portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

corporate dominance | media criticism

Media reform suggested by Conservative Activist, "Let's promote free speech,"

Pete Du Pont suggests in a Wall Street Journal editorial that Obama and liberals would bring back "Fairness Doctrine". Du Pont thinks this would limit free speech. He's wrong about that, and there are more and better ways that would improve free speech which Du Pont won't like either.
In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Pete Du Pont writes about what he sees as the likely changes to be made by an Obama administration. One of them has to do with bringing back a Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting. He says,

"Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment."

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122504438328069963.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Mr. Dupont raises the idea that we should reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. I have not heard anyone so far make this argument. Sounds like a great Idea Pete.

He sneers a bit though when he talks about it suggesting that whatever Obama might promote as a "Fairness Doctrine" would curtail free speech. It would do this with respect to conservative talk radio, a tempting target for liberals, according to Du Pont.

I suspect Du Pont's argument does not take into consideration the possibility that corporate sponsors will reduce their support for these conservative gasbags in order to curry favor with a more liberal executive and legislative branches of government. I have no data to support my speculation, however, no effort needs to now be done to suppress conservative radio. If Obama wins, he will have done it despite the influence of this radio network.

I want to quote here what Answer.com and their entry from a law encyclopedia has to say about the Fairness Doctrine:

"The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.

Between the 1940s and 1980s, federal regulators attempted to guarantee that the broadcasting industry would act fairly. The controversial policy adopted to further that attempt was called the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine was not a statute, but a set of rules and regulations that imposed controls on the content of the broadcasting media. It viewed radio and television as not merely industries but servants of the public interest. Enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the fairness doctrine had two main tenets: broadcasters had to cover controversial issues, and they had to carry contrasting viewpoints on such issues. Opponents of the doctrine, chiefly the media themselves, called it unconstitutional. Although it survived court challenges, the fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987 by deregulators in the FCC who deemed it outdated, misguided, and ultimately unfair. Its demise left responsibility for fairness entirely to the media.

The fairness doctrine grew out of early regulation of the radio industry. As the medium of radio expanded in the 1920s, its chaotic growth caused problems: for one, broadcasters often overlapped on each other's radio frequencies. In 1927, Congress imposed regulation with its passage of the Radio Act (47 U.S.C.A. 81 et seq.). This landmark law established the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), reestablished in 1934 as the Federal Communications Commission. Empowered to allocate frequencies among broadcasters, the FRC essentially decided who could broadcast, and its mandate to do so contained the seeds of the fairness doctrine. The commission was not only to divvy up the limited number of bands on the radio dial; Congress said it was to do so according to public "convenience, interest, or necessity." Radio was seen as a kind of public trust: individual stations had to meet public expectations in return for access to the nation's airwaves.

In 1949, the first clear definition of the fairness doctrine emerged. The FCC said, in its Report on Editorializing, "[T]he public interest requires ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views, and the commission believes that the principle applies ... to all discussion of issues of importance to the public." The doctrine had two parts: it required broadcasters (1) to cover vital controversial issues in the community and (2) to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints. In time, additional rules were added. The so-called personal attack rule required broadcasters to allow opportunity for rebuttal to personal attacks made during the discussion of controversial issues. The "political editorializing" rule held that broadcasters who endorsed a candidate for political office had to give the candidate's opponent a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Enforcement was controversial. Complaints alleging violations of the fairness doctrine were to be filed with the FCC by individuals and organizations, such as political parties and unions. Upon review of the complaint, the FCC could take punitive action that included refusing to renew broadcasting licenses. Not surprisingly, radio and TV station owners resented this regulatory power. They grumbled that the print media never had to bear such burdens. The fairness doctrine, they argued, infringed upon their First Amendment rights. By the late 1960s, a First Amendment challenge reached the U.S. Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 89 S. Ct. 1794, 23 L. Ed. 2d 371 (1969). The Court upheld the constitutionality of the doctrine in a decision that only added to the controversy. The print and broadcast media were inherently different, it ruled. In the broadcast media, the Court said, "it is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount... it is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here."

Although the fairness doctrine remained in effect for almost two more decades following Red Lion, the 1980s saw its abolishment. Antiregulatory fervor in the administration of President Ronald Reagan brought about its end. The administration, which staffed the FCC with its appointees, favored little or no restrictions on the broadcast industry. In its 1985 Fairness Report (102 F.C.C.2d 145), the FCC announced that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. Moreover, technology had changed: with the advent of multiple channels on cable television, no longer could broadcasting be seen as a limited resource. Two years later, in August 1987, the commission abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, intending to extend to radio and tele- vision the same First Amendment protections guaranteed to the print media. Congress had tried to stop the FCC from killing the fairness doctrine. Two months earlier, it had sent President Reagan the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. [1987]), which would have codified the doctrine in federal law. The president vetoed it.

President Reagan's veto of the 1987 congressional bill to establish the fairness doctrine as law did not end the controversy, however. Even into the mid-1990s, proponents continued to call for its reinstatement."

 http://www.answers.com/topic/fairness-doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine as described here seems to have been a casualty of the conservative victory of the culture war during the Reagan Administration. It may seem fair to bring it back as part of the spoils of a liberal Obama Administration.

However, there seem to be more important issues that could be worked on besides this Doctrine and the fight we could have over it.

Public Broadcasting has been attacked for its seeming liberal bias and subjected under conservative administrations to restrictions on the kind of issues and debates it can cover. When the federal subsidy is threatened if public radio or television becaomes too critical of conservative institutions we see just how concerned conservatives are for free speech on the airways. They don't care very much at all.

Perhaps there need to be more stable funding for public broadcasting, both TV and radio so they become more insullated from political pressure.

There has been a pucsh made ny conservatives to allow the buying up of media by fewer and larger corporations. Maybe we can start enforcing laws about the corruption of business monopolies in the media. Break up these conglomerates as a way of promoting free speech.

The Fairness Doctrine seems like a nice idea, but there are other more important innovations that we could be promoting.

homepage: homepage: http://shandresen.typepad.com