'Fairness' or censorship?
Federal doctrine stifled expression - and would do so again
Rocky Mountain News
Published July 6, 2008 at 8 p.m.
With 2008 looking like a very good year to be a Democrat, talk is growing of reviving the Fairness Doctrine next year after the new president and Congress are sworn in. The idea seems to be to force pesky broadcast commentators such as Rush Limbaugh to "balance" their political coverage.
Discussions heated up the other day when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she would quash a bill that would permanently block the Federal Communications Commission from imposing the Fairness Doctrine. This leaves open the possibility that she and other powerful lawmakers will support a revived Fairness Doctrine.
That doctrine, imposed by the FCC in 1949, may have been defensible at a time viewers and listeners could tune in to no more than a handful of TV and radio stations using frequencies licensed by the government. But its actual effect was to chill discussion of controversial issues on broadcast stations.
In two notorious cases, President Kennedy invoked the Fairness Doctrine to pressure broadcasters who editorialized against the nuclear test ban treaty, and President Nixon cited it to threaten the TV networks.
The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987 after an internal FCC review determined that for both principled and practical reasons it was no longer in the public interest. For one thing, the explosion of cable channels had dramatically expanded outlets for expression. And with scarcity of the airwaves less of a concern, it became difficult to defend the constitutionality of a policy that stifled political speech.
Talk of legislation reviving the Fairness Doctrine bubbled up a couple of times in the 1990s, after talk radio burst on the scene, making incumbents of both parties uncomfortable. But those attempts went nowhere. And given ever-growing media diversity - Limbaugh's popularity soared even before the Internet really took off, for example - any arguments about the continued scarcity of news outlets are downright laughable.
Last year the House overwhelmingly passed a bill preventing the FCC from even studying the implications of a new Fairness Doctrine for one year. More than 100 Democrats backed that moratorium.
Its sponsor, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., has also introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a bill permanently banning the FCC from imposing the Fairness Doctrine. The bill hasn't been scheduled for a committee vote so Pence has been collecting signatures to get it out of committee for a floor vote; if at least 218 House members (more than half) sign the petition, the majority has to allow an up-or-down vote on the legislation.
In an Op-Ed article published by the conservative newspaper Human Events, Pence wrote that he has 196 signatures . . . none of them, unfortunately, from Democrats. This is why Pelosi was asked about the bill. At a press breakfast held by The Christian Science Monitor, Pelosi said she would not schedule a vote, saying "the interest of my caucus is the reverse."
Free speech is not in the interest of the Democratic caucus? Surely she's mistaken.
Here's hoping a handful of Democrats break ranks and put free speech above party loyalty. President Bush would surely sign Pence's bill. And Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is a sponsor of the Senate version.
Barack Obama's stance is not so clear. A spokesman recently said Obama has said he would not reinstate the Fairness Doctrine by executive order or by asking the Federal Communications Commission to do it. And yet he hasn't said whether he'd veto a Fairness Doctrine bill, should Congress pass one. For the sake of robust political debate, that might be the more important question.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
July 6, 2008
9:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Government control of content, that sounds like fascist policy to me.
July 6, 2008
9:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
How are you supposed to "balance" half-truths and full-time afterburner spin?
July 6, 2008
10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
bryantp writes:
The difficulty is an obvious one...the doctrine is designed for a 2-party system. How can you enforce it if there are 3 or 4 or even 5 political parties on the ballot?
July 7, 2008
4:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
And somebody told me America was free...free to everyone but the American.
July 7, 2008
5:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
The Left has made four or five trys at finding their version of Limbaugh, Hannity, and others on the right. Each attempt failed because no one listened to them, ratings were low, and as business ventures the shows failed for lack of revenue. The latest attempt, Air America, who's lead "host" was the obscenity-spewing Randi Rhodes, went bankrupt despite significant funding by supporters. Even Left Wingers with money get tired of throwing it down a rat-hole. So, since at least in the forum of radio, the Left can't compete, their simple answer is to make it economically impossible for radio stations to carry the conservative shows by instituting the "Fairness Doctrine". Fascism at its best, to be sure. You can expect more if you elect Democrats to Congress and Obama as President. You have no right to listen to what programs you want. The newspapers all over the country are dying because people are tired of their insistant Left Wing agenda; nobody will buy them. Polls consistently show that the old major networks no longer have the viewership they used to because people don't believe what "news" they choose to show. As usual, people vote with their feet and their dollars. The Fairness Doctrine would abrogate that vote and silence speech, a typical tactic. Good for the News for editorializing against it. Mike
July 7, 2008
5:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Can you believe that the Democtrats would want the Conservatives to pay for liberal radio air time??
Yes, that would ensure total indoctrination of Americans.
July 7, 2008
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
One of the first things the nazi's did when conquering a nation was to gain control of its communications. That way they were able to control the content of any information that was broadcast. It proved very effective for them. When the former U.S.S.R. invaded Afganistan they emplyed the same tactic, proof that is still viable. Now comes comrade Nancy, "Discussions heated up the other day when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she would quash a bill that would permanently block the Federal Communications Commission from imposing the Fairness Doctrine." obama08
July 7, 2008
6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
rushrulesbaby writes:
Pure censorship. The First Amendment will be the first to fall followed by the rest. This is what you get when Demoncrats control everything.
July 7, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
I disagree, if you want to humble a nation as powerful as America, first drive it's economy to it's knees. We have lost so many important areas crucial to America's economy survival, by 2012 you'll be ready to accept whatever bone the government will throw you. Soon it will become quite palitable to a starving nation at the mercy of the government, that the people will accept alignment by hemispheres, not national boarders. America is falling, soon you won't be able to stand economically; the masses will accept whatever bread is tossed to them. Do not trade away America, we are now in the process of placing our manufacturing base on foriegn soil. One day, we won't have the means, and weakened will accept a greater new world order.
July 7, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Freedom of speech is a figment of imagination. Americans are so foolish, they trade away thier freedoms for the sake of national security. Do you think you'll get them back someday?
July 7, 2008
7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Does that mean Nancy Pelosi would have to state both sides of the argument any time she talks? If it isn't unilaterally applied, then it is unconstitutional.
July 7, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Louie, "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.", Josef Stalin
July 7, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
xeeian writes:
Anarchist: your quote is an urban legend, made up and profligated by the John Birch Society in the 1950s.
July 7, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romulus writes:
The first paragraph shows a complete lack of understanding. The fairness doctrine would not apply to individuals but to stations. If a station wants to put a blowhard like Limbaugh on, fine, but put on a progressive voice also for balance. Right now the media are controlled by corporations and right-wing nutcases like Rupert Murdoch, so by and large we only get the conservative slant.
July 7, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverinfidel writes:
Romulus -
Then turn off the radio. Just like the rest of the country does whenever liberals try to launch a talk show. The market has spoken; sorry your little feelers got hurt. Freedom of speech is great until you disagree with it, eh?
Once again, we see liberals espousing the most illiberal ideas.
Please enact this law pronto. It will give republicans something to rally around.
July 7, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
SkiBum writes:
Romulus,
Actually you show complete lack of understanding of how our country works. Yes, it applies to stations, which are privately owned. What business does the government have in telling a private company who to put on the air? What part of the First Amendment do you and Nancy Pelosi not understand?
If you don't like a blowhard like Rush, don't listen. Isn't that what you lefties say about abortion? If you don't like abortion - don't have one? I am using your logic!
The fact that you do not like the owners of these private media corporations is irrelevant as to whether the rest of us should get the choice to listen. I do not like the lefty slant of the owners of the New York Times and I don't like the lefty slant of the Denver post. Do I think the government should interfere? No, I just do not purchase or read those papers. That is how a free society works.
Remember, this is a free country and we are all supposed to be tolerant of other views. But then again I forget that you lefties have different definition of tolerance than the rest of us. To most tolerate means to put up with something you don't like. To lefties tolerance means you must accept, condone and change your views to match theirs!
July 7, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mdccis writes:
xeeian, where's your proof?
Joseph Stalin: “America is like a healthy body, and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we (communists) can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”
Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
July 7, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mdccis writes:
Liberals seem to only be for free speech when it is THEIR free speech.
But when they can't compete in the free marketplace of ideas, or when anyone that has an opposing view or doesn't espouse the liberal orthodoxy on an American university campus attempts to speak, watch how fast they abandon defense of free speech.
Now, they want to censor their opposition voices by using mass communication regulations, the first thing that happens in dictatorships and facist regimes (control media content using instruments of the state).
July 7, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cicero writes:
What do liberals say when a fairness doctrine is proposed for classrooms?
July 7, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Who gets to decide what is fair? Bill Maher or Ann Coulter? David Duke or Rev Wright?
Hugo Chavez cut out the middleman and just nationalized the media. Has Nancy Goebbels, sorry Pelosi thought of that?
Liberal's like to call Republicans Nazis. The true Nazis would be proud of the Fairness Doctrine.
July 7, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Hey BOOTY: You balance "half-truths and full-time afterburner spin" by having conservative talk radio.
I'm all for fairness doctrine! CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and Ann Coulter! 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace and Rush Limbaugh! 20/20 with Barbara Walters and Sean Hannity!
AWESOME! We can finally, after decades of only mindless liberal drivel, have balance on the news programs!
I still don't see how that help Pelosi though.
July 7, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
RockyMtnMac writes:
This proves extreme liberalism is in fact socialism.
July 7, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Oh dear god-
I am a hardcore Dem and I swear to you that they had better NEVER bring up this garbage legislation again! Seriously, you cannot control the press...basic first amendment stuff...what the hell is Pelosi thinking? Seriously.
July 7, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Bringing back the obsolete Fairness Doctrine is chicken manure.
That won't fix the problem. It fails to address the effective monopolization of our major channels by large corporations. These ignore their duty to provide real news to the American public who owns those channels. Instead, what gets broadcast is cheap propaganda.
The best example of the triumph of propaganda over actual reporting is Bush's war in Iraq. The same lies were spread through the entire media with near zero coverage given to those who questioned whether Saddam Hussein was really threatening us, much less doing so with imaginary super-weapons.
The Bush coronation in 2000 is another example of the failure of big corporate media to do any work for the public. While the lawyers had the media fixated on hanging chads and vote count, the real story was completely ignored by American media. Katherine Harris, with express approval of Jeb Bush, illegally deployed a computer program with a known inaccuracy designed in to it.
The program was used in counties that tended to vote Democratic. It matched the names of registered voters with a nationwide database of known felons. When a match such as 'J. Smith' was found, that citizen was deleted from the voter registry.
The system deleted tens of thousands of voters from the registries of Democratic-leaning counties. Then they put a lengthy procedure in place that illegally forced those who were denied their right to vote to prove that they weren't convicted felons.
These are news stories that needed reporting, not just in the European journals, but in the American news media.
The solution is not by way of the chicken manure approach. The solution is to break up all existing large media corporations or kick them off our airwaves. Then require new media corporations to dedicate at least 50% of their resources to actual investigations and reporting of news.
July 7, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
romulus, certain parts of the media are controlled by conservatives, and others are controlled by liberals. The New York Times, as it's been said, is very liberal. FOX News might be seen as conservative, but CNN is liberal even more so than FOX is conservative.
I think the intent of the Fairness Doctrine isn't the problem. They way I understand it, if a person from one party is allowed to speak about his or her party's stances on public radio or tv, it would also mean a candidate from the other party would be allowed to as well, hence the debates we get. But when a citizen, not a politician, comments about politics on the radio or on tv, it's not covered by the Fairness Doctrine because that's a part of Freedom of Speech we get to enjoy.
If Pelosi pushes this with her Democrat lackeys, I hope that means exactly what Ted_in_Vegas says........ Katie Couric and Ann Coulter, Mike Wallace and Rush Limbaugh, etc.! I hope every time they say something good about one party, they're required to say something good about the other. And if they criticize one party, the other party should receive criticism as well. And if we hear a story about one party, a story about the other party should air, both in the same light. It should be applied strictly, not on the terms Pelosi and her ilk would twist it. It's almost like little kids that don't get their way, so they want to make the rules to have the results turn in their favor.
