A radio entrepreneur dissects the Fairness Doctrine
The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
This was worked out in Colonial and Revolutionary times with the correct assumption that the government would almost never be neutral. Freedom of Speech has always meant… Absence of Government Control.
The Fairness Doctrine Defined: Government requirement that when a certain position on a controversial issue of public importance is broadcast, the broadcast licensee is required to present the other side of the issue.
Fairness Doctrine History: The Radio Act of 1927 created the Radio Commission (later becoming the Federal Communications Commission or FCC) and its successor the 1934 Communications Act created a government system of granting licenses for publicly owned broadcast frequencies. The major condition attached was to “operate with public interest.” The FCC was charged with enforcement.
Starting in 1929, the “public interest” condition was interpreted as requiring that a licensee provide “ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views on all discussions of issues of importance to the public.”
Over the years this developed into the Fairness Doctrine and became an integral part of FCC mandate. In 1949, the FCC issued two requirements regarding Editorials on Radio… “Broadcasters must give adequate coverage to public issues and this coverage must accurately reflect opposing views on the issue.”
In 1959, Congress amended Sec. 315 of the Communication Act with the Equal Time Provision… “The licensee that allows one candidate to use the broadcast station shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office.” It also stated that nothing in the amended Section 315 relieves Broadcasters of the “obligation” to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.”
From 1959 to 1981, The FCC consistently interpreted the 1959 Amendment to Sec. 315 as codifying the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, in the landmark 1969 Red Lion Case the Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court cited “scarcity of stations and codification of the Fairness Doctrine” as the primary reason for the decision. The Court also stated “the decision could change if it was demonstrated that the Doctrine reduced rather than encouraged discussion of public issues.”
Interestingly in 1974, a law imposing an obligation of fairness on newspaper editorials was declared invalid as applied to print media in Miami Herald vs. Tonilla. Print media has no Fairness Doctrine.
In 1981 the FCC, perceiving changes in the conditions cited by the Supreme Court in Red Lion, asked Congress to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. No action was taken. In 1985 the FCC determined the Fairness Doctrine was not codified in 1959. In 1986, the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the FCC by ruling that the 1959 Amendment did not codify the Fairness Doctrine.
In 1987 the FCC formally abolished the Fairness Doctrine on grounds that:
(1) It did not serve the public interest. (2) The scarcity of media issue had disappeared. (3) It violated The First Amendment.
Since 1987, broadcasters have operated without the Fairness Doctrine and talk radio has flourished. During this time there have been many calls by public figures for reinstatement and bills have been repeatedly introduced in Congress to codify the Fairness Doctrine… all with huge public negative reaction.
In 1988, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but it was vetoed by President Reagan. In 1991, with massive grassroots support, President Bush threatened to veto a similar bill, thus stifling a second attempt on Congress’s part to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. In 1993 the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had acted in a reasonable manner in abolishing the Fairness Doctrine.
Since the 2006 elections, the almost daily cries from legislators to bring back the Fairness Doctrine has reached high fever pitch… as if something as significant as the 2008 election outcome depended on it. No doubt this will intensify. There are two ways the Fairness Doctrine could be brought back: Either the FCC simply reinstates it, or Congress codifies it.
If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, history indicates these things (and more) will happen:
1. The First Amendment, which these days seems to be the number one target, will again be significantly depreciated, further eroding our Freedom of Speech.
2. The political party in power will use the Fairness Doctrine to silence critics as was well documented during the Kennedy and Nixon administrations.
3. Many leading broadcast licensees will see their licenses at risk and will play it safe by imposing strict speech control.
4. The national and local robust town hall meetings known as talk Radio will quickly become mundane, dull and milk-toast-like and mostly disappear.
5. Religious speech will be threatened by new government guidelines regarding what constitutes controversial and public issues… issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.
6. The overwhelming majority of the time the public will hear only the Liberal viewpoint presented as “fair and balanced” by the three major TV Networks, the vast majority of newspapers and the major magazines. Déjà vu!
Media Scarcity: Media access has dramatically changed since the 1969 Supreme Court Red Lion case. Today there are many more radio stations, even in small communities, satellite radio, internet radio and the internet itself, plus an abundance of FM stations which were few in 1969. Everyone agrees scarcity is no longer an issue.
Conclusion: The Fairness Doctrine’s frontal assault on Freedom of Speech not only trashes a vital part of our Constitution but does great harm to our country, nationally and locally by stopping a healthy public debate that is essential in our common search for truth. Preventing the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is… A HILL TO DIE ON!
Stuart Epperson is Chairman of the Board, Salem Communications Corporation. Among Salem’s many media properties across the country are 710 KNUS, the flagship station of Backbone Radio, and Townhall.com
The author can be reached at info@backboneamerica.net
Free Speech? Free Speech for whom?
The only people who possess free speech on the radio
are those who own radio stations –
Clear Channel is the largest radio station owner in the country. It runs more than 1,200 channels, which together account for 9 percent of the market. Its CEO contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bush’s election campaign. When hundreds of thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against the war on Iraq, Clear Channel organized pro-war patriotic “Rallies for America” across the country. It used its radio stations to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as though they were breaking news. The era of manufacturing consent has given way to the era of manufacturing news.
The Fairness Doctrine does not give the government the ability to license and control the airwaves – that is something that the government already does and has done for more than 50 years. Second, no, The Fairness Doctrine in no way gives the government control of political content. What it would do is remove the veil from in front of politcal parties and wealthy political investors that currently control the airwaves and makes them accountable to broadcasting facts – and of course fairness. What does a broadcaster have to fear about providing equal time for an opposing view?
This argument that the Fairness Doctrine will cause “self-censorship” to avoid a drop in ratings cannot be taken seriously. The principle of “if it bleeds it leads” repudiates the argument; broadcasters will air controversial debates because Americans like a good fight. Moreover, if all stations must present fair and balanced news and debate, then a loss of audience will not occur, because “turning the dial” won’t silence the opposition. The audience will either have to watch the fair and balanced news, or simply turn off the television.
after termination of the Fairness Doctrine, contrary to broadcaster promises. What did increase were right wing talk shows and religious right ministries, now free to editorialize against their favorite demons without fear of contradiction.”
With so many other outlets and means of communication available for viewpoint domination, why should the public airwaves be reserved as a potential (and currently de facto) domain for any particular group?
Talk radio can now deliver casual round-the-clock slander with impunity since, for one thing, there is not much public support for aggressive reporting anymore. For years, there has been an effective campaign by political conservatives to depict the press as a false messenger spreading negativity and poisoning minds with leftist bias.
by Ian Gallagher | Thursday, Aug 16, 2007 | 10:28 am