Posted on 08/25/2007 11:58:27 AM PDT by Delacon
The First Amendment 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.
This was worked out in Colonial and Revolutionary times with the correct assumption that the government would almost never be neutral.
Freedom of Speech has always meant… Absence of Government Control.
The Fairness Doctrine Defined – Government requirement that when a certain position on a controversial issue of public importance is broadcast, the broadcast licensee is required to present the other side of the issue.
Fairness Doctrine History
The Radio Act of 1927 created the Radio Commission (later becoming the Federal Communication Commission or FCC) and its successor the 1934 Communications Act created a government system of granting licenses for publicly owned broadcast frequencies. The major condition attached was to "operate with public interest." The FCC was charged with enforcement.
Starting in 1929, the "public interest" condition was interpreted as requiring that a licensee provide "ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views on all discussions of issues of importance to the public."
Over the years this developed into the Fairness Doctrine and became an integral part of FCC mandate.
In 1949, the FCC issued two requirements regarding Editorials on Radio… "Broadcasters must give adequate coverage to public issues and this coverage must accurately reflect opposing views on the issue."
In 1959, Congress amended Sec. 315 of the Communication Act with the Equal Time Provision… "The licensee that allows one candidate to use the broadcast station shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office." It also stated that nothing in the amended Section 315 relieves Broadcasters of the "obligation" to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."
From 1959 to 1981, The FCC consistently interpreted the 1959 Amendment to Sec. 315 as codifying the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, in the landmark 1969 Red Lion Case the Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court cited "scarcity of stations and codification of the Fairness Doctrine" as the primary reason for the decision. The Court also stated "the decision could change if it was demonstrated that the Doctrine reduced rather than encouraged discussion of public issues."
Interestingly in 1974, a law imposing an obligation of fairness on newspaper editorials was declared invalid as applied to print media in Miami Herald vs. Tonilla. Print media has no Fairness Doctrine.
In 1981 the FCC, perceiving changes in the conditions cited by the Supreme Court in Red Lion, asked Congress to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. No action was taken.
1985 – The FCC determined the Fairness Doctrine was not codified in 1959.
In 1986, the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the FCC by ruling that the 1959 Amendment did not codify the Fairness Doctrine.
1987 – The FCC formally abolished the Fairness Doctrine on grounds that:
It did not serving public interest The scarcity of media issue had disappeared It violated The First Amendment Since 1987, Broadcasters have operated without the Fairness Doctrine and Talk Radio has flourished. During this time there have been many calls by public figures for reinstatement and bills have been repeatedly introduced in Congress to codify the Fairness Doctrine… all with huge public negative reaction.
In 1988, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but it was vetoed by President Reagan.
In 1991, with massive grass roots support President Bush threatened to veto a similar bill, thus stifling a second attempt on Congress's part to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.
1993 – The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had acted in a reasonable manner in abolishing the Fairness Doctrine.
Since the 2006 elections, the almost daily cries from legislators to bring back the Fairness Doctrine has reached high fever pitch… as if something as significant as the 2008 election outcome depended on it. No doubt this will intensify. There are two ways the Fairness Doctrine could be brought back:
The FCC simply reinstates it. Congress codifies it If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, history indicates these things (and more) will happen:
The First Amendment, which these days seems to be the number one target, will again be significantly depreciated, further eroding our Freedom of Speech. The political party in power will use the Fairness Doctrine to silence critics as was well documented during the Kennedy and Nixon administrations. Many leading Broadcast Licensees will see their licenses at risk and will play it safe by imposing strict speech control. The national and local robust town hall meetings known as Talk Radio will quickly become mundane, dull and milk-toast-like and mostly disappear. Religious speech will be threatened by new government guidelines regarding what constitutes controversial and public issues… issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. The overwhelming majority of the time the public will hear only the Liberal viewpoint presented as "fair and balanced" by the three major TV Networks, the vast majority of newspapers and the major magazines. Déjà vu! Media Scarcity: Media access has dramatically changed since the 1969 Supreme Court Red Lion case. Today there are many more radio stations, even in small communities, satellite radio, internet radio and the internet itself, plus an abundance of FM stations which were few in 1969. Everyone agrees scarcity is no longer an issue.
Conclusion: The Fairness Doctrine's frontal assault on Freedom of Speech not only trashes a vital part of our Constitution but does great harm to our country, nationally and locally by stopping a healthy public debate that is essential in our common search for TRUTH.
Preventing the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is... A HILL TO DIE ON!
