Fairness Doctrine officially dead as campaign issue

Earlier today I got a press release from a right-wing group trying to link House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to efforts to revive the old FCC Fairness Doctrine. That smelled awfully fishy to me, because -- contrary to the hyperventilations of this particular group, whose name I won't mention because I think this was just a fundraising ploy of theirs -- many leading Democrats are opposed to bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

I don't get why anyone would want to bring back the "Hush Rush" bill, which would make the immigration-reform backlash look mild by comparison to what it would rap. Besides, regulating "fairness" on TV and radio is an even more outdated and pointless pursuit than regulating "indecency."

Anyway, I shot the press release to John Eggerton, Washington chief of Broadcasting & Cable magazine, and that prompted him to make some inquiries, and not only did he shoot down the Pelosi rumor, he got something much more interesting than that:

Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

Nice job, Egg!

Related: Remembering George Carlin, accidental father of the "indecency" law

(Half oops: HumanEvents.com has Pelosi on record saying she "personally" likes the doctrine, but she has other fish to fry. So I did smell fish.)

Comments

[mike]

Right now I'm seeing Network News video footage of Nancy Pelosi saying she supports the return of the Fairness Doctrine. How can you say that it is a rumour that Pelosi said this? The thing that most people can't stand about the mainstream media is that you have this deep liberal bias, yet claim you are objective. You have printed an outright lie about Pelosi and you should retract it.

(I love when people use the comments section of a blog to complain about something you've "printed." OK, dude, I "retract" it. We'll be "running" that in the "paper" "tomorrow."--AB)

[pz]

This would be more comforting if Obama didn't change his mind whenever it was convenient.

(Just a notice to our regulars here: Please ignore that voice in your head that screams, "WHAT AND McCAIN IS A PILLAR OF CONSISTENCY???" We all hear it, and frankly, we're trying to get some sleep.--AB)

[Aaron]

Right.

And Manny Ramirez should never swing at hanging curves.

[Stump]

The first talk radio station (KABC in Los Angeles) went on the air in 1960 — 25-plus years before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Larry King went into national syndication in 1978, and the first nationally syndicated conservative host, Ray Briem, went national in 1 9 8 2!!!

And Obama has already come out against FD, so it’s all a red herring. A red herring resigned to rile the conservative base, and to help corporate radio, which is leading a lobbying campaign to keep from having any local programming requirements or staff requirements.
The FD ruckus is actually a stealth astroturf-roots campaign against localism in broadcasting.

Most AM talk stations are computers in closets running off satellite feeds, and the big owners want to keep it that way. Little or no local news, little or no local talk. It helps their bottom line to have conservative bloggers dressing up the FCC’ s localism proposals as a plot to silence conservatives.

[John Wallace]

On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), while at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, told reporter John Gizzi, that she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine. The imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing points of view, which would essentially give the government control over what the people can and cannot hear.

Ms Pelosi also said she supported the efforts of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) who has been very active behind the revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep Slaughter had introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

The Democratic leadership knows that they can't directly pass a "Fairness Doctrine" piece of legislation, so they will most likely try to slip it in under another name or attach it to some 'must pass' piece of legislation. Their support of the 'Fairness Doctrine by any means' strategy poses a direct threat to American citizens' constitutonal right of Freedom of Speech.

The important questions for Americans to ask are: Why is Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats against free speech for the American people? Why are they so determined to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? and why is the Democratic leadership refusing to bring a true piece of Freedom of Speech legislation, The Broadcaster Freedom Act HR-2905, to the floor for a vote?

I believe that it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” a Liberal talk station, that has led to this attempt to re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. It appears that if certain political views can’t compete in the world of ideas, then the solution is to pass a law that forces radio stations to air those views.

I am opposed to any resurrection of the “The Fairness Doctrine,” the 1940’s law that effectively censored political talk radio for many years, because it is a violation of the First Amendment and limits Free Speech. The real issue here is not what you “are able to” see or hear, which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s about placing limitations on the Freedoms you currently have to “choose” what to see or hear.

In the 1940’s and 50’s, Americans had few choices with only three major networks and there was some validity to the Fairness Doctrine. Today, Americans have an almost unlimited choice of where to get their information: regular TV, cable TV, regular radio, satellite radio, internet, web-blogs, etc., which makes the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.

I support the Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR-2905), introduced by Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind) which would prevent these first amendment restrictive regulations from returning. Representative Mike Pence introduced the BFA last June, where it is still awaiting a vote. As of June 25, 2008, two hundred Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition which would force the House to make an up or down vote on the legislation, but an additional 18 signatures are still needed. So far, not one single House Democrat has signed the petition to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.

It should also be noted that two of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioners have already indicated that they favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine. All that would be needed to reinstitute Fairness Doctrine regulations would be for the next President to appoint a third sympathetic commissioner. Then, the regulations could go back into effect without any vote at all and the constitutional Freedom of Speech rights and guarantees of all Americans would suffer another blow.

By not bringing the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor for a vote, Speaker Pelosi is attempting to limit the constitutional rights of Free Speech of those American citizens who happen to oppose her political views.

The constitutional right of Freedom of Speech guarantees that people or organizations have the right to express their ideas without danger of censorship, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that people or organizations with different views must be provided with a meeting hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express their ideas. Those who value the First Amendment, as I do, must oppose the Fairness Doctrine, in any form, as a serious threat to their Freedom of Speech.

By:
John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY's 20th COngressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

[Norman]

If the Fairness Doctrine's main goal is to increase local programming requirements, you can keep it.

There is nothing interesting about what little locally-made radio is done where I live in Boise, ID. Mil levy debates, fluffy talk about the new bear exhibit at the zoo or the stupid Boise State football team make for jarringly skull-numbing radio.