Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Flashback: Liberals Used 'Fairness Doctrine' to 'Chill' Conservative Radio
NewsBusters.org ^ | 08/17/2007 | Matthew Balan

Posted on 8/17/2007, 3:27:10 PM by Pyro7480

Liberal Democrats and their allies on the Left are eager to restore the "Fairness Doctrine," which would empower the FCC to regulate the content of broadcast media, including talk radio. Besides their addiction to government regulation, the Left may be remembering "the good old days" where they used the "Fairness Doctrine" for partisan advantage in the 1960s.

Former CBS News President Fred Friendly, in his 1976 book The Good Guys, The Bad Guys and the First Amendment, wrote about the Democrats' organized campaign to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to derail conservative radio. Friendly's account was summarized by the CATO Institute's Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa in their 1997 paper Chilling the Internet: Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcast.

The key excerpt from the Hazlett and Sosa paper:

In 1962 President Kennedy's policies were under sustained attack from conservative broadcasters across the country. Of particular concern to the president were vocal right-wing opponents of the nuclear test ban treaty being considered by the Senate at the time. The administration and the DNC seized upon the Fairness Doctrine as a way to "counter the radical right" in their battle to pass the treaty. The Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was established and funded by the Democrats, orchestrated a very effective protest campaign against hostile radio editorials, demanding free reply time under the Fairness Doctrine whenever a conservative broadcaster denounced the treaty. Ultimately, the Senate ratified the treaty by far more than the necessary two-thirds majority.
 
Flush with success, the DNC and the Kennedy-Johnson administration decided to extend use of the doctrine to other high-priority legislation and the impending 1964 elections. Democratic Party funding sources were used to establish a professional listening post to monitor right-wing radio. The DNC also prepared a kit explaining "how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine," which was handed out at conferences. As Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
 
By November 1964, when Johnson beat Goldwater in a landslide, the Democrats' "fairness" campaign was considered a stunning success. The effort had produced 1,035 letters to stations, resulting in 1,678 hours of free airtime. Critical to the campaign was the fact that much of the partisan commentary came from small, rural stations. In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,
 
"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."

If liberals succeed in restoring the Fairness Doctrine, history would likely repeat itself. Instead of the “Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Band Treaty,” organizations like MoveOn.org and CAIR (who already has a track record of pressuring conservative talk shows) would doubtless demand “free reply time,” and the dominance of conservative talk radio, which has been driven by real demand and market forces, would be put into a deep freeze.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at Media Research Center.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: censorship; conservative; democrats; fairnessdoctrine; liberalagenda; talkradio; thoughtcrime
If we don't have a permanent solution to the Fairness Doctrine, history will repeat itself.
1 posted on 8/17/2007, 3:27:12 PM by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
This is a very useful post, and a timely one. Thank you for posting it.

Talk abut a classic case of "Those who don't remember the past..."

It's also a good start in preventing this government-applied censorship, unconstitutional directly or indirectly.

Perhaps someone who remembers the persuasive arguments of the past that killed the beast the first time can post some additional links?
Congressional debates, studies, whatever?

2 posted on 8/17/2007, 3:39:29 PM by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
This is a very useful post, and a timely one. Thank you for posting it.

Talk abut a classic case of "Those who don't remember the past..."

It's also a good start in preventing this government-applied censorship, unconstitutional directly or indirectly.

Perhaps someone who remembers the persuasive arguments of the past that killed the beast the first time can post some additional links?
Congressional debates, studies, whatever?

3 posted on 8/17/2007, 3:39:40 PM by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
This is a good way to get Republicans mobilized (by Kerry and other Democrats???) but I am skeptical democrats can use this.

Back in 93+94 when the rats had all three branches of the federal govmt(four really) Maxine Waters was having secret House meetings on how to revive the Fairness Doctrine to Hush Rush. Rush had a Radio Show and a TV show and was making a nationwide laughing stock of democrats, it was killing them, everyone knew what they were up to. But they couldnt figure out a way to do it that wouldn't backfire. That’s why they now come up with Radio Station Ownership control ideas and not the censorship method. Plus we have a better support in the SCOTUS now then then.

4 posted on 8/17/2007, 3:41:33 PM by sickoflibs (Are libs really as dumb as they act??(maybe they just assume we are that dumb))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

It’s why Rush now says “Bring it on”


5 posted on 8/17/2007, 3:42:15 PM by sickoflibs (Are libs really as dumb as they act??(maybe they just assume we are that dumb))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

So why didn’t the Republicans do the same thing with NPR and other liberal radio broadcasts ?

