Posted on 06/27/2007 9:32:27 AM PDT by DCJeanGrey
Prominent Democrats want to revive a policy to require broadcasters to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues, spurred by complaints that talk radio has unfairly impacted the national immigration debate.
An article published Wednesday by The Hill quoted Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.),stating: “It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision.”
The Fairness Doctrine was a Federal Communication Commission regulation that dates back to 1947. Under the regulation, station licensees were considered “public trustees” that had an obligation to present multiple perspectives on public issues. In the 1987 case Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts ruled the regulation was not mandated by Congress and the FCC was not obligated to enforce it. As a result,the FCC discarded the Fairness Doctrine.
Wednesday morning Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) told WYNC’s Brian Lehrer: “The Doctrine ought to come back.These are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes to the balance of the media is when conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. And the result is…. you know they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views.”
Since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded in popularity, while liberal efforts like Air America went bankrupt. The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank comprised of many former Clinton Administration staffers, issued a report on June 21titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” that concluded 91 percent of weekday talk radio is conservative.
The report states: “The gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S.regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.”
When asked to react to Durbin’s remarks about reinstituting the policy, Bill Bennett, prominent talk radio host affiliated with Salem Communications, said, “Wow. This is serious.”
“In the past, I thought some of my colleagues were being a bit too excitable about this, but now you have serious Democrats like Durbin and [Dianne] Feinstein talking about it,” he said. “This is a clear violation of the first amendment and we will fight it with all that we can.”
In a June 24 interview, Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace asked Sen. Feinstein (D.-Calif.) if she would revive the Fairness Doctrine. She said,“Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.”
Feinstein added: “I remember when there was a Fairness Doctrine, and I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people.”
Republican Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.),who appeared on the program with Feinstein, was quoted in a June 15 New York Times article about immigration saying, "Talk radio is running America.We have to deal with that problem."
In the Fox interview, Lott said he did not support the Fairness Doctrine.
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), a former talk radio host, will introduce legislation this week with Rep. Greg Walden (R.-Ore), a radio station owner, to prevent the Fairness Doctrine from being enacted again.
Pence explained that barring any legislation, like the bill he is proposing, a future President could resurrect the regulation.
Last week, Sen. Inhofe (R.-Okla.) told KFI talk radio host John Ziegler he had overheard Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) speaking with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) about “putting a legislative fix” on talk radio in the past.
Pence said, “To me the scenario that presents a genuine threat to the wide-open, free market debate that is talk radio today is the notion of a Democrat President in the White House with appointments to the FCC and some sufficient majorities in the House and Senate to bring this Fairness Doctrine back, all with very carefully veiled in rhetoric about everybody having their say.”
“As long as we have a Republican President in the White House I’m sure we’ll have a veto and I’m sure we’ll have the votes to sustain it. But what happens after a year and half if we lose the White House and we don’t regain the Congress? That’s why we need this legislation,” Pence stated.
Pence will also introduce an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriation bill with Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) to block any federal money from being used by the FCC to impose the Fairness Doctrine.
I’m looking forward to the fight. This is going to be great fun!
"When the Left fails in the marketplace, it turns to government."
That about says it all.
I’m sure this includes the defunding of PBS and NPR.
Right ?
They overwhelmingly won the 2006 national elections yet they still cry like babies and fear an educated public.
That no taxpayer money ever may be used to fund "public" radio or television, directly or laundered through "foundations" or tax exempt "public interest" groups.
I'd buy into that.
Aside from that MSNBC report, last couple of days, showing the laughingly misnomered "mainstream" media leans 63% to 90+% Democrat:
Where bias and cluelessness intersect
MSNBC features a report on the campaign contributions by MSM journalists. The report is based on the public records of the Federal Election Commission. I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that of the 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes...the notion that the press corps as a whole can be unbiased, fair, and objective would be fanciful even if it were not contradicted on a daily basis by its work product...The MSNBC piece confirms just how fanciful. It notes that "The Ethicist" at the New York Times equates the degree of ideological fervor reflected in his contribution to MoveOn.org with that of coaching Little League, donating to the Boy Scouts, or joining the Catholic Church. Journalists this clueless couldn't keep their bias out of a story even if they wanted to. To comment on this post, go here. Permalink
And I've documented the overwhelming leftwing bias of the media for years & years:
-From my file "89% Voted"( for Clinton...)--
Let's give 'em a choice- "OK boys, we'll let your guys on talk radio- if Larry Elder, Rush, and Mike Reagan get equal time on all the networks, papers, and magazines.
Ok, we can regulate talk radio and force it to present both sides. Just as soon as we can regulate Television, newspapers, Hollywood, NPR, and even college professors to ensure non-bias.
Apparently they aren’t afraid of losing dominance in the television marketplace due to re-instituting the fairness doctrine then right?
Actions and consequences, something the left never seems to be able to equate...
Regulating free speech: that’s what liberals and RINOs like best.
I almost want them to pass it. Because I believe the current Court would strike it down pretty quickly. Can’t be sure about the future composition of the court however, and it will always be a pipe dream for leftists as long as they believe its possible.
Naturally leftist ‘RAT scumbags are unconcerned that virtually all of the MSM leans well to the left, that NBC-CBS-ABC-CNN-NPR-PBS and nearly 100% of the largest metro newspapers are all in the tank for the ‘RATs.
