Fairness Doctrine - By Any Other Name

Barry, it's impossible to ignore the ongoing discussion and renewed calls from members of Congress to bring back the Fairness Doctrine or what many are saying will be legislation that will go by a different name.

As we've discussed before , the Fairness Doctrine is an antiquated Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule dating back to the 1940s that was abandoned in 1987 during the Reagan administration.

In theory, the Fairness Doctrine was designed to enhance political discourse by requiring television and radio broadcast stations to "cover vitally important controversial issues of interest in their communities" and "provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on those controversial issues of public importance." In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council Against Television Station WTVH Syracuse, New York, 2 F.C.C.R. 5043 (1987).

In practice, however, the Fairness Doctrine stifled political debate and forced broadcasters to subsidize unpopular programs and significantly limit their coverage of controversial topics. After nearly four decades of experience in applying the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC concluded in August 1987 that "the fairness doctrine contravenes the First Amendment and thereby disserves the public interest."

There's a new flurry of activity in Congress - seeking to bring back this troubling measure or something like it. And, in our analysis , such a move would be an unconstitutional attempt to stifle free speech.

White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod refused to rule out the possibility that the Fairness Doctrine would make a comeback. In an interview with one of the Sunday news programs, he said he would leave that issue to incoming FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski to discuss with President Obama.

And, now comes a report that there are ongoing discussions about this very topic on Capitol Hill. Consider this from a news report just out today:

"Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such."

Barry, the American people understand what's taking place. In a new poll just released, just 38% of Americans support government-mandated speech on radio - a sharp decline of nearly 10 points since the last survey taken in August. While 47% of Americans oppose government-imposed speech on radio stations, 65% of Americans believe it is likely that the Democrat-controlled Congress will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

We have seen repeated efforts to bring back this troubling regulatory measure. A 2005 bill sought to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine by requiring broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance" in a manner "consistent with the rules and policies of the Commission in effect on January 1, 1987." H.R. 3302, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., July 14, 2005.

The legislator who introduced that measure in 2005 now says he plans to reintroduce it in this session of Congress. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D - NY) plans to reintroduce his 2005 bill. "We're going to focus attention on [the Fairness Doctrine] and see what happens," Hinchey told an Ohio newspaper.

And, now, there's a new wave of lawmakers who seem very intent on trying to bring this regulatory measure back. But this time, there's talk of calling it something else. In recent weeks, a number of lawmakers - including Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) - expressed support for this type of legislation.

Sen. Harkin told a radio show that "we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again."

And this from Sen. Stabenow in a recent interview: "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else - I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves."

Barry, I know you don't think this is a big deal. But, it's hard to ignore the continued pleas from those who keep talking about bringing back regulation aimed at controlling conservative - including Christian - speech.

Whether you call it the "Fairness Doctrine" or something else, this is a road that President Obama and Congress should not go down.

PETITION TO BLOCK CONGRESSIONAL
ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

To: U.S. Congress, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States

Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances";

Whereas, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal of censoring talk radio by other means, and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs as the arbiters of "fairness" rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas;

Whereas, the U.S. experimented with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for 38 years - from 1949 through 1987 - during which time it was repeatedly used by presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism;

Whereas, the abandonment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech - starting with Rush Limbaugh - that revitalized the AM radio band and provided Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints;

Whereas, talk radio is one of the most crucial components of the free press in America, and is single-handedly responsible for informing tens of millions of Americans about what their government leaders are doing;

Whereas, it is a wholly un-American idea that government should be the watchdog of the press and a policeman of speech, as opposed to the uniquely American ideal of a free people and a free press being the vigilant watchdogs of government;

Whereas, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - either under that name, or using a new name and even more devious methods - represents a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and its re-imposition would constitute nothing more nor less than the crippling of America's robust, unfettered, free press:

SIGN THE PETITION at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=87882

Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.

“I say so what if they put this back into effect. I recall several totally liberal radio stations that couldn’t make enough money to stay in business. The clown in Minnesota that is still trying to steal the election is another fine example.”

This is the most common confusion over the “fairness doctrine”. Not that I would be for any government control over freedom of speech, but lets suppose that all it meant was that there was “balance” on talk radio. For one, since there is a finite amount of time in a day, if liberals got equal time, then that would knock some conservative broadcasters off. But you may say, thats the price we pay for a fair viewing of all political opinion. The problem is that broadcasters are businesses and are in business to make money. If they are required to air liberal commentators who havent made money then the broadcasters will lose money by putting them in slots that were previously occupied by money making conservative broadcasters. Fine, you may say, because its the price for those broadcasters to pay for the right to air on public airwaves where local content and diversity are wanting. Wrong. For one, who is to say which conservative host should be tossed over the side? Is it the national hosts like Rush and Hannity? Or is it the local conservative host. Likely, any government imposed “balance review board” will choose to toss out Rush and Hannity and try and “balance” with local conservative hosts, claiming that those nasty big name hosts don’t represent the local communities. Forget about the fact that the only reason broadcasters air these guys is because local communities listen and they generate revenue. Fine, you may say. We must have an equal sharing of political views. Fact is, we already have that. Its called the free market of ideas. If an idea is worth being aired then broadcasters will figure a way to air it and make money off of it and some venues are more supportive of liberal ideas over conservative ones. Liberal povs hold sway over tv and press, and conservative views hold sway over radio. I’d prefer it be the other way around but I wouldn’t want to governmentally mess with it. Fine you may say, let the government meddle with fairness in the name of diversity or localism, its the price we pay for a free society. Wrong. What will happen is that broadcasters will get sued by third parties(read ACORN) until they choose not to air any political talk radio at all. And if you don’t think thats possible, well that was exactly why there was almost no political talk radio until the fairness doctrine was rescinded.

The reason Chuckie Schumer and company love the Fairness Doctrine is because it would FORCE the radio stations to be "balanced"--that is, for every minute they have a rightwing commentator on, they will have a leftist on.

Putting aside for the moment that there isn't a black and white division between left and right, but many shadings including libertarian, communist, anarchist, etc, the real goal of this is right there in that word "balanced".

Let's say Obama comes up with, oh, I dunno, a $1 trillion stimulus bill, and the American people don't have 48 hours to see this material. Instead, they rely on the media to give them the scoop.

What do they have now?

The paper of record, the New York Times, and CNN, MSNBC, the alphabets on one side, and various newspapers without the rep of the NYT (which is fading because of revelations about its extreme leftism and lying reporters...which no one would know much about without opposition newspapers) and FOX.

And...talk radio, which is the ONLY one of these outlets which allows an ordinary citizen to pick up the phone and almost instantly get his or her opinion out to the public, and add to the discussion.

TV allows occassional call-ins that last seconds. Newspapers allow one page of letters a day.

So talk radio is the ONLY outlet for the ordinary person.

OK, so shouldn't ALL voices be allowed to--

Stop right there.

"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Talk radio is an arena for free speech (as well as for freedom of the press, peaceable assembly, and petitioning the government due to calls for representatives to do certain things; this becomes literal when you realize that talk hosts can often get representatives on the phone and air when "regular citizens" can't).

Here are definitions of "abridge" from dictionary.com (I quote at excessive length to drive the point home):

to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.

2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.

3. to deprive; cut off.

To reduce the length of (a written text); condense. To cut short; curtail. See Synonyms at shorten.

To make shorter; to shorten in duration; to lessen; to diminish; to curtail; as, to abridge labor; to abridge power or rights. "The bridegroom . . . abridged his visit." --Smollett.

She retired herself to Sebaste, and abridged her train from state to necessity. --Fuller.

2. To shorten or contract by using fewer words, yet retaining the sense; to epitomize; to condense; as, to abridge a history or dictionary.

3. To deprive; to cut off; -- followed by of, and formerly by from; as, to abridge one of his rights.

Not enough?

Here is the definition from Websters:

Main Entry: abridge Pronunciation: &-'brij Function: transitive verb Inflected Forms: abridged; abridg·ing

: to diminish or reduce in scope abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States —U.S. Constitution amendment XIV> —abridg·ment or abridge·ment noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Back up to that list of TV stations and papers (I only mentioned the NYT but you know there are more). No one forced or forces them into being balanced. They are free to publish what they will.

Put aside the conservative angle--the reason politicians want this is in order to water down the ONE part of the media that is made up in large part of the voice of THE GOVERNED.

The Fairness Doctrine will ABRIDGE the right of free speech in this country.

Really, what else need be said?

Tunehead54, I do agree that divide and conquer is one part of their strategy.

Divide and conquer is a great strategy for the liberals, after all, that is their bread and butter in their policital world, playing one minority group off against another, each vying to see who can be the biggest victim or special interest group. Conservatives, in a lot of cases, didn’t even have to take any action to get the liberals involved in vicious infighting against each other, often with hilarious results. But the left did it much more effectively to us, and with intent. The Democrats pulled the stinking carcass of immigration out of the bag and threw it on the table, then sat back and never said a word, figuratively speaking. They knew we would go after it, as we should have. It was and is a worthy issue, but they used it as a tool. That can be effective on passionate people, even smart, thoughtful ones. We are all human. But I digress.

I don’t think having one unifying issue or grievance is the key.

However many the list of grievances, keep in mind that a blizzard is not one massive snowflake, it is a lot of small, individual ones. That collection of single snowflakes could bring down the strongest oak tree. It is that accumulation, the death by a thousand cuts that occasionally moves more earth than the largest earthquake or tidal wave could ever accomplish. (A good example is to compare what erosion over time does to land versus an earthquake or tidal wave.)

Just Look at the list of grievances our forefathers had:
******************************************************

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

******************************************************
That is a long list of a lot of grievances.

Someone asked in a post the other day: “What will it take to wake up the giant?”

