Could a new Fairness Doctrine be looming after '08?

[mountainclmbr]

I think the Dems may be testing the waters now. If they win the Presidential Elections then they may try to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fairness23jul23,1,1341831.story?coll=la-headlines-business

By Jim Puzzanghera, Times Staff Writer
July 23, 2007


WASHINGTON  It was the decision that launched a thousand lips.

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission stopped requiring broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial issues, a policy known as the Fairness Doctrine. The move is widely credited with triggering the explosive growth of political talk radio.

Now, after conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage helped torpedo a major immigration bill, some in Congress have suggested reinstating the Fairness Doctrine to balance out those powerful syndicated voices.

That has unleashed an armada of opposition on the airwaves, Internet blogs and in Washington, where broadcasters have joined with Republicans to fight what they call an attempt to zip their lips.

Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine said it would make station owners so fearful of balancing viewpoints that they'd simply avoid airing controversial topics  the "chilling effect" on debate that the FCC cited in repealing the rule two decades ago.

"Free speech must be just that  free from government influence, interference and censorship," David K. Rehr, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, wrote to lawmakers.

There's little chance the fairness doctrine will return in the near future, as FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin publicly opposes it and the White House wrote to broadcasters last week assuring them that Bush would veto any legislation reinstating it. But the issue has renewed debate about how far the government should go in regulating the public airwaves.

Some Democrats say conservative-dominated talk radio enables Republicans to mislead the public on important issues such as the Senate immigration reform bill.

"These are public airwaves and the public should be entitled to a fair presentation," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is considering whether the Fairness Doctrine should be restored.

[Nick1911]

Personally, I'm far more concerned with controls being placed on the internet.

I firmly believe that the internet will replace mass media of all types - and the interenet (as of now) if free to speak your mind in.  If you have vaild points and solid reasoning, your reader base will grow.  Over time, one person can gander tremendous influence - with no money and no power starting out.

That, ladies and gentlement, is what I'm worred about losing.

[Paddy]

If this government ever does try to regulate free speech in the name of 'fairness', that's the call for massive civil disobedience IMO.  I don't know how we'd do it, but we'd have to figure out a way.

[mountainclmbr]

I can already predict the attacks that would be used against Blogs and Forums:

1. It isn't speech, it is attempted news reporting by amateurs.
2. Freedom of the press applies only to professional news organizations.
3. News must be left to the professionals to protect the truth.
4. Amateurs are not trained to recognize the truth.
5. It's for the children.

[MechAg94]

Don't worry, the Supreme Court will protect us!!!   


I am just hoping the global warming hysteria will die down by then.

[Standing Wolf]

Leftist extremist so-called "fairness:" heads, they win; tails, we lose. It's only fair.

[Perd Hapley]

If this government ever does try to regulate free speech in the name of 'fairness', that's the call for massive civil disobedience IMO.  I don't know how we'd do it, but we'd have to figure out a way.

Where were you when all three branches of Govt. signed off on Campaign Finance "Reform," with its direct and obvious violation of the First Amendment?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just saying it already happened. 

[Nitrogen]

The dems aren't calling for the fairness doctrine, dispite what other wackos say.

They want controls on consolidation of media ownership.

[Paddy]

Where were you when all three branches of Govt. signed off on Campaign Finance "Reform," with its direct and obvious violation of the First Amendment?

I completely disagree with BCRA 2002.  However, the Supreme Court has ruled that it does not violate the 1st Amendment.

In any event BCRA 2002 does not affect the right of free speech across the board, as would some 'fairness doctrine'. 

[Sindawe]

I think the Fairness Doctrine is a great idea.

For publicly funded broadcast media.  Those who pay their own freight should be left at the mercy of the market and ITs approval of their message.

[mountainclmbr]

I work with some people who are politically way left. Most of these people think NPR is biased to the right and they want it to move more to the "center".

[mountainclmbr]

The dems aren't calling for the fairness doctrine, dispite what other wackos say.

They want controls on consolidation of media ownership.

Nitrogen, The things you mention are actually two different things. The Fairness Doctrine existed as a FCC rule from 1949 until 1987. The FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine in August, 1987 by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. 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

[it] 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

This is the Fairness Doctrine that Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Bernie Saunders and others want to reintroduce. They even call it by the same name. The government gets to decide if both sides of an issue are fairly presented and the FCC can pull your broadcast license if the party in power to make FCC appointments doesn't like what is said. This could be abused by either party to shut down criticism. It is just being pushed by the Democrats. Since this was a FCC rule and not a law passed by Congress, it escaped most 1st ammendment challenges. Since the FCC enforced the rule, many argued that it had the same effect as a law.

The consolidation of media ownership is a ban on cross ownership of broadcast and newspaper media in a market area. That is currently a law and some in congress (mainly Republicans) are trying to losten the restrictions. This is not even related to the Fairness Doctrine.