Fairness Doctrine

Much ado is being made about the supposed “war” between the Obama White House and FOX News. As the New York Times reports:

Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Her comments are only the latest in the volatile exchange between the administration and the top-rated network…

While some appear concerned that the White House feud with FOX News raises First Amendment concerns, we at the Center for Competitive Politics are not among them. Frosty relationships between administrations and the media are nothing new, as Thomas Jefferson’s quote that “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers” attests.  And who can forget ex-Vice President Spiro Agnew and his comment about the “nattering nabobs of negativism?”

What is of interest to CCP, however, is that the controversy has seemingly given new life, or at least a fresh story to attach itself to, to the claim that FOX News successfully went to court in order to get a ruling explicitly protecting a First Amendment right to “lie” in its programming. The story is often used to support demands for censorship of the airwaves under the guise of the so-called “fairness doctrine,” along with calls to extend it to cable among those who understand that FOX News is a cable news outlet.

The FCC has hired communications attorney Mark Lloyd as its new “Chief Diversity Officer,” reports Seton Motley of the Media Research Center.

Lloyd’s hiring is concerning because he co-wrote the white paper for proponents of returning to the “fairness doctrine” or implementing “localism,” code words for government regulation of broadcast speech.

Lloyd’s Center for American Progress (CAP) paper, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” suggested the government wield greater control over radio licensing and require some commercial broadcasters to pay fees supporting taxpayer funded broadcasting.

More details from MRC’s report:

“Localism” is a nebulous FCC regulatory requirement that radio stations must meet to get and keep their broadcast licenses. How it is defined and enforced is wide open to the interpretation of whomever is doing the enforcing. It can mean something benign like airing local public service announcements, or it can be used as a weapon by activists to punish, harangue and ultimately shut down stations they don’t like.

In a follow-up essay to the CAP report entitled “Forget the Fairness Doctrine,” Lloyd specifically instructs liberal activists to do the latter — use the “localism” requirement to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC…

Or worse — the FCC would rescind these stations’ broadcast licenses. In other words, shut them up by shutting them down. Thus, as Lloyd says, no need for the mis-named “Fairness” Doctrine.

Last week US News & World Report offered competing op-eds by Bill Press and Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on whether the so-called "fairness doctrine" should return to talk radio. Predictably, in his call for bringing the "fairness doctrine" back, Press had a number of – interesting, shall we say – statements.

First up was his statement that "nobody" is calling for bringing back the "fairness doctrine." I don’t know about you, but I think I’d feel vaguely insulted at being called a "nobody" if I were a United States Senator who had gone on the Bill Press Show within the past two months and called for a return of the "fairness doctrine (see Sen. Debbie Stabenow discussing the "fairness doctrine" here, and also Sen. Tom Harkin a few days later also supporting the "fairness doctrine,").

The comments by Press that "nobody" is calling for a return of the "fairness doctrine" are also curious because Press himself wrote an op-ed calling for the return of the "fairness doctrine" in the Washington Post around the same time.

Click here to read more easily debunked arguments in favor of the "fairness doctrine"

The bill containing Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment banning the return of the so-called "fairness doctrine" (more appropriately called the Censorship Doctrine) is currently on hold, as House leadership considers what to do with another amendment to the bill concerning gun rights.

Even if the bill passes, however, the threat to free and unfettered political speech on the radio remains. "Localism" has become the new buzzword for those seeking to put broadcasters under the thumb of censors, as demonstrated by reports that Congressman Henry Waxman is seeking the return of the "fairness doctrine" through "localism."

Brian Anderson of the Manhattan Institute explains more in a recent op-ed on the "fairness doctrine" and "localism":

Although the Obama administration has said it is not inclined to support a new Fairness Doctrine… it has suggested it might support another reform, called "localism," which should also worry defenders of media freedom.

Click here to read more about "localism" and the "fairness doctrine"

The Senate voted overwhelmingly today to adopt an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint banning the reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

The amendment, approved on a 87-11 vote, would prevent the draconian speech control last in effect in 1987 from returning. It still must be approved with a vote on the final Senate bill, which must then be reconciled with the House bill with the provision intact. 

Even if the amendment survives final legislative wrangling, the fight over government control of speech on the airwaves is far from over. Although, the most high profile battle, the Fairness Doctrine — better called the Censorship Doctrine — is a flash point in an overall legislative and bureaucratic struggle that includes more obscure measures such as local control, diversity boards and other hurdles to license renewal.

The expanding number of activists demanding a return of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in talk radio were dealt a significant blow – again – by President Obama, who’s spokesperson yesterday confirmed again that the President remains opposed to the return of the "Fairness Doctrine." As reported by Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post:

President Obama does not support reviving the so-called Fairness doctrine, an aide said on Wednesday, knocking down speculation that Obama was open to reinstating the rule requiring broadcasters to air alternate perspectives on controversial issues.

Some administration officials had made non-committal remarks about the policy. But Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, said Obama "does not support the Fairness Doctrine," and never had.

Click here to read more about Obama and the "Fairness Doctrine"

Looks like another progressive radio operation has folded, this time Nova M, founded by former Air America founders Sheldon and Anita Drobney. My prediction, this will be used as yet more "evidence" of the need for a return of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" (I have a custom Magic 8-Ball that I use in these situations for guidance).

According to Brian Maloney of the Radio Equalizer web site, Nova AM is closing its doors:

Libtalk network Nova M Radio has been shut down, according to the attorney for Randi Rhodes, Robert V Gaulin of New York.

Moments ago, Gaulin sent this letter to your Radio Equalizer:

Randi Rhodes’ on-air home for less than a year will shut its doors. In an email message of February 17th from counsel for Nova M Radio, Inc. to Randi’s entertainment attorney, Robert V. Gaulin, the company is said to have been advised to file for bankruptcy protection next week. All payroll deposits were reversed on Tuesday, leaving Nova’s employees unpaid for the past two weeks.

Click here to read more about Nova M, station wattage, and the Fairness Doctrine

Yet another voice has been added to those calling for government regulation of speech over the air through a return of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," that of Representative Henry Waxman, now Chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. From today’s America Spectator online:

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such. 

To read more about the effort to sneak censorship in through the back door, click here.

We’ve been told repeatedly that there is no serious effort to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" (what would better be called the Censorship Doctrine) in talk radio, which would put politicians and their appointees in charge of political speech on the air.

I recently wrote about efforts to mock and deride those of us concerned about the return of the "Fairness Doctrine," and to claim that it is simply paranoid delusion to worry about this. Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post, for example, wrote a piece titled "Fairness Doctrine Fears: A Fake Right Wing Firestorm," and others have written equally dismissive columns and articles.

Needless to say, the "nobody’s talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine" meme took a hit last week when Senator Debbie Stabenow voiced her support for the "Fairness Doctrine" on the Bill Press Show, saying "it’s absolutely time to pass a standard… whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep."

To find out which U.S. Senator has growing number of Senators calling for a return of the "Fairness Doctrine," click here