The way I see it, there are two major issues that will wake up enough people and bring enough people together to breathe life back into this country of ours. Those two issues are:

Freedom of Speech and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The “Fairness Doctrine” is a direct attack on freedom of speech. It is not even oblique, cloaked or subtle. it is head on. But it simply isn’t a monolithic attack on loud, opinionated talk-show hosts. It is this, in conjunction with a lot of other issues dear to liberal hearts, including chillingly Orwellian inventions such as Hate Speech and Political Correctness. Even campaign finance reform. Look at the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform legislation. Most Americans who were paying attention didn’t see at all for what it was, and the rest, well...they simply weren’t paying attention. It was a high stakes political poker game, and our Freedoms of Speech were the bargaining chips. Make no mistake, it was the liberals who were pushing it, because they knew that CFR had absolutely nothing at all to do with money, and had EVERYTHING to do with freedom of speech. What could be worse for a liberal than for someone to get vocal leading up to an election and attempt to point out the Emperor ain’t got no clothes. If they could find a way to legally duct tape those mouths, it only benefits them.

My President signed it into law. To this day, this man I supported and still think did a great job, signed that anti-constitutional bill into law. He failed badly when his pen hit the paper that day. He punted it down to the courts to overturn...he NEVER should have done that. But he did. And...the courts didn’t. And in my eyes, he bears the brunt. He abdicated his duty as President. But that bill is law, the Fairness Doctrine could become law, extensive Hate Speech legislation at the federal level cannot be far behind.

And the next thing you know...you have to be careful. You have to watch what you’re saying. You find yourself looking over your shoulder before saying something. You hear about people getting arrested for saying things. You see laudatory reports on the news about kids who reported what their parents said to officials at school. We have seen it all before. You would think people would recognize it. But they seem not to.

I think this steady erosion of freedom of speech will turn out to be one major galvanizing point among Americans.

The other will be the effort of the government to disarm the population. Five years ago, I was not a gun owner, and I would have ranked gun rights below some other issues. I now understand what it means to own a firearm, the responsibility that comes with that right, and the ultimate reason our founding fathers thought it was important enough to put as number two on the list of rights. The ownership of guns can prevent tyranny by the very government that is supposed to serve us. Most dictatorships understand they must disarm the populace. The Second Right insures The First.

Anyway, I got carried away, but the bottom line is, we have room for a lot of grievances. it isn’t a zero-sum game. The more grievances you throw on top, the better the odds become of fixing at least some of them. Liberals allude to that in “Rules for Radicals”, but their motivation, focus and intent is very different from the “worse is going to be better” approach by many conservatives. True Liberals want to take your rights away. True Conservatives want to keep them.

What set me off on this long response? I finally purchased my own copy of “The Road to Serfdom”. I read it a few years back, but it didn’t seem very relevant at the time, so while it left an impression on me, it didn’t affect me the way “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers did. However, as this last election progressed and I began to see very ominous signs that the country didn’t seem to be all that upset that a committed socialist was running for the Presidency. As I watched this, culminating in the famous “Joe The Plumber” episode, my mind turned more and more to “The Road to Serfdom”. I began to try to dredge up pieces of it, then finally checked it out from the Library. It is stunning and heartbreaking. After reading the first two chapters, I stopped on my way home from work and purchased a copy I could mark up and keep. So far, the book is a clear, unequivocal and chilling warning not only with respect to the economic dangers of socialism and the descent into tyranny it always results in, but in our empty headed willingness to continually dally with it. “Nobody has done it right yet...” So we forget socialism only leads to misery, pain, tyranny, poverty and war. Witness Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union.

Yet, to avoid it, all we must do is open our eyes and pay attention...look at the past, and try not to repeat it. But with both eyes tightly closed (literally) our elected officials signed this horrific legislation and many Americans are now holding out their hands with their eyes tightly closed as well.

I have only one question: "Is journalism objective?"
If it is, then the Fairness Doctrine makes sense, since journalism, being objective, will fairly critique unfairness in broadcasting.
But the question is, how does anyone go about proving that journalism is objective? One example of coverage of a controversy which seems objective to you now cannot suffice to prove the proposition; it would be necessary to examine all coverage over all time - including the unavailable future time - in order to make that conclusion. And even then, how would you know that you were objective in making that determination? Who is to be trusted to make that exhaustive determination?
The Constitution has a clear answer. Article 1 Section 9 ordains that:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States
The First Amendment requires that
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
It follows that nobody has the right to unquestioned determination of what is fair in public discussion.
The assault on liberty which we-the-people are faced with comes from a group of people who own, or work for people who own, printing presses or radio/tv broadcast licenses and who belong to an organization styling itself the Associated Press. And we have the co-extensive group, the "National Press Club." And notwithstanding the uncontroverted fact that not just newspapers but also books and magazines are produced by printing presses and are covered by the First Amendment, or the fact that broadcast journalism is not produced by printing presses and is transmitted under government license as books and magazines and newspapers are not, the Associated Press/National Press Club presumes to be "the press" and presumes to have rights superior to the people whom it presumes to have the right to exclude.
Any person who styles himself "the press" arrogates to himself the right to exclude people - most people - from equal right to participation in the public discourse. The right to freedom of the press is not a privilege of the government, and it is not a privilege of noblemen. It is a right of the people. And the right of speech and press is not a right of the speaker and the printer only, but equally is a right of the voluntary listener and reader, without which the right to speak and print would be mooted.
The Right to Know

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.