Seems like the RNC were girly-men way back in ‘64.


6 posted on 8/17/2007, 3:42:38 PM by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

The “Fairness Doctrine” will not directly inpact Rush Limbaugh, or even the two or three other top conservative broadcasters.

Who WILL be affected are the small local talk jocks that are starting up - either they shall have to undergo an “attitude adjustment”, or they are off the air. And a great deal of potentially important evolution of conservative thought will be stymied or lost altogether.

Conservative thinking, in spite of certain preconceived beliefs, DOES evolve. After all, there are new considerations that arise in the world every day, and static thinking just does not cover all the changed possibilities.

The “liberal” school of thought, on the other hand, just keeps trying to fit all of life back into the same mold, of the “new man” and “tyranny of the majority”, using whatever means they can to shape and mold opinion so THEIR point of view is accepted, to the exclusion of any other, therefore pre-emptively stopping all dissent. It worked well for Stalin, and for that matter, Saddam Hussein, but the means of enforcement were, well, a little draconian.


7 posted on 8/17/2007, 3:48:34 PM by alloysteel (Never attribute to ignorance that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
It’s why Rush now says “Bring it on”

From the link in the article, the following is an excellent, succinct summary:

Ominously, the federal government has long experimented with regulations designed to improve the content of "electronic" speech. For example, the Fairness Doctrine, imposed on radio and television stations until 1987, was an attempt to establish a standard of "fair" coverage of important public issues. The deregulation of content controls on AM and FM radio programming, first under the Carter Federal Communications Commission in early 1981 and then under the Reagan FCC (which abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987), led to profound changes in radio markets. Specifically, the volume of informational programming increased dramatically immediately after controls were ended--powerful evidence of the potential for regulation to have a "chilling effect" on free speech.

Not surprisinly, that same paper from the CATO institute makes it clear that the camel's nose under the tent was something that still hovers over us, returning from the dead, and which needs a wooden stake through its heart (to mix metaphors): "...it's for the children!"

Clearly, the paper also details the deliberate political abuse of the "doctrine" for raw unashamed political purposes.

8 posted on 8/17/2007, 3:56:51 PM by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cinives
Seems like the RNC were girly-men way back in ‘64.

What do you mean, "back in '64??!!??"

9 posted on 8/17/2007, 3:58:16 PM by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
I don’t know if you saw my Reply#4 which was the lead for Rush’s "Bring it on" Quote. Messing with the FD would be like democrats raising gas taxes now. They will try trickier sneakier stuff.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882599/posts?page=8#4

10 posted on 8/17/2007, 4:50:30 PM by sickoflibs (Are libs really as dumb as they act??(maybe they just assume we are that dumb))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; Obadiah; Milhous; E.G.C.; PGalt
we have a better support in the SCOTUS now than then.
The McConnell v. FEC ruling that sustained the evil McCain-Feingold law is a dead precedent walking. Only four of the five justices who upheld McCain still sit, and a recent 5-4 decision did everything except overturn McConnell v. FEC.

The root argument in favor of the "fairness" doctrine - and the FEC and the FCC - is that the government has a legitimate role in assuring that "both sides" are aired "equally." But that presumes that the government can apply some "objective" standard and rule on what is "one side" and what is "the other side."

And the First Amendment rejects that premise.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate


11 posted on 8/17/2007, 10:34:23 PM by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
From the article: Flush with success, the DNC and the Kennedy-Johnson administration decided to extend use of the doctrine to other high-priority legislation and the impending 1964 elections

And the Republicans never fought back.

12 posted on 8/18/2007, 12:39:26 AM by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cinives
“From the article: Flush with success, the DNC and the Kennedy-Johnson administration decided to extend use of the doctrine to other high-priority legislation and the impending 1964 elections
And the Republicans never fought back.”

Okay I was only four then but I remember ‘The Beef Box’. It was a local talk program that my granddad liked (mainly because the highlight was a fellow who used to call and rant about fluoridation).

Was talk radio always syndicated like it is now? I’m curious because I wonder what brought about the doctrine in the first place.

13 posted on 8/18/2007, 12:58:26 AM by samm1148 (Pennsylvania-They haven't taxed air--yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

BTTT


14 posted on 8/18/2007, 10:01:51 AM by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

That such a blatantly unfair and partisan act could be called the “Fairness Doctrine” is Orwellian at best. If you really want fairness, try the free market.


15 posted on 8/22/2007, 11:49:21 PM by Nabisco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson