Free Speech and the Fairness Doctrine
Dennis AuBuchon
March 20, 2009
This article is about the right of free speech and the Fairness Doctrine or anything closely resembling it. There are two sides to every issue and this article will attempt to bring both perspectives so the reader can decide for themselves. Today there are two efforts in Congress. One is to enact legislation giving the Federal Communications Commission the authority to enforce the principles of the Fairness Doctrine. The other is an attempt to prevent this philosophy from being used in the way government monitors and enforces the distribution of information.
Freedom of speech is an inherent right we have in this country since the 1st amendment was ratified by the states. The right to free speech must not violate others rights but we have the right to our opinion. We also have the right to express it to anyone who will listen but we do not have the right to force our opinion on others. The Fairness Doctrine philosophy as I understand it would create situations where equal time or at least the availability of time for opposing viewpoints are required to be heard on the same program or station. This would cause a change to the operational parameters of such things as talk radio programs/stations. It would reduce the time available for one side to voice their opinion on issues of the day. The affect therefore would be a reduction in the amount of time a station or program has available to discuss their viewpoint on important issues. The words in the 1st Amendment are stated below:
"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."
I am not a constitutional lawyer but I can read and understand the principle involved above related to free speech. Some in Congress feel that talk radio does not provide enough information for opposing viewpoints on issues. In the past when the Fairness Doctrine was part of the FCC it was decided the principle on which it was in place was not justified. There have been decisions involving the use of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC. One of the cases is identified below:
The case involved Miami Herald Publishing Co. v Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court), "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."
The following information being presented can be found on the Wikipedia web site. The information being presented involves those in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, those opposing it and public opinion on the issue. All of the information could not be addressed in this article but the essence of the information is being presented. There have been many discussions and several court cases involving the Fairness Doctrine and an understanding of the positions for and against is important for the public to understand the principles involved and what it would mean to present day talk radio operations.
The first part of this discussion involves decisions to revoke the use of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC. An FCC chairman Mark Fowler a communications attorney announced in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. In February, 2009 Fowler made the following statement to talk radio host Mark Levin "that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship." The following paragraphs were taken verbatim from the Wikipedia web site. The footnotes contained in the paragraphs refer to footnotes available on the Wikipedia web site.
"In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[12] The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional."
"In February 2005, U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (Democrat of New York) and 23 co-sponsors introduced the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (H.R. 501) [15] in the 1st Session of the 109th Congress of 2005-7 (when Republicans held a majority of both Houses). The bill would have shortened a station's license term from eight years to four, with the requirement that a license-holder cover important issues fairly, hold local public hearings about its coverage twice a year, and document to the FCC how it was meeting its obligations.[16] The bill was referred to committee, but progressed no further.[17]"
"In the same session of Congress, Representative Maurice Hinchey (another Democrat from New York) introduced legislation "to restore the Fairness Doctrine". H.R. 3302, also known as the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005" or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.[18]"
Reinstatement considered
Support
Some Democratic legislators have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine,[19] although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005.
In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat of Illinois) said, "It´s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," [20] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[21] However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008, "Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has 'no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view'—that the American people were served well under the doctrine—'and it's all been blown out of proportion.' " [22]
On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes." [23]
On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I´m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." [24]
On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine, "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves." When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied, "I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep." [25]
A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back." [26]
Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During an appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said, "Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn't reflect economic reality.[27]
Opposition
The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent libertarians and conservatives who view it as an attempt to regulate or mandate certain types of speech on the airwaves. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times have said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to and contempt for the successes of conservative talk radio.[28] [29]
On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.[30] It could also include "government dictating content policy".[31] The conservative Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute argued that the three main points supporting the Fairness Doctrine — media scarcity, liberal viewpoints being censored at a corporate level, and public interest — are all myths.[32]
On the 16th of February, 2009, Mark Fowler told Mark Levin on Levin's talk radio program, "I believe as President Reagan did, that the electronic press—and you're included in that—the press that uses air and electrons, should be and must be as free from government control as the press that uses paper and ink, Period." [9]
On the 26'th of February, 2009, the Senate voted on a proposition to bar the FCC from reviving the doctrine. The AP reports that the vote was "in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time". The AP report went on to say that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans (led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.) wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96JF8V00&show_article=1
Suggested alternatives
Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the Fairness Doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger "public interest" standards enforcement (with fines given to public broadcasting). [33]
In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President) "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters", but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible", adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." [34] In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.[35]
Public opinion
In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Scott Rasmussen, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today´s media" (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error had a 95% chance of being within ± 3%.) [36]
Recent legislation
In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (Republican, Minnesota) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from "using any funds to adopt a fairness rule." [37] It was blocked, in part on grounds that "the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee´s jurisdiction".
