Gearing up to pass the Fairness Doctrine
Posted by: McQ
The first indicator that an attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine was afoot was the publishing of a study on political talk radio put out by a liberal think tank which claimed the genre suffered from a "structural imbalance" that needed to be fixed by Congress.
Then there was the little he-said-she-said incident in which Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said he'd overheard Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) complaining about right-wing talk radio and their desire for a "legislative fix". That has been followed by a plethora of statements which seem to give credence to the feeling that Democrats will again try to regulate talk-radio and mute its predominantly conservative voice. For instance, Sen. Dick Durbin:
"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
Sen Diane Feinstein:
"I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit," she said. "But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness."
Of course the obvious answer to their concern is to direct public supported National Public Radio to air "both sides", but for some reason, that seems to be persistently left out of this debate. Instead, it is all about commercial talk radio and nothing else. No newspapers, no TV, no satellite radio, no internet. Only terrestrial talk-radio, mostly on the AM band.
The latest to weigh in is John Kerry. That was from an interview today on WNYC radio (hey, where's the conservative rebuttal? Just kidding.).
Now I hate to be one of those "if'n yer fer it, I'm agin it" types, but John Kerry just brings that out in me. His world views and mine are about as far apart as two can be. But in a larger sense, this is a fundamental political free speech problem which the Democrats seem bound and determined to attempt to regulate. John Kerry, et. al., have never really struck me as the types who much care what the Consitution says if adhering to its strictures doesn't serve their political purposes. And this is a perfect example.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) is fighting back in the House with a piece of legislation called the "Broadcaster Freedom Act" which would do the following:
"The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine."
In other words, he's asking Congress to prohibit the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine as well as prohibiting the President, now and in the future, from issuing an executive order or regulatory change which would reinstate it.
Sounds "fair" to me, if you believe that political speech should be protected and all of that. Notice that the 1st Amendment never states speech must be 'fair' or 'balanced', it simply states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". I continue to wonder what part of "shall make no law" they don't understand.
Pence, along with Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)have also introduced an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations Bill, which for whatever reason the FCC is funded, to prevent any funds from being used to enforce the Fairness Doctrine. A part of "using the purse strings" portion of the power of Congress to attempt to defeat any Democratic push to enforce it. It will, most likely go down in flames but at least someone is attempting to thwart this pernicious and misguided attempt to control free political speech.
Pence makes a very important point which needs to be understood if this attempt at government control of political views on the airwaves succeeds. In all likelihood, it won't 'balance' anything. Instead of stations placing liberal hosts on the air in an attempt to balance the conservative views (such as those of Limbaugh and Hannity), because of legal and administrative costs, they'll most likely not carry either. They'll simply change the programing to pablum or a different format.
I don't think anyone, to include the liberal side (not counting their politicians who would love that outcome) want that as an end-state.
Anyway, thought I'd update you. I posted earlier in the week concerning why I found the liberal argument concerning talk radio to be wanting. In light of this renewed push for speech control, it might be worth rereading. And take a moment to reread this as well.
