-
RSS Subscribe
-
The Fairness Doctrine
To bring you up to speed on this controversial issue that the Democrats so artfully call the “Fairness Doctrine” (an interesting title much like the serpent in the Garden so subtly misrepresented the mandate of God to Eve). This is a policy that had been in force throughout most of the era of the FCC which was established in 1934 by an act of Congress. The Fairness Doctrine was a “regulation” of the FCC to require Broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in an a) honest, b) equal, and c) balanced manner. Let me pause here to state that the FCC like the IRS establishes “regulations” in order to effectuate their interpretation of the law and good public policy. Regulations are not laws and can be challenged on the basis that they are not in conformity with the law. I have done this myself in the context of the IRS only to initially lose but eventually be vindicated in the Federal Court of Appeals that the particular IRS regulation did not serve the purpose of the IRS Code but hindered it.
In the same matter the FCC voted in 1987 on a 4-0 ruling to overturn the long standing “Fairness Doctrine” on the basis that the regulation had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate. This position of the FCC followed a 1986 DC Appeals Court ruling that stated that Congress never made the so called doctrine a “binding requirement” of the FCC. This decision is understood to be operative and accepted by all sides of this issue.
The Conservatives considered this FCC ruling a victory and opening in the otherwise Liberal Domination of other media outlets such as Newspapers, Cable New, Network News and the fact that the reporters and journalists themselves admit in numbers 9 to 1 that they financially support Liberal political candidates with campaign donations. They felt this was necessary since the Supreme Court in a 1969 decision ruled against a challenge to the FCC practice of the Fairness Doctrine on the grounds of the doctrine restricting 1st Amendment rights of “free speech” even though the Supreme Court had determined previously that similar laws for the Newspapers were Un-constitutional for the same reason. This was on the weakest of un-evenhanded arguments that this restriction on (Conservative) Talk Radio was okay because of the limited nature of the Public airwave spectrum.
Would you expect anything different from the Warren Court which became widely recognized as a “high point in the use of the judicial power in the effort to effect social change in the U.S.?” (HERE) Does this sound to you like the role of the Supreme Court or Congress?
Anyway, we have the situation now that the FCC has (via the court determined rights under the law) abolished the Fairness Doctrine and the Democrats have been trying to install a legislative fix ever since to squelch “Radio Airwaves” as the last single bastion of Conservative Media. They do so because they recognize as I recognize (and I suppose you recognize) that Conservative Talk Radio is dominate over Liberal Talk Radio (need I say Air America?).
This “fix” failed in 1987 due to a Reagan threatened veto and in 1991 under a George H.W. Bush’s threatened veto but is now raising its ugly head again this year by legislation supported by Democrats Sanders, Kucinich, Hinchey and Slaughter. They don’t seem to recognize that the nature of media outlets are already broad and cover all spectrums of political persuasion via the internet, satellite radio and TV, cable TV, and the bastions of Network TV and News and the Print Media.
But……..the point of all this is that Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer were overheard by Republican Senator James Inhofe in an elevator complaining about Talk Radio (Rush, Sean, Bill Cunningham, etc.) saying that they needed a “legislative fix” to get rid of this programming. It appears that they do not like the results of the market place at least in the case of Talk Radio and want to change the laws by requiring radio stations to balance their broadcast with progressive (liberal) radio programs. What they don’t seem to understand is that this has been tried already by Air America an others, but the marketplace doesn’t want the product, at least on the Radio Airwaves.
This is not because of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” but simple greed on the part of the broadcasters to put on programming that would generate the largest revenue. BTW, it was the same motive for Air America; they just couldn’t sell the product. If you want to hear Senator Inhofe announce on the John Ziegler radio program (LA) that he overheard these women referring to the Legislative Fix please check out this link on Breitbart TV HERE. It is pretty good. Your Democratic Congress (the most Honest, Ethical and Open Congress ever) is trying to close the proverbial Conservative mouth. (they have lost too many elections because of it). Now that they are back in control in Congress they want to censor the “opposition.”
UPDATE: 6/22/2007 6:30 PM The offices of both Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton have denied that the discussion on the “Legislative Fix” ever occurred. Senator Inhofe has clarified that the conversation did indeed occur though it was a couple of years ago. At that time neither Boxer or Hillary had the power in Congress to effect such legislation. At this time they do, so we can only wait and see what happens. We’ll have to wait and see if either Boxer or Clinton clarifies that Inhofe is a liar or not. In any event you can be sure that they will be there to support the 2007 legislation if it comes to a vote. You can additionally be sure that this will eventually become law if the Democrats take the Legislative TriFecta in November of 2008.