In the same year, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and John Thune (R-SD) with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742) [38] and in the House by Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905).[39] It provided that
the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).[40]
None of these measures came to the floor of either house.
In the current Congress, some members have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34), to block reinstatement of the Doctrine. On February 26, 2009, by a vote of 87-11, the Senate added that act as an amendment to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. [41]
The information above as was previously stated was taken from Wikipedia and is only a sample of what is available for this topic. As can be seen in the examples there are strong opinions for both sides but the fact remains that anything passed by Congress resembling the fairness doctrine will affect the information now available on radio or other media resources. The principle of the fairness doctrine to have the opportunity to hear both sides of an issue is not the problem. The problem is how Congress is currently developing legislation to control talk radio or any medium that they feel has a problem with providing both sides of an issue. Congress currently perceives that a problem exists with talk radio or other media resources in providing both sides of an issue. This is not the case. In the following paragraphs is information supporting this statement.
Several issues are involved in the right to free speech. Talk radio has existed for many years and to believe there is a need to change the landscape as to how talk radio operates will affect the very fabric of society. Granted there are programs that are not well received or funded based on their content. This does not mean that government should create requirements affecting this mechanism of free speech which we all have come to accept. Today there are various programs that offer a wide range of topics geared to every fabric and philosophy of society. The problem which appears to be the case is Congress feels that there should be more exposure for beliefs which the public does not want to hear.
Radio and other media outlets depend on listeners and advertising to support their operations. When programs or stations have content that is not widely supported by the public it is hard to succeed. Our society is based upon the law of supply and demand. When there is demand for a product or service it is supported by the general public. When the demand does not exist that support is reduced or in some cases non-existent. I do feel that all viewpoints should be heard but not at the expense of free speech given to us in the first amendment. The Fairness Doctrine or anything closely related in my opinion affects us and radio stations in voicing our views on various important topics. We all have a right to express our opinion as long as no laws are violated. We as individuals and as a nation must respect the right of free speech granted to us in the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Laws should not be created in an attempt to change the dynamics of how talk radio or other media outlets operates. Imposing rules or regulations to ensure that all viewpoints are heard or the availability to be heard affects our right to freely express our opinion and where and how our opinion can be distributed.
Many times we as individuals do not like what we hear on various media outlets and we have the choice to turn off or change a channel. Requiring media outlets to make time available for opposing views to respond does not mean that the public will choose to listen. This premise is already in place. There are programs which offer opposing viewpoints to be heard on the same station or program. This is a great thing. Changing the rules for talk radio or other media outlets does not mean the public will change their habits from what they have been for years.
While it is fitting that Congress initiates laws for issues for which they have jurisdiction the right to free speech is clearly written into the constitution. When problems exist there needs to be changes made to resolve issues. However, regulation is not always the answer. We as individuals may not like certain things but that is our opinion. Our opinion should not direct us to make changes to something that is working but not how we would like. Our economy is strong and the technology and expertise we have in areas, especially talk radio is in my opinion unsurpassed in the rest of the world. Free speech helps us to have this position and changes in the way our opinions are distributed would be a mistake. Making changes in what is broadcast, televised or printed to require various viewpoints is counterproductive. Initiating requirements for these organizations which affect their operational structure will not change the interest of the public. It is natural for the public to choose to what they want to listen.
