 | |
| |
TechnologyDaily Mobile
Is The 'Fairness Doctrine' Fair?
by David Hatch
Republicans are unified these days in opposing a renewed "fairness doctrine," a rule rescinded two decades ago that required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints about controversial topics. But it wasn't always that way. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi, retired North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, among other prominent party members, voted to restore the doctrine in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
"Until recently this was a bipartisan issue," Andrew Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project, a nonprofit law firm, said in an interview. "This is all about feeding the fundraising beast."
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., one of several GOP members angling to block the regulation from ever returning, believes the fairness doctrine was wrongly viewed back then as a way for conservatives to be heard. "It was actually having the opposite effect," he said, arguing that the evidence is now "overwhelming" that the rule suppressed debate.
The latest controversy over the doctrine erupted after prominent Democrats, including California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, suggested that it may need to be revived. Their comments reflected Democratic outrage at conservative radio pundits for blasting an immigration bill that faltered in the Senate this summer.
Republicans countered that the real aim of Democrats is to muzzle their views on the airwaves. Right-leaning radio hosts such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have fanned the flames of opposition. Gingrich is now among the fairness doctrine's fiercest critics. "I think a conservative ought to introduce a bill that calls for equal time in Hollywood, equal time on college campuses, equal time in the New York Times editorial page, equal time at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Time and Newsweek," he told Hannity during a June interview on the Fox News Channel.
The Debate In Congress
Concern about the growing influence of right-wing radio pundits was stoked by a July 10 report from the Center for American Progress, run by John Podesta, who served as a chief of staff to former President Clinton. The report found that stations owned by the five largest radio conglomerates air more than 2,500 hours a day of conservative talk radio, compared to only 254 hours a day of liberal-minded talk shows.
New York Democrat Maurice Hinchey, who is not on the House Energy and Commerce Committee that has primary jurisdiction over the issue, will reintroduce an updated version of legislation offered in 2005 that would tighten media ownership rules and restore the doctrine. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., may offer a counterpart, his spokesman said via e-mail.
But Republicans say reinstating the doctrine, adopted in 1949 on the premise that scarce airwaves must be open to diverse viewpoints, would straightjacket the media. In 1987, under the Reagan administration, the FCC voted 4-0 to abolish the rules.
Democratic efforts to revive the defunct policy are not expected to gain much traction, but with the party controlling Congress, Republicans are taking no chances. The GOP also is girding for the possibility that a Democrat might win the White House and install a new FCC chief who would be receptive to the policy.
"A future president, with one appointment to the FCC, could reinstitute the fairness doctrine without an act of Congress," Pence said. "What we're doing is a preemptive effort to head that off."
In June, the House adopted language offered by Pence, formerly a talk-radio host in the Hoosier State, that blocks the FCC from reinstating the doctrine for one year. He also has introduced stand-alone legislation, sponsored by 202 Republicans and one Democrat, to impose a permanent fix. Last month, Senate Democrats blocked Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and more than two dozen other Republicans from amending a defense bill with similar language.
Obstacles In The 'Fairness' Road
The Democrats have been down this road before. In 1993, legislation sponsored by South Carolinian Ernest (Fritz) Hollings on the Senate side and North Carolina's Bill Hefner on the House side sought to revive the doctrine. Both are now retired. The "Hush Rush" legislation, as it came to be known in reference to Limbaugh, stalled at the committee level.
Fresh legislation would face several challenges, such as forcing television and radio stations in major markets such as Los Angeles to find airtime for the slew of candidates on the ballot during election season. And it raises questions such as whether a civil-rights advocate interviewed on television has to be balanced by someone from a hate group.
"The fairness doctrine deals with issues that are within reason and open to debate," Hinchey spokesman Jeff Lieberson responded.
While that may be true, it has key opponents. "The fairness doctrine brought a federal agency into the newsroom to second-guess a broadcaster's editorial judgments at the behest of combatants rarely motivated by the 'ideal' of balanced coverage," two former FCC officials complained in a recent Wall Street Journal article.
Dennis Patrick, the Republican FCC chairman when the doctrine was revoked, and Thomas Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University and the agency's chief economist in the early 1990s, wrote that stations were "incentivized" to offer bland, non-controversial content to avoid viewer complaints leading to license revocation.
In a July 23 letter to Pence, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, a Republican, said there's "no compelling reason" to reinstate the regulation "in today's broadcast environment." He warned that such a move would inhibit "robust discussion" of controversial issues on the public airwaves.
Stifling Free Speech?
In a July 11 letter to every U.S. senator, David Rehr, president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters, urged lawmakers to oppose reinstating the doctrine. The "discredited regulation" would "stifle the growth of diverse views," he wrote. In the 20 years since the rule was abolished, he added, there has been an "explosion" of media outlets. "Free speech must be just that -- free from government influence, interference and censorship."
"If the Democrats take the White House and you get a liberal FCC chairman, then I think all bets are off," a broadcast industry source said. "There is a visceral dislike for 'right-wing talk radio' among the Democrats."
To Schwartzman, however, the GOP's latest concerns are overblown. "This was ginned up out of nothing," he argued. He also disputes any correlation between the rule's termination and the rise of talk radio. The fact that conservative radio took off after the doctrine was abolished "doesn't mean it caused it," he reasoned.
Schwartzman said reinstituting the doctrine would mostly affect a handful of local radio stations that are "bad actors," forcing them to carry opposing viewpoints.
But Pence envisions a more dire impact: "You would simply see a great number of radio stations in America that are doing energetic talk radio today go to a different format that wouldn't cost them administratively, in legal fees and threaten their licenses."
NEW FEATURE
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