July 7, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
holierthanthou, can you explain why the media portrays the war in Iraq in such negative terms, despite the fact that military leaders and soldiers coming back from Iraq dispute it by saying we're winning the war and things are looking better? Why is the liberal media misleading the American public?
July 7, 2008
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Cwillyrun1,
I disagree with " I think the intent of the Fairness Doctrine isn't the problem."
The intent is what is so chilling. They are not after blanket fairness across all media. It is targeting just talk radio, because the conservative rule in that medium. They are targeting content not because they want fairness, they have proven over and over again that they cannot compete. They talk about Bush trashing the Constitution for wiretapping terrorists talking to terrorists in another country. The Fairness Doctrine would essentially ban a group of Americans that offer their unpopular ideas and words to another group of Americans. How this is not a clear violation of the First Amendment is unbelievable. Why is it that they only people that want speech banned or controlled are Liberals? Between this and the whole “Hate Speech” issue it will soon be illegal to upset a Liberal, which is very easy to do.
July 7, 2008
1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Democrats HATE free speech. Just like they refuse to allow citizens to exercise their free speech during the Democrat Drunkfest in Denver in August.
July 7, 2008
2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Mike846,
Thanks for the post. You saved me all that typing. Well said.
July 7, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
trythinking, that's why I said the intent likely isn't the problem. The problem is the way Democrats are trying to use it. It's one thing to give equal air time to opposing politicians in debates, but quite the opposite when private companies or citizens would have their free speech denied.
I agree with you, how can it not be considered a violation of freedom of speech?
July 7, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lot of right wing rushian myths about the fairness doctrine here today.
general limbaugh would blush to think all these corporal tinfoils were doing his bidding.
July 7, 2008
4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Cwillyrun1,
We are in agreement, but I don't believe the Liberals ever intended this to level the playing field. I believe that this Fairness Doctrine is very much like the move to eliminate the Electoral College and move to a popular vote. Under the guise on one-person one vote, that effort would in fact allow the big states (i.e. California and the very liberal Northeast) to bulldoze the smaller states.
If the Dems get their way, we will lose our right to vote for President as the founders intended and loss or right to complain about it. The dems like to change the rules until the achieve the desired outcome. You can't compete in talk radio, change the rules. They have this myth that the 2000 elction was given to Bush by the Supereme Court. The Florida election was certified in favor of Bush by the rules in place at the time of the vote. Harris did her duty under the law and certified the election when she was required by law. Everything after that was an atempt to steal an election.
Al Franken had an opportunity to compete against Rush (an idiot) Limbaugh. He couldn't do it, so they want to change the rules.
That is “Change You Can Fear.”
Animal Farm. All animals are created equal (Some animals are more equal than others)
July 7, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Jay,
Please enlighten us. And try to do so without using the words "conspiracy theory"
You for one should be in favor of a totally free and un fettered exchange of ideas. Which of Rush's rantings scares you the most? You have such reverence and love of our Constitution that you applaud giving Habeas Corpus rights to enemy combatants. Which Rush comments justify scrapping first amendment?
I think flag burning is protected speech. In you view of the world, what isn't?
I may hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, except of course if I don't like it, then I’ll ban it. What a noble principle.
July 7, 2008
4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i'm in no way saying that you don't have a right to believe in all the far right conspiracy theories you want to, try...i'm just making the observation that rush limbaugh is spouting the same extremimst rhetoric.
here's a great report about the fairness doctrine that states:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issue...
"The Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues. The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders. Added to this regulatory structure was the cooperation of the broadcast industry through the National Association of Broadcasters Code of Conduct
Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters."
what this comes down to is concentration of ownership.
have you folks thought about how this concept skews the balance necessary?
July 7, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Remember the FOUR Boxes we can use in our form of government.
The LAST one that we can use ( and may have to ) is the CARTRIDGE BOX....