Granted there are many cases where laws or regulations are necessary to have common guidelines or requirements. This helps in creating a standard by which there is common ground from state to state. Standards may be applicable for talk radio or other media resources but not imposing the principles of the Fairness Doctrine. The method I used to address the various viewpoints presented was to directly quote from the information provided so there was no interpretation of the statements made. While the Fairness Doctrine discussion has primarily been focused on talk radio once it is put into law it becomes available for all media resources. Free speech is alive and well and there is ample opportunity for any individual to hear both sides of an issue if they so choose. Creating new requirements will only hamper discussion of important issues as stations in my opinion would shy away from controversial issues to avoid violating the principles of the Fairness Doctrine or any legislation closely related to it. Some may differ with me on the previous statement but when something becomes law related to such issues and the vagueness that has been proposed the FCC would have control over the resources to express our opinion.
One last point to make is that there now appears to be some changes in relation to the Fairness Doctrine. There is an effort called localism is being discussed in Congress. Localism itself is not bad to have stations provide discussions on local issues. There is a difference between a willingness to provide this kind of information and being required to do so. The impression given in several sites on the Internet indicate local advisory boards would have to be consulted on community issues and needs. Many of the stations and programs I know already provide this kind of coverage. Local advisory boards would, in my opinion interfere in the operational structure of local radio and television stations. Local stations depend on local support. If they are not providing the information and programming options that is needed in their local community they will not survive.
Radio and television stations depend on advertising revenue and listeners. If changes being proposed are successful the way radio stations and television stations operate will force changes. These changes may results in less listeners and advertising revenue for some stations. When organizations or companies have less revenue and customers as we have seen it sometimes causes them to close their operations. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place we saw about 100 stations in 1980 and when it was revoked the amount increased to over 1,500. I currently feel this number is much higher with the influx of the Internet and Internet radio stationsAnother aspect of the localism principle would allow any complaint to be filed by any organization simply if they feel a station is not providing information they should. Part of this process would involve the review of the license with which these organizations must have to operate. If rules, policies or laws are created under the FCC to make changes to require certain actions by stations as discussed earlier it would be a mistake.
Licenses for stations should not be revoked unless they are violating the principles of free speech such as libel or slander. We currently have enough problems with companies closing and people losing their jobs and impacting local communities. If stations are forced to make changes in their operational structure based upon new rules, policies or laws under the FCC it may cause a reduction in the number of stations on the air. This would reduce the availability of information to the public. Congress and the FCC need to think carefully the impact of any decision with regards to the right of free speech. Free speech has been served well since the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine and requires no changes in the way talk radio or television currently operates. The public is well served with the availability of discussions on both sides of any issue.
Freedom of speech is an inherent right we have in this country since the 1st amendment was ratified by the states. The right to free speech must not violate others rights but we have the right to our opinion. We also have the right to express it to anyone who will listen but we do not have the right to force our opinion on others. The Fairness Doctrine philosophy as I understand it would create situations where equal time or at least the availability of time for opposing viewpoints are required to be heard on the same program or station. This would cause a change to the operational parameters of such things as talk radio programs/stations. It would reduce the time available for one side to voice their opinion on issues of the day. The affect therefore would be a reduction in the amount of time a station or program has available to discuss their viewpoint on important issues. The words in the 1st Amendment are stated below:
"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."
I am not a constitutional lawyer but I can read and understand the principle involved above related to free speech. Some in Congress feel that talk radio does not provide enough information for opposing viewpoints on issues. In the past when the Fairness Doctrine was part of the FCC it was decided the principle on which it was in place was not justified. There have been decisions involving the use of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC. One of the cases is identified below:
The case involved Miami Herald Publishing Co. v Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court), "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."
The following information being presented can be found on the Wikipedia web site. The information being presented involves those in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, those opposing it and public opinion on the issue. All of the information could not be addressed in this article but the essence of the information is being presented. There have been many discussions and several court cases involving the Fairness Doctrine and an understanding of the positions for and against is important for the public to understand the principles involved and what it would mean to present day talk radio operations.
The first part of this discussion involves decisions to revoke the use of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC. An FCC chairman Mark Fowler a communications attorney announced in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. In February, 2009 Fowler made the following statement to talk radio host Mark Levin "that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship." The following paragraphs were taken verbatim from the Wikipedia web site. The footnotes contained in the paragraphs refer to footnotes available on the Wikipedia web site.
"In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[12] The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional."
