Fairness Doctrine: Secret Republican Agenda Exposed!

You won't believe this. Today, I overheard a group of leading Republicans talking in the House about the greatest threats facing America.

And here -- made public for the first time -- is their list:

1. Bigfoot
2. Killer Bees
3. Fluoride in the drinking water
4. Canada
5. The return of the Fairness Doctrine.

OK, so I made up the first four. But like the rest, the danger of the Fairness Doctrine coming back is completely imaginary.

Yet somehow that hasn't stopped 124 Republicans from pushing a preposterous piece of legislation -- as one of their first acts of the new Congress -- that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that has been dead for 20 years.

The Fairness Doctrine was a longstanding, though seldom enforced, regulation that required broadcasters using the public airwaves to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. It was abandoned in 1987, a move many credit for the rise of right-wing radio. Pretty much ever since, Republicans have been ominously warning of a plot to bring it back and silence them.

The "Broadcaster Freedom Act" -- sponsored in the House by Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), and in the Senate by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) -- is the latest effort "to keep radio airwaves free from government censorship and suppression" by marauding liberal ideologues.

Senator DeMint proclaims: "Democrats want to impose an unfair doctrine that destroys talk radio and silences the voices of millions of Americans who disagree with their vision for America."

So far the evidence for this conspiracy seems to consist of a lame joke Chuck Schumer made on Fox about "fair and balanced," an interview in which Jeff Bingaman pined for "informed discussion of public issues," and something James Inhofe overheard in an elevator. Dennis Kucinich is also rumored to be involved. The Da Vinci Code it ain't.

If I had a dollar for every time I've said it, I'd probably be a Republican. But here goes: The Fairness Doctrine is never, ever coming back -- and that's a good thing.

Let's review: It wasn't in the Democratic Party platform. No bill has been introduced in the Democrat-controlled Congress. No FCC rules are pending. And President-elect Barack Obama has stated unequivocally that he "does not support re-imposing" the Fairness Doctrine.

What's more, there is no movement among media reformers, the netroots, or the vast left-wing conspiracy to bring it back. Nobody wants it: not Free Press or Common Cause, Media Matters or MoveOn, DailyKos or the Daily Worker.

In fact, the only people actually pushing the Fairness Doctrine are Rush Limbaugh, George Will and the Republican Study Committee. It better be good for ratings and direct-mail donations, because the idea that the doctrine is a priority for anyone with any power to bring it back is completely delusional.

This new bill is a political stunt, pure and simple. But when the bill fails, as it surely will, all the same shouting heads will be all over Fox News and the AM dial claiming they're about to be gagged and that communism is on the march.

"If you really don't want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine," they'll ask, "why don't you support this legislation?"

Here's why: This is farce. And Congress has real work to do.

The economy is a mess. We're in two wars. Rod Blagojevich still has a job. Poverty. Crime. Cancer. Climate change. (OK, Inhofe doesn't believe in that last one, but still.) Osama bin Laden is still at-large. So's Dick Cheney. We still don't have a college football playoff! Need I go on?

And yet the Fairness Doctrine is supposed to be the top priority? Did we run out of post offices to name or something?

Here's a list of co-sponsors of the Broadcaster Freedom Act. Please call and ask them to get serious about the serious problems facing our country.

Rome is burning, boys. Time to put down the fiddles.

Comments

[pjburke]

Regulation and/or legislation is surely and sorely needed, though... regulation prohibiting the deliberate 24/7 dissemination of misinformation and disinformation.

Steve Rendall's 2005 article: "The Fairness Doctrine: How we lost it, and why we need it back" makes a solid case for why the Fairness Doctrine served the nation well for 50+ years, until the carping conservative cranks decided that factual reporting and 'broadcasting in the public interest' went against their corporate interest.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

[NewsCorpse]

The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronism, and everyone, including Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress, knows it.

Conservatives fear that Liberals want to destroy talk radio. Oh please! They can have talk radio. It's last century's broadcasting platform. Even the bastions of radio communications like conservative-run Clear Channel has sold one-third of its radio stations. Would they do that if it were a thriving market?

This is nothing but a ploy by right-wing fear mongers so that they can fire off panicky op-eds and fund raising appeals.

See: http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1128

The real battle ground for media reform lies in the enforcement of ownership caps and anti-trust law, and the support for local programming, network neutrality and public broadcasting. And the conservative throng are already denouncing those as well.

