McDowell Warns Against Re-Imposing Fairness Doctrine, Cites Obama's Opposition(yeah right)

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell had a message for Democrats, or anyone else contemplating trying to re-impose the fairness doctrine: The move could undermine the justification for existing localism and children's TV regulations, and could be used against public radio.

He also suggested it would not come back wearing a big sign saying, "it's me, the fairness doctrine," but would likely instead be rebranded.

Those were some of the observations McDowell provided Wednesday in a speech to The Media Institute in Washington, which is a strong opponent of the doctrine. A copy of the speech was supplied to B&C.

In the speech McDowell cited candidate Barack Obama's statement to B&C--through an aide--that he did not support the doctrine, and added that "the new administration has a terrific opportunity to enunciate its strong opposition to anything resembling the fairness doctrine.

He spoke at length about the doctrine's origins and its use by both Democrats and Republicans against their opponents. He said he did not know whether recent calls for its return would bear fruit, but felt it was a good time to talk to his audience--of media executives, lobbyists, journalists and others--about its creation, its historical abuses, and the legal difficulties involved with restoring it and trying to enforce it.

The fairness doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987, required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues.

McDowell warned that if the doctrine were revived, it might not "wear the same label. That's just Marketing 101: if your brand is controversial, make a new brand," he told his audience.

He suggested the doctrine could be woven into the fabric of policy initiatives with names like localism, diversity or network neutrality. "According to some, the premise of any of these initiatives is similar to the philosophical underpinnings of the Doctrine: the government must keep electronic conduits of information viewpoint neutral," he said.

McDowell suggested that a stealth version of the doctrine may already be teed up at the FCC in the form of community advisory boards to help determine local programming. McDowell says he is fine with those boards if they are voluntary--some stations already seek such input. But that if they are required, as the FCC has proposed, "Would not such a policy be akin to re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"

McDowell also said that efforts to re-impose the doctrine could stretch to cable, satellite, and even the Internet. "Certain legal commentators have suggested that a new corollary of the Doctrine should be fashioned for the Internet, on the theory that web surfers should be exposed to topics and views that they have not chosen for themselves," adding: "I am not making this up."

In a move obviously calculated to strike fear into the hearts of regulatory-minded Democrats, the same ones who have been making noises about liking the fairness doctrine when it comes to reining in talk radio critics, McDowell had this:

"Actually, in a string of media cases stretching back over more than 20 years, various judges on the D.C. Circuit - both Democratic and Republican appointees - have suggested that it is time for the Supreme Court to rethink the concept of spectrum scarcity as a justification for limiting broadcasters' First Amendment rights. A revived Doctrine would provide a big, bright bulls-eye for those who wish to make that happen. That development would have implications far beyond the Doctrine itself. Much of our content regulation of broadcasters - including most of the FCC's existing localism rules and the regulations requiring three hours a week of children's programming - rest on the spectrum scarcity rationale. If that rationale is invalidated, serious legal challenges to all those other content rules may follow."

McDowell said he was hopeful that the Obama administration understood all this.

"As I watched his inaugural address last week," he said, "I was struck by the relevance of the debate over the Doctrine to a section of his speech where he said, 'To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history ....' 'I am encouraged that President Obama can, once and for all, end the speculation of whether something akin to the Doctrine will come back to life during his term."

What McDowell goes on to say is that if even libs try to do an end run around the fairness doctrine with local advisory boards and allocation of bandwidth/time on air, they may lose in the courts because broadcast radio doesnt limit free speech with everything else out there. In short he is saying "careful dems in what you wish for, for you may surely get it". Then he goes on to kiss Obama's ass because he has to work with him and be optimistic. Obama will try the localism and bandwidth argument and see if he can get away with it.

The “Fairness Doctrine” is The Censorship Doctrine

Media Research Center's Free Speech Alliance is a fast-growing coalition of organizations and individuals, who, like you, cherish free speech and who have proactively joined to ensure the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” never returns to silence the conservative voice in America.

First enacted by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required radio stations give equal time to all sides on political issues. However, the result wasn’t equal time, it was zero time – as stations simply avoided topics that would fall under FCC equal time rules.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and since then, talk radio has flourished. Conservatives dominate it, and liberals can’t stand it. By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others, and would essentially take control of all forms of media.

In recent months, the groundswell for reinstatement is intensifying. In fact, a growing number of liberal leaders in Washington, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have openly stated their intent to do so.

As Americans, we cannot sit idly by while this gag order on conservative speech is resuscitated. The time to act is now—so when the time comes, we are mobilized and prepared to defend our Free Speech Rights.

Join the hundreds of thousands of citizens taking action now through MRC’s Free Speech Alliance, and our national petition opposing the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Media Research Center’s Free Speech Alliance goal is to mobilize 500,000 citizens to forever end the threat of the Fairness Doctrine and other attacks on Free Speech. Click on this link.
http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=18645182

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

Why has no one raised the issue that if radio is going to be subject to a new (Un)Fairness Doctrine, then Television must be subject to it also. Television really was not a factor when the (Un)Fairness Doctrine was first established. Under the most twisted rationales for the doctrine, I do not see how television, using the public airways, should be exempted. ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox would be hard pressed to stay in business with such requirements and with the built in liberal bias of the networks the NEO-Marxists cannot afford to shut down some of their best propaganda tools. Complying with the doctrine for either radio or television, with litigious watch groups, on each side would be a nightmare. I see this position as the great equalizer, if congressional Republicans can grow a backbone.

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.