"In February 2005, U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (Democrat of New York) and 23 co-sponsors introduced the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (H.R. 501) [15] in the 1st Session of the 109th Congress of 2005-7 (when Republicans held a majority of both Houses). The bill would have shortened a station's license term from eight years to four, with the requirement that a license-holder cover important issues fairly, hold local public hearings about its coverage twice a year, and document to the FCC how it was meeting its obligations.[16] The bill was referred to committee, but progressed no further.[17]"
"In the same session of Congress, Representative Maurice Hinchey (another Democrat from New York) introduced legislation "to restore the Fairness Doctrine". H.R. 3302, also known as the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005" or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.[18]"
Reinstatement considered
Support
Some Democratic legislators have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine,[19] although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005.
In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat of Illinois) said, "It´s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," [20] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[21] However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008, "Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has 'no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view'—that the American people were served well under the doctrine—'and it's all been blown out of proportion.' " [22]
On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes." [23]
On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I´m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." [24]
On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine, "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves." When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied, "I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep." [25]
A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back." [26]
Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During an appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said, "Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn't reflect economic reality.[27]
Opposition
The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent libertarians and conservatives who view it as an attempt to regulate or mandate certain types of speech on the airwaves. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times have said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to and contempt for the successes of conservative talk radio.[28] [29]
On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.[30] It could also include "government dictating content policy".[31] The conservative Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute argued that the three main points supporting the Fairness Doctrine — media scarcity, liberal viewpoints being censored at a corporate level, and public interest — are all myths.[32]
On the 16th of February, 2009, Mark Fowler told Mark Levin on Levin's talk radio program, "I believe as President Reagan did, that the electronic press—and you're included in that—the press that uses air and electrons, should be and must be as free from government control as the press that uses paper and ink, Period." [9]
On the 26'th of February, 2009, the Senate voted on a proposition to bar the FCC from reviving the doctrine. The AP reports that the vote was "in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time". The AP report went on to say that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans (led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.) wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96JF8V00&show_article=1
Suggested alternatives
Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the Fairness Doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger "public interest" standards enforcement (with fines given to public broadcasting). [33]
In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President) "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters", but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible", adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." [34] In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.[35]
Public opinion
In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Scott Rasmussen, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today´s media" (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error had a 95% chance of being within ± 3%.) [36]
Recent legislation
In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (Republican, Minnesota) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from "using any funds to adopt a fairness rule." [37] It was blocked, in part on grounds that "the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee´s jurisdiction".
In the same year, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and John Thune (R-SD) with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742) [38] and in the House by Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905).[39] It provided that
the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).[40]
None of these measures came to the floor of either house.
In the current Congress, some members have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34), to block reinstatement of the Doctrine. On February 26, 2009, by a vote of 87-11, the Senate added that act as an amendment to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. [41]
The information above as was previously stated was taken from Wikipedia and is only a sample of what is available for this topic. As can be seen in the examples there are strong opinions for both sides but the fact remains that anything passed by Congress resembling the fairness doctrine will affect the information now available on radio or other media resources. The principle of the fairness doctrine to have the opportunity to hear both sides of an issue is not the problem. The problem is how Congress is currently developing legislation to control talk radio or any medium that they feel has a problem with providing both sides of an issue. Congress currently perceives that a problem exists with talk radio or other media resources in providing both sides of an issue. This is not the case. In the following paragraphs is information supporting this statement.
Several issues are involved in the right to free speech. Talk radio has existed for many years and to believe there is a need to change the landscape as to how talk radio operates will affect the very fabric of society. Granted there are programs that are not well received or funded based on their content. This does not mean that government should create requirements affecting this mechanism of free speech which we all have come to accept. Today there are various programs that offer a wide range of topics geared to every fabric and philosophy of society. The problem which appears to be the case is Congress feels that there should be more exposure for beliefs which the public does not want to hear.