[Craig Aaron - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for posting, News Corpse. In fact, opponents of media reform are trying to tar most good, bipartisan policies as "the Fairness Doctrine." One of the Republican FCC Commissioners even called Net Neutrality -- the whole point of which is free speech and being content-neutral -- the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet. And it's no coincidence that the lead sponsors of this legislation are the same folks who don't see any problem with gutting media ownership limits.

[hmfwic]

You're a gem Craig. Look at this statement again.

"the whole point of which is free speech and being content-neutral "

Where in the First Amendment does it say that the government should make speech content neutral? If the government MAKES anything about speech, or makes any law regarding the content of political speech (the very kind of speech that the 1st Amendment was drawn up to protect), then IT ISN'T FREE is it? It is regulated.

So, if the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 is so trivial and even unnecessary, then what is the problem with allowing it to come to the Senate floor for a vote? If it is so inconsequential, that nobody really wants to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, then there shouldn't be any opposition to INSURING that it won't be reinstated.

[PlaceboStudman]

The truth of the matter is, people don't want to hear both, or any sides of a story that doesn't agree with their particular side. People don't want unity, we don't want bipartisanship. We want to know that what we think, feel and believe are simply correct. Nothing else matters. People are too selfish and arrogant to consider other perspectives or points of view, and when they come across a differing opinon or perspective, they fight it or run away screaming in horror from it

[pjburke]

Only a certain type of person behaves this way... a type which academic research has termed 'right wing authoritarian.'

John Dean, White House Counsel in the Nixon Administration (the one who stood up and told the truth) and author of "Conservatives without Conscience" referenced the work of Bob Altemeyer particularly:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[seanparnell]

You may ultimately be right that return of censorship to broadcast radio is unlikely. But there has been far more than a few idle comments and "lame jokes" on the topic. Perhaps you forgot about:

"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."

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to "look at the legal and constitutional aspects of" reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

"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."

(excerpted from: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html)

To pretend the Durbin and Feinstein (two Democratic Senators with some degree of influence, I believe) didn't say what they said shows you really aren't seriously interested in exploring the issue, or even knowledgeable about it.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
Alexandria, VA 22314
www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[LeftRight]

Sean,

Do you even understand what the Fairness Doctrine said? It wasn't about liberal/conservative talk. It simply said that if a radio or tv show talked about a controversial subject then they needed to present the opposite point of view. Liberal radio and Conservative radio would not actually be subject to it! Something like the Scopes Monkey Trial would have been, but NOT the opinion laden talk radio scene!

[seanparnell]

Umm... what planet are you from?

The point of liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. radio is to talk about "controversial subject[s]" and present "point[s] of view." How exactly would Stephanie Miller and Laura Ingrahm not fall under the "fairness doctrine" regulations?

You might also want to check out a post I recently did on the general subject of the effort to pretend there is no reason at all to think the "fairness doctrine" is coming back: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/id.806/blog_detail.asp . It included dozens of comments posted to recent "all the fairness doctrine talk is just right-wing paranoia and hysteria" that all specifically said they hoped it returned so they could "shut down" all those "right wing" talkers. If there's a knowledgeable person out there who can point to serious analysis showing the "fairness doctrine" would not affect political/ideological talk radio, please point me to it.

Otherwise, you're just another voice in the Officer Barbrady Chorus of "nothing so see here, move along," people pretending that various people haven't said what they've said.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[Craig Aaron - Huffpost Blogger]

So where's the legislation to bring back the Doctrine? Where's the FCC rulemaking? Why would they risk going against the president on this issue?

I don't think many Democrats have been smart in how they've responded to this nonsense. (My advice when asked about the Fairness Doctrine: Just say no.) But neither do I see any evidence that anyone is trying to actually reinstate these old rules.

[hmfwic]

Can I assume that you would not oppose bringing the Broadcasters Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for an up or down vote then?

[hmfwic]

Craig, I think you should look at this link. It will explain that there is no legislation required to bring it back. Know why? Because it isn't needed. The FCC can do it by a 3-2 vote. Period.

http://rosscalloway.com/2009/01/26/the-first-amendment-needs-protecting/

So don't defend the uselessness of it based on the fact that there is no legislation out there to reinstate it. That obfuscates the point.