3/3/2009 9:49:00 AM Fairness Doctrine attacks free speech
Gary Lewis Hillsboro city auditor
Since Congress became overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats with a Democrat president as a bonus, there has been a lot of discussion about bringing back the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
Exactly what is the Fairness Doctrine? According to the on-line free encyclopedia Wikipedia, it was a policy of the United States Federal Communication Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.
The United States Supreme Court upheld the commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.
In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either commission policy or congressional legislation.
So, will the Fairness Doctrine be reintroduced? It depends on who you listen to. Certainly many from the right feel that it's a foregone conclusion that it will be. They have much to fear from the bill because it can be argued that the rise of the conservative majority began with its abolition in the 1980s.
With its demise came the onslaught of the conservative talk radio show hosts who virtually and single-handedly revived AM radio.
It seems that the demands of the marketplace favor conservative shows and audiences over progressive ones.
This seems to be a problem for those on the left who are very upset that so-called "progressive" radio is not getting enough airplay and that the American listeners are bored with left-wing talk radio. So, their answer to a radio forum that spends much of its day lambasting them is to force boring content upon the listening public.
This would be about as successful as the government bailing out Chrysler. From a business standpoint, it doesn't make sense at all unless your intent is to kill the competition, leaving only sports broadcasting, afternoon comedy, NPR and PBS. Come to think about it, perhaps that's what those in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine are trying to do.
But didn't the president say a couple weeks ago that he was not in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine? If that is the case, good!
In my opinion, it's a bad idea that is both unnecessary and dangerous to the freedom of speech. So, can we now end this ridiculous hysteria in the right-wing media and the blogosphere about it coming back?
After all, when it came up for a vote in the last session, they couldn't even get a majority of Democrats to vote for it, much less a majority of the Congress.
The answer is no, we can't. We can't when powerful congressmen, like Henry Waxman, are talking about congressional-mandated advisory boards of community watchdogs for conservative radio. Envision an ACORN-like "advisory board" acting as "community watchdogs" over Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham and others telling them, through the station owners that carry their shows, what they can or cannot say.
Before anyone accuses me of trying to use scare tactics or if that sounds far-fetched, remember that it was only a couple years ago that the liberal left tried to pull Rush from the Armed Forces Radio.
In addition, it was Congress who gave the green light to these so-called community watchdog groups who, in turn, implemented draconian strong-arm tactics in forcing banks into giving out tons of bad loans, thus causing the current economic problems. Therefore, conservatives have a very good reason, backed by historical precedent, to be concerned about the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
Another reason why conservatives continue to speak out against the Fairness Doctrine is because even though the president may say it's a bad idea and even though a majority in the Congress may not vote for it, there is gathering support for what has been dubbed "The Son of the Fairness Doctrine."
Its goal is to regulate conservative talk radio and force unpopular far-left viewpoints on American listeners. Sound familiar? Only this idea, once it makes its way to the Congress for debate, will have shed the original name with its bad connotations in favor of something more palatable.
If the president is truly against the return of the Fairness Doctrine in any form, he can show his support for the "Broadcaster Freedom Act" authored by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint and co-sponsored by South Dakota Sen. John Thune and 27 other senators. Or, the president can answer Rush Limbaugh's open letter that was published in the Wall Street Journal. In that letter, Rush asked the question and asked for a straightforward answer: "Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as 'local content,' 'diversity of ownership,' and 'public interest' rules - all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?"
So I ask you Mr. President. Will you answer Rush's letter publicly? Will you support Sen. DeMint's bill? Will you come out, you yourself and not someone you can later say was not speaking for you, but you yourself come out and say you are against the Fairness Doctrine, and any effort by those in your administration or Congress, to hinder free speech in any way?
We all await your answer.
Gary Lewis is the Hillsboro city auditor and the editor of www.rightrunner.blogspot.com.
Reader Comments
Posted: Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Article comment by:
sandra parker
good article!Just another example of big government controlling everything. Let the market dictate what is on the air waves, not government.