The “Fairness Doctrine” is a load of crap. The ‘RATs dominate the ranks of so-called “journalists” 9:1 and have never cared about any honest, balanced presentation of issues.
They are just upset that conservative views that have been slandered, distorted, and squeezed out of the MSM began turning up in radio programming.
.
There is never an exception.
Were it to be instituted I want to see the TV broadcasters cry, which are 99% liberal.
It is also an inidication that they are speaking from ignorance.
As far back as I can remember, Rush has always given the liberal view (usually first) and then summarily shredded it.
Both views are presented.
You emulate my thoghts..Roberts and Suypreme Court,
except the usual libs, will uphold the first amendment
so fast that the Dems ignorance would show the world what
they are all about. Good time to rule on rhis would be in Oct.’08
before the election,, and after Dems put foot in mouth
again....JK
Respectfully, no. Letting it through to pass, and be signed, in the hopes that the SCOTUS would overturn it, is EXACTLY how we got stuck with the Incumbency Protection Act of 2002. (sorry, McCain Feingold)
If these people want to talk about "fairness", how about starting with a major presidential debate that is moderated by someone other than a barking leftist (witness the 2004 debates, Lehrer, Gibson, Ifill, Schiefer [sp])?
And THAT, Ladies & Gentlemen, is Fascism..
Who decides what is “controversial issues”?
Will NPR be subject to the same standard?
Will CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN,MSNBC,PBS etc, etc be subject to the same standards?
Will Air America be subject to the same?
What I have been reading seems to be about talk radio only.
Who decides what “the other side” constitutes? Who decides WHO is qualified to present “the other side”?
Too many questions, too few answers, too many excrement orifices.
Exactly. Someone should propose including newspapers' editorial pages and TV news in the Fairness Doctrine bill, in addition to talk radio. Then watch Feinstein, et al scream that such a provision would violate the First Amendment.
Indeed. Rush's ongoing quote has been, "I don't need to provide 'equal time'. I AM 'equal time'."
To which I will add, and augment a quote from one of Rush's books, "'Fairness'" is not in the Constitution. 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech' is."
These are the people the commies call useful idiots. These are the people who sell the rope to the commies so the commies can hang them.
At this point all the fairness doctrine would do is kill am radio. The conservative message would simply move to another media.
Crazy world.
"Hurrah! Hurrah! For American Rights, Hurrah! Hurrah for the Bonny Blue Flag that bears the Single Star!"
Would this ‘fairness’ apply to Rosie when she joins MSMBC?
Regulating free speech: that’s what liberals and RINOs like best.
Senate must have a death wish. They just help push the most unpopular amnesty bill, now they are talking about regulating talk radio. Vote every single one of them out of office
With the “Fairness Doctrine” and the Amnesty bill, the government know-nothings are pushing my patience to the limit.
Ha! Only if hell freezes over.
Let’s apply the “Fairness Doctrine” to Network & Cables News along with the Print Media!
The Republicans will roll over on this, too.
Unintented consequences here. Just wait until this POS is extended to cover other forms of media to balance out the view points. See how the liberals who control most of the traditional media will scream when they have to give space to Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg and anyone else that they don’t agree with.
“Air America had to PAY for their airtime...”
... and failed miserably. When will libs ever listen to talk radio? Between their botox treatments, video games, bikini waxes, cocaine fixes? Being immersed in deep thought is not their strong suit.
I am afraid that the best and most current answers to your questions may be derived by observing the recent efforts toward freedom of the press by Putin and Chavez.
The Left will employ the might of the American government. The Right will deploy the might of the people who adhere to the ideals and rights enshrined in our founding father’s documents. The Right is armed. The Left is not. Do the math.
No, it is because people know all the liberals have is propaganda and lies and they cannot compete in the market of free thought.
Conservatives should take a mocking, but secretly serious, dual track approach to the Democrats’ call to re-institute the Fairness doctrine in broadcasting.
They should oppose it on principal all the time, while also offering the “Fairness” demands THEY would make if it were somehow re-instituted.
For instance, they could - under any “Fairness” principal - demand that someone like Rush Limbaugh have an hour show on Sunday morning on ABC, following the liberal Stephanopolous. With Rush’s audience, ABC could not argue they would lose money by such “Fairness” because he would likely obtain greater revenue for ABC than does Stephanopolous.
I could give many such examples throughout the LameStreamMedia that conservatives could easily defend on the grounds of “Fairness”.
Lost in all this is the fact that most Americans do not even listen to talk radio.
Politicians and many on the left feel it is a moral imperative for the government to control what you and I hear. Someone, somewhere, may hear an opposing view or hear one of their heroes denigrated.
From the beginning we pointed out that Air American would fail because it’s natural constituency, i.e., potential audience, was already listenting to NPR - funded with our tax dollars - and could only listen to one station at a time.
But no-oo-oh, the left responded that left radio just hadn’t been done correctly - what a coinky dink - that sounds just like their excuse for the universal failure of socialism.
The results were exactly as we predicted.
To be fair I think NPR should be made to broadcast Rush Limbaugh and the New York Times to carry a weekly column by Ann Coulter.
They want to corral the time on a given program based on whom the government "feels" is conservative or liberal. Socialism will be accepted when the Capitalist are silenced. This may be a drastic view and may take a generation or so, but I believe this is Hillary's goal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.