Stuart Epperson, Chairman of Salem Communications Corporation.
Ping. Bookmarked.
The First Amendment matters not to the left on this or any other issue. In their minds, The First Amendment should only apply to “approved” speech. And, you know who gets to pass on “approved.”
btt
BTTT
bookmark
I lived through the silenced majority era when JFK/LBJ shills, et al lined up to file FCC complaints that threaten radio station owners' broadcast licenses. Never again.
Our free speech has been protected by the blood of citizens past against foreign enemies.
Our free speech must be defended by blood (if necessary) against domestic enemies; our free speech, their blood.
Bump!
“Our free speech must be defended by blood (if necessary) against domestic enemies; our free speech, their blood.”
Lets pray that it doesn’t ever come to that. Let’s just, come September, call our congressmen and say “Pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act”!
The history of journalism and the First Amendment has long been a particular interest of mine. This article is excellent for its summary of the legislation and the court findings relevant to the "Fairness Doctrine."Apparently journalism was provincial and openly partisan until the advent of the telegraph. The telegraph was revolutionary in its ability to disseminate information across the continent and around the world. Indeed, the conservative American South saw the revolutionary implications of the telegraph - and actually prevented the propagation of long-distance telegraphy and rail lines in the South (and that obviously had a major effect on the ability of the South to wage war against the heavily wired and rail-interconnected North).
But in comparison with the modern broadband Internet connection, telegraphy was unimaginably expensive. Hence, the advent of the Associated Press as a way of sharing the expense of news gathering and dissemination. I take it that it was the homogenizing effect of AP which unified the perspective of journalism. In any case, journalism now is just as partisan as ever but, being unified in its perspective and claiming "objectivity" for its output, much more arrogant. There are many outlets, but they are competitive only in the way that the Yankees and the Red Sox are competitive. The big picture is that, when it comes to promoting their games and their league, they are in league with each other.
Essentially, "liberal" and "progressive" are simply code words for people who agree that the public interest, and the interest of journalism - which is to interest and impress the public - coincide. Just as "objective journalist" is a code for a person with same opinion as a "liberal," who happen to be employed as a reporter. The "liberal" and the "objective journalist" are in agreement that NOTHING actually matters except PR. And the "liberal" and the "objective journalist" accordingly agree that "objective journalists" should define what is "fair" for their opponents - whom they label "conservatives" or "right wingers" - to be able say on the radio. They also agree that "objective journalists" should be able to exercise free speech during election season - but that others should simply shut up.
The First Amendment looks better - and the Fairness Doctrine looks worse - as technology progresses.
I liked your article. It goes into an area that interests me and one that I haven’t found tottally satisfactory explainations. That is, what makes one venue of news gathering media tend to be liberal and another venue tend to be conservative? And with the innate tendency of conservatives to distrust all government, why aren’t all forms of media in allegiance with the conservative movement(at least when it comes to reporting government actions)?
Certainly that is an area where satisfactory explanations have been thin on the ground, and that is why I have posted so much about those topics on FR. I like to think that, after almost six years, the replies onWhy Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimateare closing in on some reasonably satisfactory answers.
Funny how Mr. Epperson's company is one of the largest benefactors of that repeal.
I like to think that, after almost six years, the replies on Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate are closing in on some reasonably satisfactory answers.
I will try to get to the replies but I did read your article and I have to say it didn’t jibe with my instincts. The journalism as entertainment angle. Right off, I asked myself after reading it, if I were to rate print, tv and talk radio in order of entertainment value, print media is the least entertaining yet the most liberal. How would you answer that?
“I remember a time when many conservatives, especially social conservatives, were very scared of having the fairness doctrine removed. They believed that religion would be removed from the airwaves without it.
Funny how Mr. Epperson’s company is one of the largest benefactors of that repeal.”
I was not aware when I posted the article that Mr. Epperson’s company has religious affiliations. I posted the article because I liked what he said in it. Still do. I am not a social con and have posted that I think social cons and small gov’t cons such as myself are at loggerheads all the time because social cons are not bothered by big government so long as it serves their ends(wait for it). Now I don’t know about your observation that social conservatives were scared if the fairness doctrine was removed. I have read many an article on how the fairness doctrine evolved. The fairness doctrine evolved as a response to rural radio’s control over the airwaves over most of the country. It was a very conservative control with very religious leanings. So from the beginning the LACK of a fairness doctrine helped religious programming.
Thanks for the ping, c_I_c. Great post, Delacon. Outstanding article by Stuart Epperson. BTTT!
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.