This one also insures the US CITIZEN the use of the other three BOXES....
The SOAP BOX
The JURY BOX
and the BALLOT BOX
So let us talk no more of the FAIRNESS ( TO WHO? ) DOCTRINE....
July 7, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
"Communication" is a two-person exercise: one person speaks, the other listens.
Even if the Fairness Doctrine was reinstituted in one form or another and minute-for-minute time was required for the opposing view, who would listen? You can force the TV or radio station to provide time for the opposition, but who would the audience be? The people who already heard what they wanted would tune out. The other side already knows their own points.
You could legislate the time slot, but you can't regulate the audience.
July 7, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
Let's apply the fairness doctrine to higher education, newspapers and magazines.
July 7, 2008
8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jack_Bauer writes:
as freethinker says
The democrats can have their fairness doctrine in radio as long as they apply it to all news medias, both on cable and free air (ie; fox news, cnn, nbc, abc, cbs, msnbc, bloomberg, etc) - you name it - it should apply to one as it applies to all.
They would also need balanced views in Public Education (tax dollars - not all taxpayers are left leaning), all Newspapers and most particularly our Publicly funded Universities (again not all taxpayers are left leaning - balance it out folks, 1 for 1) - the universities are utopian havens for lefties who spout their left wing idology as fact - pure and simple it is indcotrination, they must provide balance if my tax dollars are being used especially if they want it in radio - it is only fair. Right Nancy Pelosi? you fairness you hypocrite.
At least with over the air radio- they have to pay a licensing fee for the right to use that frequency - just as the television media does - why is the television media not mentioned here? Because radio is the only media where conservatives have a majority - almost a monopoly. In the television news media what do conservatives have? Fox news - and it is on cable - period, so the left leaners have an almost monopoly which is the way they like and want it.
Until all spectrums of the media and publicly funded education are included- not just "right wing radio" the democrats are completely full of crap. Their goal is to shut those up who disagree with their version of how the world goes around and that is not "fair".
July 7, 2008
9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Jack Bauer- you hit it out the park with that analysis. The extreme lefty's like jay will never acknowledge those facts and for that reason the so called Fairness Doctrine will never be back. The lefty's know that they have more media power than conservatives, well, most of them except jay who's not so bright.
July 7, 2008
10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
FreeToChoose writes:
This is just another example of the political hubris that infects politicians when one party attains a lock on the government. The Repblicans overplayed their hand and blew it earlier this decade, the Dems will do the same in the next few years as the tide turns heavily in their direction. This is [likely] just a small part of it... and the tide will once again turn.
July 8, 2008
5:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Hey jay, have you ever thought about why it is that as far as radio is concerned there is a larger number of conservative talk?
Is it a far right wing conspiracy caused by concentration of ownership, or is it the simple fact that liberal talk radio seems to have a habit of just not doing very well in the ratings department?
I'm in no way saying that you don't have a right to believe in all the far left conspiracies that you want to, just making an observation that the leftist Center for American "Progress" is spouting the same extremist rhetoric.
I'm floored regarding your lack of any ability to wrap your mind around the fact that there isn't much liberal talk radio out there not because of a concentration of ownership but due to the simple fact that it does not sell. There's no conspiracy here in the real world, jay. It's actually very simple: radio is in business to make money. When extremist lefties get on the radio, nobody listens. When nobody listens, no money is made. When no money is made, Air America goes bankrupt. It's not that hard to understand, but I suppose if your leftist conspiracy theories make you feel better then have at it. After all, who am I to rain on your parade?
July 8, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Citizen21 writes:
The US is a capitalistic society. Radio is in business to make money. The more conservative talk shows do that. The newspapers – well, I don’t buy because the stories are not news, their stories with a heavy liberal slant. But, this is another great example of capitalism. Don’t like the radio show, turn it off. Don’t like the paper, don’t buy it. Free speech – well, how is free when we have to be so politically correct that you can’t speak the truth anymore? It seems the left is all for free speech, but only when it directly serves them. The Fairness Doctrine going PC is not Free Speech!!!! Nor is it part of our capitalistic society.