UPDATE: 6/24/2007: Diane Feinstein on Fox News Sunday basically said she believes in Fairness. J Here is how it went:
WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.
WALLACE: But the argument would be it’s the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don’t seem to be able to find much of a market.
FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.
Full transcript HERE
comments
13 Responses to “The Fairness Doctrine”
Leave a Reply
Hi Steve,
This is a great post — very educational. The Fairness Doctrine is incredibly UNfair and UNdemocratic. It’d be nice to hear more of those liberal free-speechers (who would die defending the “right” to burn an American flag, or the “right” to create, promote, and view pornographic material) stand up against this movement to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine. But, it’s funny… all I hear from that side are the crickets chirping.
Tieki Rae……………You’re exactly right and on the money about the so call free-speech liberals. Do you believe that they would ever say to a Conservative that they may disagree, but die defending their right to say it? …………steve
It is sad and a little scary that they are trying so hard to shut down conservative speech. Between “hate speech,” the Fairness Doctrine and the bill to stifle grassroots lobbying they are trampling the First Amendment.
Neil, glad you commented. I errantly used the reference to the 2nd Amendment in my post. I had been writing another draft this morning refrencing the 2nd Amendment and apparently couldn’t shake it from my head. Do you like that Golden EIB Microphone by my post header? ………….steve
steve
could this be more about politics than actually getting the votes to pass? i bet any senator who would try to pass this legislation would have alot of explaining to do to their constitutents. my first impression upon reading it was to think this is a sly way to try to get a veto from bush then hollar about what an untrustworthy non bi-partisian president he is now that the left is in control.
they could also try to use it as some ploy to avert attention from other important legislation in dire need. issues like health care, fixing the amt, making the tax cuts permanent and porkbarrel politcs and earmarks are more pressing. an embarrasing setback from a bill such as the one you suggest makes congress appear to be working when in reality they are stalling to get a chance to control both houses plus 1600 penn ave.
just some thoughts
matt
Matt……….Actually I don’t believe it is diversionary in the least. They have griped about the expiration of the Fairness Doctrine for years and outloud to boot. The ones that are leading the charge from the left are those that don’t have much to worry about regarding their constitutency or getting re-elected. The only sobering thought for them here is realizing that Bush the lesser would veto it like pappy and grandpa Ron threatened, but that wouldn’t stop them from attaching it to another pet project that the President supports like the “Amnesty Bill Horror” that Bush supports.
I suppose that you could even see it surface in some confrence report where it is immune from amendment or deletion. I don’t believe it will become law now, but the Democrats are staking this out as part of their agenda that they expect to control in entirety after the 2008 election. In that sense it is about politics, but you can be sure they are dead serious about squelching Rush Limbaugh and others………….steve
Matt, those are good thoughts.
Dad,
What do you expect from a big government socialist like Hillary? I wish these democrats like her, edwards, and obama would stop calling themselves democrats and just admit they are socialists. This situation infuriates me as it is just another reminder of the complete double standard by these and the likes of the ACLU.
-mommyzabs
MZ……….this was before you were born, but the likes of Hillary and Barbara cut their political teeth in an era where the new left and emerging Democrats were all about free speech and protested often loudly about the government (the man) squelching their rights of speech and protest and all sorts of other nonsense that they felt were impairing their freedom. Now that they have become the “man” they are trying to control conservative speech with alarming and misrepresented titles like “Fairness” “Hate” “Sensitive” “Protection” etc. These are ways they are structuring the use of language with the hopes of squelching dissent all under the justification of “Political Correctness.” They used to be the ones waving the 1st Amendment around until carpel tunnel set in their wrists. Does this remind you of George Orwell? They have become what they used to claim they hated………….dad
Man… This again (memories of this dragging & dragging during Reagans tenure) This all started back up when conservative commentators such as Armstrong Williams started cashing Bush administration checks…
M2 …….. at least they wern’t drawn on the House Post Office accounts with no expectaion of repayment……….steve
- Should the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated?
So then…
- Should broadcasters be required to provide equal time to all political candidates?
