Democrats long for 'Fairness Doctrine': Congresswoman seeks to lessen impact of talk radio

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, April 19, 2005 | Ron Strom

[JohnHuang2]

In an attempt to lessen the impact of so-called conservative talk radio, a New York congresswoman is leading an effort to re-establish the "Fairness Doctrine" for radio and television broadcasters in the United States.

It's been nearly 20 years since the Fairness Doctrine – which said broadcasters had to provide "equal time" to opponents of political views expressed on the public airwaves – ruled the radio and TV industries.

Imposed originally by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. Court of Appeals in 1986. The court found the rule was not a law but only a regulation, so it could be rescinded by the FCC – which it was. President Reagan vetoed a 1987 attempt by Congress to make the policy law.

In 1993, Congress unsuccessfully attempted to re-institute the rule. At the time, talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh rallied his supporters to help defeat the effort, which he dubbed the "Hush Rush" bill.

Despite the failed campaign in '93, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., is confident she can shepherd the Fairness Doctrine through Congress this year, once again requiring broadcasters to provide "equal time."

A website dedicated to resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine is collecting signatures from Americans who support Slaughter's bill, H.R. 501, or the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, which was introduced Feb. 1 and has 12 co-sponsors.

"Since [1987], the country has experienced a proliferation of highly partisan news outlets that disseminate unbalanced news coverage," says a statement on the site. "Democracy is built on the idea that the views, beliefs and values of an informed citizenry provide the best basis for political decision-making."

Complains the petition: "News consumers, particularly those of talk radio, are overwhelmingly exposed to a single point of view. A survey conducted by Democracy Radio this year revealed that 90 percent of all broadcast hours on talk radio are fairly characterized as conservative."

That preponderance of right-wing voices has motivated Slaughter and others to call for the Fairness Doctrine to be put into place again, hoping it will give government-mandated time to more left-wing broadcasters.

Even so, the website claims it is not an ideological fight, but a process "by which the public is returned to the table of media policymaking."

States the site: "The Fairness Doctrine is fundamentally about making sure broadcasters uphold the social contract they have made in exchange for the free use of billions of dollars worth of the public airwaves. The first provision in the doctrine requires broadcasters to cover important issues. The second provision calls for balance. It's hard to argue against the people's right to be informed about important debates and to hear all points of view. …

"It's not a pre-emptive tool for censorship. It's not a tool that favors one political perspective over another. Historically, it was applied sparingly – not to punish broadcasters, but to promote better public service media."

Slaughter's bill requires broadcast licensees to hold two "public hearings" every year to "ascertain the needs and interests of the communities they are licensed to serve."

Also, the bill states, "All broadcast licensees must document and report in writing on a biannual basis to the FCC how they have covered the ascertained issues of public importance, and how their coverage reflects the diverse interests and viewpoints in their community."

A station that fails to live up to the regulation is subject to sanctions and fines by the FCC, including possible revocation of the broadcaster's license.

Any "interested party" can file a request for the revocation of a specific license on the grounds that the broadcaster failed to "afford reasonable opportunities for presentation of opposing points of view on issues of public importance in its overall programming. …"

Fairness Doctrine proponents are decidedly anti-broadcaster, saying the media have betrayed the public trust.

"When broadcasters are left to their own devices, the public loses," says a statement on the pro-Fairness Doctrine website. "Although media outlets have proliferated with the growth of cable and the Internet, the fact is that most are owned by the same handful of media giants that also own most of the mainstream radio and television stations. This massive consolidation within media over the past two decades has severely damaged the quality of news coverage in this country."

The bill cites a study done by a group that is joining the effort to bring back the regulation, Democracy Radio:

"[A] 2004 survey, done by Democracy Radio, found that there were 2,349 hours of local conservative programs broadcast every week versus 555 hours of local progressive programs, and 39,382 hours of national conservative programs broadcast every week versus 2,487 hours of national progressive programs."

Christian broadcasters are concerned about the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine again going into effect.

National Religious Broadcasters President Frank Wright told a convention of the organization last month that if equal time had to be given to opponents of Christianity, "it could be the end of Christian broadcasting as we know it," CBN News reported.

When the House of Representatives debated and passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act in February, Slaughter and some other Democrats took the opportunity to push for the Fairness Doctrine.

Said Slaughter on the House floor: "When newspeople present political opinion as hard news with no accountability or fact for truth, I call that indecent. When it becomes common practice to pay members of the media to deceptively advocate a political agenda on public airwaves without disclosure to the public, I call that indecent."

Slaughter's staff failed to return multiple calls seeking comment.

[defenderSD]

I don't see how this bill could possibly pass in a GOP-controlled House and Senate. This bill is horses### anyway because the MSM is obviously biased to the left and has an overwhelming pro-Democrat agenda. So if talk radio would be compelled to offer opposing views, then so should all the pro-Democrat TV news networks. I don't think CBS news wants to bring Rush on their show to provide "equal time" for a conservative perspective on the news.

[SuziQ]

In an attempt to lessen the impact of so-called conservative talk radio, a New York congresswoman is leading an effort to re-establish the "Fairness Doctrine" for radio and television broadcasters in the United States.

[The_Reader_David]

So, how about we take them up on this. But we demand equal coverage for the successes of American and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, equal access to network broadcast news for a reporter who will sneer at the pro-death side the next time a Terri Schaivo type case arises, equal time in all network news reports for the pro-Republican side when there is a contrived 'scandal' a la Tom DeLay . . .

Oh, okay, we'll see to it that all our new conservative news broadcasts on TV network news are wrapped in an air of faux objectivity, just like the liberal news broadcasts. Fair enough?

Actually the whole thing is unconstitutional, but since the SCOTUS couldn't see that McCain-Feingold was a law abridging the freedom of the press, the position I just enunciated may be a necessary fallback position until we can reign in the judiciary. (And it makes some good talking points to shut the left up on this in any event.)

[Bernard Marx]

Now, what part of the first amendment don't they understand?

The part they don't like -- just like the second amendment and any other part of the Constitution that disagrees with their totalitarian agenda.

[Soul Seeker]

McCain would vote for this.

In 1993, Congress unsuccessfully attempted to re-institute the rule. At the time, talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh rallied his supporters to help defeat the effort, which he dubbed the "Hush Rush" bill.

ROFL!

[Mike Darancette]

I wonder who Air America will choose to be their balance?

[potlatch]

Very nice!!

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

It would then also apply to NPR and PBS. Turnabout is fair play. Their beloved left-wing institutions would have to be shared with conservatives. Hahaha. That would be a change - conservative radio without commercials. I like it! < :D

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Let's stay on top of this. If this "fairness" doctrine goes through, IT HAS TO APPLY EQUALLY TO NPR, PBS, AND ALL OTHER LEFT-WING BROADCAST CORPORATIONS, including Sirius (home of Howard Stern), HBO, and whatever other leftist corporations exist. EQUALLY. Fair is fair.

[okie01]

I don't see how this bill could possibly pass in a GOP-controlled House and Senate.

It would never pass the House, that's for certain.

But, with all the RINO wusses, I'm not sure you could count on the Senate.

[white trash redneck]

Though I don't favor resurrection of the "Fairness Doctrine" or anything else that would interfere with conservative talk radio, there is one thing I don't understand. I can see how the Doctrine would make it impossible for Rush to broadcast. Why couldn't the Fairness Doctrine be applied equally well to, for example, CBS, CNN, or NPR?