Posted on 06/27/2007 9:32:27 AM PDT by DCJeanGrey
Prominent Democrats want to revive a policy to require broadcasters to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues, spurred by complaints that talk radio has unfairly impacted the national immigration debate.
An article published Wednesday by The Hill quoted Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.),stating: “It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. 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.”
The Fairness Doctrine was a Federal Communication Commission regulation that dates back to 1947. Under the regulation, station licensees were considered “public trustees” that had an obligation to present multiple perspectives on public issues. In the 1987 case Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts ruled the regulation was not mandated by Congress and the FCC was not obligated to enforce it. As a result,the FCC discarded the Fairness Doctrine.
Wednesday morning Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) told WYNC’s Brian Lehrer: “The Doctrine ought to come back.These are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes to the balance of the media is when conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. And the result is…. you know they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views.”
Since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded in popularity, while liberal efforts like Air America went bankrupt. The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank comprised of many former Clinton Administration staffers, issued a report on June 21titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” that concluded 91 percent of weekday talk radio is conservative.
The report states: “The gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S.regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.”
When asked to react to Durbin’s remarks about reinstituting the policy, Bill Bennett, prominent talk radio host affiliated with Salem Communications, said, “Wow. This is serious.”
“In the past, I thought some of my colleagues were being a bit too excitable about this, but now you have serious Democrats like Durbin and [Dianne] Feinstein talking about it,” he said. “This is a clear violation of the first amendment and we will fight it with all that we can.”
In a June 24 interview, Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace asked Sen. Feinstein (D.-Calif.) if she would revive the Fairness Doctrine. She said,“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.”
Feinstein added: “I remember when there was a Fairness Doctrine, and I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people.”
Republican Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.),who appeared on the program with Feinstein, was quoted in a June 15 New York Times article about immigration saying, "Talk radio is running America.We have to deal with that problem."
In the Fox interview, Lott said he did not support the Fairness Doctrine.
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), a former talk radio host, will introduce legislation this week with Rep. Greg Walden (R.-Ore), a radio station owner, to prevent the Fairness Doctrine from being enacted again.
Pence explained that barring any legislation, like the bill he is proposing, a future President could resurrect the regulation.
Last week, Sen. Inhofe (R.-Okla.) told KFI talk radio host John Ziegler he had overheard Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) speaking with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) about “putting a legislative fix” on talk radio in the past.
Pence said, “To me the scenario that presents a genuine threat to the wide-open, free market debate that is talk radio today is the notion of a Democrat President in the White House with appointments to the FCC and some sufficient majorities in the House and Senate to bring this Fairness Doctrine back, all with very carefully veiled in rhetoric about everybody having their say.”
“As long as we have a Republican President in the White House I’m sure we’ll have a veto and I’m sure we’ll have the votes to sustain it. But what happens after a year and half if we lose the White House and we don’t regain the Congress? That’s why we need this legislation,” Pence stated.
Pence will also introduce an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriation bill with Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) to block any federal money from being used by the FCC to impose the Fairness Doctrine.
I’m looking forward to the fight. This is going to be great fun!
"When the Left fails in the marketplace, it turns to government."
That about says it all.
I’m sure this includes the defunding of PBS and NPR.
Right ?
They overwhelmingly won the 2006 national elections yet they still cry like babies and fear an educated public.
That no taxpayer money ever may be used to fund "public" radio or television, directly or laundered through "foundations" or tax exempt "public interest" groups.
I'd buy into that.
Aside from that MSNBC report, last couple of days, showing the laughingly misnomered "mainstream" media leans 63% to 90+% Democrat:
Where bias and cluelessness intersect
MSNBC features a report on the campaign contributions by MSM journalists. The report is based on the public records of the Federal Election Commission. I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that of the 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes...the notion that the press corps as a whole can be unbiased, fair, and objective would be fanciful even if it were not contradicted on a daily basis by its work product...The MSNBC piece confirms just how fanciful. It notes that "The Ethicist" at the New York Times equates the degree of ideological fervor reflected in his contribution to MoveOn.org with that of coaching Little League, donating to the Boy Scouts, or joining the Catholic Church. Journalists this clueless couldn't keep their bias out of a story even if they wanted to. To comment on this post, go here. Permalink
And I've documented the overwhelming leftwing bias of the media for years & years:
-From my file "89% Voted"( for Clinton...)--
Let's give 'em a choice- "OK boys, we'll let your guys on talk radio- if Larry Elder, Rush, and Mike Reagan get equal time on all the networks, papers, and magazines.
Ok, we can regulate talk radio and force it to present both sides. Just as soon as we can regulate Television, newspapers, Hollywood, NPR, and even college professors to ensure non-bias.
Apparently they aren’t afraid of losing dominance in the television marketplace due to re-instituting the fairness doctrine then right?
Actions and consequences, something the left never seems to be able to equate...
Regulating free speech: that’s what liberals and RINOs like best.
I almost want them to pass it. Because I believe the current Court would strike it down pretty quickly. Can’t be sure about the future composition of the court however, and it will always be a pipe dream for leftists as long as they believe its possible.
Naturally leftist ‘RAT scumbags are unconcerned that virtually all of the MSM leans well to the left, that NBC-CBS-ABC-CNN-NPR-PBS and nearly 100% of the largest metro newspapers are all in the tank for the ‘RATs.
The “Fairness Doctrine” is a load of crap. The ‘RATs dominate the ranks of so-called “journalists” 9:1 and have never cared about any honest, balanced presentation of issues.
They are just upset that conservative views that have been slandered, distorted, and squeezed out of the MSM began turning up in radio programming.
.
There is never an exception.
Were it to be instituted I want to see the TV broadcasters cry, which are 99% liberal.
It is also an inidication that they are speaking from ignorance.
As far back as I can remember, Rush has always given the liberal view (usually first) and then summarily shredded it.
Both views are presented.
You emulate my thoghts..Roberts and Suypreme Court,
except the usual libs, will uphold the first amendment
so fast that the Dems ignorance would show the world what
they are all about. Good time to rule on rhis would be in Oct.’08
before the election,, and after Dems put foot in mouth
again....JK
Respectfully, no. Letting it through to pass, and be signed, in the hopes that the SCOTUS would overturn it, is EXACTLY how we got stuck with the Incumbency Protection Act of 2002. (sorry, McCain Feingold)
If these people want to talk about "fairness", how about starting with a major presidential debate that is moderated by someone other than a barking leftist (witness the 2004 debates, Lehrer, Gibson, Ifill, Schiefer [sp])?
And THAT, Ladies & Gentlemen, is Fascism..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.