinpoint descriptions as bloviating, racist, misogynist, neo-fascist gasbag, I think good ol’ Rush would be disappointed in me, wherever he is.
After all, I would be helping to confirm the angry, humorless, elitist and vindictive image of liberals and moderate RINOs (“Republicans in name only”) that he peddled with very lucrative success since the mid1980s, preparing the way like a latter-day John the Baptist for the election of Donald Trump and, let us not forget, the Jan. 6 attack by anger-fueled Trump supporters on the U.S. Capitol.
There. I’m glad I got that out of my system.
Our current state of national division boiled up in another surprising meme that went viral after Limbaugh’s death: Calls to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
What’s the Fairness Doctrine? Well, kids, from 1949 to 1987, the Federal Communications Commission, which awards the licenses that allow broadcasters to use the public’s airwaves, required television and radio stations to do two things: allow time for an opposing view when they aired a political position, and give an opportunity for anyone who has been personally attacked to rebut the charges on air.
Since violation of the Fairness Doctrine could be grounds to revoke the offender’s broadcasting license, which way beats GameStop stock as a reliable road to riches, stations went out of their way to make “fair and balanced” more than just a slogan.
For my generation, the doctrine’s impact was symbolized in the late 1970s by the popular “Point-Counterpoint” segments on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” which pitted liberal Shana Alexander against conservative James Kilpatrick. Their mini-debates became popular enough to be spoofed repeatedly on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” where Dan Aykroyd memorably rebutted Jane Curtin with a curt, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
She came back at least once, as I recall, with, “Dan, you pompous ass,” a noble attempt, in my view, to match the right’s gifts for sticky invective.
But little did I know that the Curtin/Aykroyd level of discourse would turn up in real life after President Ronald Reagan’s FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
Freed from government-mandated “fairness,” Limbaugh debuted his national radio show a year later on AM radio, which was fading against the superior music sound quality of FM. He deserves credit for changing the media landscape by turning the previously dead three hours of early afternoon into an enormous cash cow that spawned dozens of right-wing imitators.
The Fairness Doctrine is an idea whose time has come and gone. Born in the early post-World War II years when broadcast media consisted of relatively few AM radio stations, it would not offer the choices that its proponents seek in today’s age of endless information sources on cable TV, satellite TV and the beloved internet, none of which use public airwaves.
Today’s media information battle, in fact, is being fought by Big Tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter. That’s where Limbaugh’s legacy led to the presidency of Donald Trump, one of his biggest fans and, one must say, imitators.
The internet giants face a much bigger and thornier debate over how to police the content of their users. If they don’t figure it out soon, the government could move in with remedies of their own, fair or not.
Beavercreek BEAVERCREEK — plans to pay $835,000 for two properties near U.S. 35 and North Fairfield Road that could be a future site for a combined city hall and police station.
Beavercreek City Council on
Monday night approved the 3.25acre land purchase on Seejay Drive at a location “nearly” in the center of the city, said Beavercreek City Manager Pete Landrum.
The city is buying the two Seajay Drive properties from Diverse Ventures Properties and WesBanco Property.
“Land is at a premium in the city,” Landrum said.
In 2016, a building assessment was done for police and city hall buildings. The assessment found that both buildings on Research Park Drive had significant upgrades and repairs needed.
Landrum said the city has determined that bringing the old buildings up to code and into ADA compliance would not be the best financial decision nor would it meet the city’s longterm needs.
This new facility has been in the city’s capital improvement
plan, unbudgeted, since 2019.
“This is badly needed. We need to act quickly to acquire the land,” said Councilman Charles Curran.
Councilman Pete Bales said because the city relies on property taxes, the city has certain funds they can use for this land purchase and the eventual project, like the police fund and the general fund. The city’s street fund is funded by a levy and therefore cannot be used for any purpose other than streets, he said. So the street fund will not be used to fund this project at all.
Beavercreek is asking residents to approve a renewal streets levy in the May election. The levy will be 3.4 mills and a renewal of a current levy that is set to expire at the end of 2021. This levy currently makes up about 76% of the street levy fund revenue and funds public service department salaries.
There are not currently any renderings of the future facility. The city does not yet have a timeline for when the facility would be built, Landrum said.
Beavercreek Mayor Bob Stone said this is the first step in the project.
“We need to plan ahead.
If you sit back and wait until you’re ready to get going, it is going to be difficult,” the mayor said of the land purchase and future project. “We have to do something and this is the first step. We’re taking little steps at a time. We’ll talk to the public when we are ready to take that second step.”