- Should there be limits on the number of radio and TV stations one person or company can own? (Multiple Ownership Rules)
- Should there be a prohibition of the common ownership of a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same community? (Cross-Ownership Rules)
- Should the Must Carry Rules for cable be abolished?
- Should the Must Carry Rule be applied so that cable systems have to carry a station’s total number of digital channels?
- Should free downloading of copyrighted music, movies, and TV programs from the Internet be allowed?
- Should certain advertising be banned from broadcast radio/TV and cable?
- Should broadcasters be treated the same as newspapers and magazines in regard to content regulation?
- Should cable TV face the same indecency rules as over the air broadcasters?
- Should Satellite Radio face the same indecency rules as over the air broadcasters?
- Should the Internet have to face the same indecency standards as broadcasters?
- Should song lyrics be regulated for broadcast airplay and/or personal listening?
- Is the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” standard for broadcasters still necessary?
- Should the FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) rules be revoked as a qualification for holding a radio or TV station license?
- Should the FCC keep enforcing the Children’s Television Rules?
- Should cameras and microphones be allowed in all courtrooms?
- Should companies be allowed to sanitize the content of DVD movies and TV programs?
- Should the content of video games be regulated?
- Should broadcast flags be imbedded in digital content to prevent the copying of movies and TV programs?
- Should makers of software that allows the illegal downloading of music or video be held liable for copyright infringement?
- Should cable operators be required to offer “A La Carte” programming to their subscribers?
- Should the FCC regulate “violent” programming on TV as it does indecency?
- Should a radio station’s HD sub-channels face the same “public interest” obligations as its main channel?
- Should XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio be allowed to merge?
We can go on & on & on huh…
Mike ………. give me a while here and I can probably come up with an answer for each
but for sure the answer to the first is NO. I might add that IF the answer for all the other questions was yes that would not argue for a yes answer on the first question…………. steve
I’m sure that Hill and Babs would love a ‘legislative fix’ on this and many other things. Fortunately, it will never happen. They can’t prove their case - and even if they did succeed - we would find other avenues. Short of killing every conservative in this country - they just don’t have the influence to make it work. IMHO.
WC
WC………..The only thing that scares me is if Bush makes a deal with the Dems on this to get one of his pet projects through as a combined “backroom” deal…….steve
Hi Steve,
Democrats SUCK! Liberals SUCK!
Just thought I’d get that in while I still can.
the Grit
Hi Grit, Glad you got that in and you always can here……….steve
“I’m sure that Hill and Babs would love a ‘legislative fix’ on this and many other things. Fortunately, it will never happen.”
If it ever does, viva la revolution!
John (TT) where do I sign up? ………..steve
FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.
Hmmm, does she bother to wonder why “radio is overwhelmingly one way”? It’s all about demographics and money isn’t it. Radio plays to the biggest audience
Her’s is just another example of social redistribution to take from the hard workers and give to the won’t workers.
Ham………I wonder if she is as interested in making the Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, etc dedicate at least half the space on page one above the fold to Conservative takes on the news. After all she said she is in favor of the other side having the opportunity to present its views as a matter of fairness. She is all for fairness as SHE defines it when it comes to talk radio where they are losing in the marketplace, but she is and will remain quite in these other areas of the media where they are dominate like print media, network TV, Cable news (historically), reporters & correspondents 9 to 1. I wonder if she really means by “fairness.” Aparently she isn’t a “free speech” liberal. These people are shameless. ………………. steve
hiya Steve..ty for clarifying so much of this.hiya!..back from my trip..ty for all the comments while I was gone!
Angel, welcome home, we are heading out tomorrow by car to Ohio (our summer home). Probably be off line myself for a couple of days unless we can snag a wi fi and we have time………steve
Steve,
I have been reading all of your current posts, and I enjoyed them very much. I will add you to my blogroll.
Bob, thanks a lot, I’ll be adding yours as well……..steve
I am glad you posted about this.
I do believe that this is one of the most challenging issue to our liberties as we know them in our time.
I’ve said it before, now it’s radio, next will be our blog, and BOTH are incredibly important to TRUTH.
Barb, You know it probably won’t be the blogs next, because it is an area like Broadcast TV, Newspaper, Magazines, Network News, Most Cable News that the liberals dominate. The only area that they need to “fix” is Conservative Talk Radio. This is so patently “cherry picking” only the areas that they disagree with for censorship……..steve