Radio and other media outlets depend on listeners and advertising to support their operations. When programs or stations have content that is not widely supported by the public it is hard to succeed. Our society is based upon the law of supply and demand. When there is demand for a product or service it is supported by the general public. When the demand does not exist that support is reduced or in some cases non-existent. I do feel that all viewpoints should be heard but not at the expense of free speech given to us in the first amendment. The Fairness Doctrine or anything closely related in my opinion affects us and radio stations in voicing our views on various important topics. We all have a right to express our opinion as long as no laws are violated. We as individuals and as a nation must respect the right of free speech granted to us in the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Laws should not be created in an attempt to change the dynamics of how talk radio or other media outlets operates. Imposing rules or regulations to ensure that all viewpoints are heard or the availability to be heard affects our right to freely express our opinion and where and how our opinion can be distributed.
Many times we as individuals do not like what we hear on various media outlets and we have the choice to turn off or change a channel. Requiring media outlets to make time available for opposing views to respond does not mean that the public will choose to listen. This premise is already in place. There are programs which offer opposing viewpoints to be heard on the same station or program. This is a great thing. Changing the rules for talk radio or other media outlets does not mean the public will change their habits from what they have been for years.
While it is fitting that Congress initiates laws for issues for which they have jurisdiction the right to free speech is clearly written into the constitution. When problems exist there needs to be changes made to resolve issues. However, regulation is not always the answer. We as individuals may not like certain things but that is our opinion. Our opinion should not direct us to make changes to something that is working but not how we would like. Our economy is strong and the technology and expertise we have in areas, especially talk radio is in my opinion unsurpassed in the rest of the world. Free speech helps us to have this position and changes in the way our opinions are distributed would be a mistake. Making changes in what is broadcast, televised or printed to require various viewpoints is counterproductive. Initiating requirements for these organizations which affect their operational structure will not change the interest of the public. It is natural for the public to choose to what they want to listen.
Granted there are many cases where laws or regulations are necessary to have common guidelines or requirements. This helps in creating a standard by which there is common ground from state to state. Standards may be applicable for talk radio or other media resources but not imposing the principles of the Fairness Doctrine. The method I used to address the various viewpoints presented was to directly quote from the information provided so there was no interpretation of the statements made. While the Fairness Doctrine discussion has primarily been focused on talk radio once it is put into law it becomes available for all media resources. Free speech is alive and well and there is ample opportunity for any individual to hear both sides of an issue if they so choose. Creating new requirements will only hamper discussion of important issues as stations in my opinion would shy away from controversial issues to avoid violating the principles of the Fairness Doctrine or any legislation closely related to it. Some may differ with me on the previous statement but when something becomes law related to such issues and the vagueness that has been proposed the FCC would have control over the resources to express our opinion.
One last point to make is that there now appears to be some changes in relation to the Fairness Doctrine. There is an effort called localism is being discussed in Congress. Localism itself is not bad to have stations provide discussions on local issues. There is a difference between a willingness to provide this kind of information and being required to do so. The impression given in several sites on the Internet indicate local advisory boards would have to be consulted on community issues and needs. Many of the stations and programs I know already provide this kind of coverage. Local advisory boards would, in my opinion interfere in the operational structure of local radio and television stations. Local stations depend on local support. If they are not providing the information and programming options that is needed in their local community they will not survive.
Radio and television stations depend on advertising revenue and listeners. If changes being proposed are successful the way radio stations and television stations operate will force changes. These changes may results in less listeners and advertising revenue for some stations. When organizations or companies have less revenue and customers as we have seen it sometimes causes them to close their operations. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place we saw about 100 stations in 1980 and when it was revoked the amount increased to over 1,500. I currently feel this number is much higher with the influx of the Internet and Internet radio stationsAnother aspect of the localism principle would allow any complaint to be filed by any organization simply if they feel a station is not providing information they should. Part of this process would involve the review of the license with which these organizations must have to operate. If rules, policies or laws are created under the FCC to make changes to require certain actions by stations as discussed earlier it would be a mistake.
Licenses for stations should not be revoked unless they are violating the principles of free speech such as libel or slander. We currently have enough problems with companies closing and people losing their jobs and impacting local communities. If stations are forced to make changes in their operational structure based upon new rules, policies or laws under the FCC it may cause a reduction in the number of stations on the air. This would reduce the availability of information to the public. Congress and the FCC need to think carefully the impact of any decision with regards to the right of free speech. Free speech has been served well since the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine and requires no changes in the way talk radio or television currently operates. The public is well served with the availability of discussions on both sides of any issue.
Print
Email
